Talk:Republican Party (United States)

	This article has been selected as the WikiProject Political parties Collaboration of the Month for June 2008!
	Please read the collaboration and assessment pages and help improve this article to a good article or even a featured article standard.

Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

• Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color Content:    
• Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/shortname Content: Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/shortname

Eisenhower

Someone please include a picture of President Dwight Eisenhower. He is ranked highly among the presidents and would make a great example of a Republican president along with the other three already shown.

Tea Party?

Surely deserves a mention, a general move to the right and a number of significant primary victory against moderate incumbents.--Matthewdavies (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I rather doubt the introduction needs to have such a focus on recent events, instead of history. -LtNOWIS (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which, the intro is very skewed and does not summarize the article. It needs a complete rewrite.   Will Beback  talk  10:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, the Tea Party statement and a rather debatable one at that doesn't belong in the introduction i was referring to its inclusion in the history section. --Matthewdavies (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove third paragraph

The republican party is has been a major us party for 150 years. The lead is currently dominated by recent electoral results. It seems like there would be much more significant things to put there and this is really detail that should be in the body of the article not the lead. I believe it should be removed or significantly shortened. Please respond meitme (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the intro should be re-written to reflect the overall contents of the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ccoutu, 6 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the following text: "The party is most often associated with hate, as it hates minorities and the poor." It is inappropriate/vandalism.

Ccoutu (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Updating Info box to reflect midterms

This is an encyclopedic article. Please remember that it is for the benefit of readers who are not specialists, and are not the editors of the page. They don't have to connect the dots from stories in the article to understand what the info box means. It's a list of the current seats held during the current session, not an announcement of the roster of next session. That's what the prose is for. A placeholder noting the effect of the midterms has already been placed in the lead to inform readers of the changes. When the -elects take their seats, the info box will be updated. —Digiphi (Talk) 15:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing parts and questioned neutrality

Shouldn't there be a criticism or controversy section in the article? And this article could surely show a wider view of the republican's stances on issues in the table of contents. The appearance between the GOP and Democratic Party articles seems quite imbalanced, and therefore, nonneutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by VelociraptorBlade (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede

Lycurgas made a good suggestion to the lead, which gives a broader perspective to the article: The party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the current version of the two party system, in contrast to the more "liberal" or "progressive" Democrats. Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In the current American political scene, there isn't and hasn't for a long time been any spectrum, whence my reference to the Fifth Party System. Instead there's a narrow polarization between far right, the current position of the GOP, and center right, the current position of the Democrat party. That text put the matter of fact straight and provided click thru to the historical truth that these parties trade polarities over time. The GOP was at its inception the left wing of American politics and during the time that Capitalism was a progressive force, so was it, which is why the Fourth Party System a period of the dominance of the pre Regan/Goldwater Republican Party, the party of TR and Lincoln, is also commonly known as the American Progressive Era. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I very highly doubt that, say, the British National Party would welcome a black chairperson, or bring in proudly Jewish members as key party officials, and so on. Or that Jean Marie Le Pen would want to associate with openly gay or lesbian political activists in his inner circle.

So we can dispense with the incredibly stale talking points about "far right", can we? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to include the reference about the fifth party system, its misleading to simply say that the republicans were historically "the left party" and the democrats "the right party" the two parties were much more diverse then they are now.