Talk:Republican Party (United States)

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

Task: Finally assign a position in the infobox using a compromise

As far as I'm aware, it's been well over a year since this has been brought up to a full discussion, and since it's going to have to be done at some point, I figured that I'd bring it up again, and hopefully put the problem to bed for good, invoking WP:CCC, Wikipedia's commitment to a global perspective, and WP:BOLD. The Republican Party has no political position set in the infobox, due to some rather contentious debates about exactly where they fall. Here, I will be laying out an argument for a position(s) which will hopefully be accepted, and will do the same thing, around the same time this is posted, on the Democratic Party talk page as well (although by my rationale, their solution is actually more complex than the one for the Republican Party). ^REMEMBER! This is an argument to place a SOURCED POLITICAL POSITION on the page. Not what you think it should be. All arguments should be clear and backed up with evidence.

Let's start with the first argument: Which political spectrum are we using?

This is an absolutely valid question that raises legitimate concerns. We can either use the US spectrum, or we can use the international one (which is tilted about one degree to the left of the US one-- such that a "left-wing" party in the US advocating for, say, social democracy, would be considered Center-left on the international spectrum. With my solution, I hope to take a little overlap from both, so we'll see if it can draw some support from all sides in an unbiased and civil manner.

Next, we must take into account what each position stands for in a general sense, so it will fit with the current characteristics the Party exhibits.

The Republican Party as a whole argues for American conservatism, as well as social conservatism and fiscal conservatism in its main platform. This would fit into the Center-right category of the US political spectrum. However, a faction(s) of the Party (Tea Party Republicans and although unorganized, some national conservatives or paleoconservatives) arguably support policies much more conservative than the party as a whole/average, which would be considered Right-wing by US standards, but Hard right or even far-right/radical by international standards. Since the Party has two different factions (albeit arguing for somewhat different ideals) that can overlap in favor of a claim for Right-wing (Tea Party conservatism and national conservatism by US standards, and average Republicans by international standards/various different political spectra), placing at least Right-wing in the infobox will eliminate the "which political spectrum" question. Right-wing is also seen as a sort of umbrella term for all kinds of ideas to the political Right, so it also fits different ideologies present within the party.

OK, so so far, based on the above compromise solution, the Republican Party would be seen as Right-wing in the infobox. Now though, we have to ask if this includes all necessary ideas within the party, and their separate political positions.

In my opinion at least, the answer appears to be yes. Using an overlap of different meanings of Right-wing, they appear to encapsulate the major parts of the party in all contexts regarding the spectrum, from moderates to Tea Partiers.

"Wait! What about moderate Republicans? They don't seem to fit into any position you have stated above."

Moderate Republicans are also members of the Republican Party, and their ideas should and will be taken into account. However, I believe that a good job has already been done to include them, albeit in a rather roundabout way. As previously mentioned, Right-wing is can be seen as a sort of umbrella term for all kinds of ideas to the political Right, from Center-right all the way to Hard right or Far-right, so it also fits different ideologies present within the party. Moderate Republicans, along with Conservative Democrats, make up the centrist wings of their Party, and sometimes even have more in common with each other than the Party they belong to. However, I believe that using the compromise I crafted before, they can be included as well. As mentioned, they represent the centrist wings of their Parties, and by extension, the Center of the US political spectrum, but this would also put them roughly around the Center-right of the international spectrum.

"Why isn't Center-right included then?"

An excellent question. Center-right is not included in this specific context, because there is a faction in the Republican Party that is undoubtedly Center-right, this would not apply if the international spectrum was used to judge. America's political Center is already equivalent to the international spectrum's Center-right, which makes the Republican Party as a whole, seen as Center-right in the US, Right-wing by international standards. This is likely because the American political system and general government infrastructure has had and dealt with the current policies for such a long time now that no one is sure what impact changing them would have-- a fear that affects Democrats and Republicans as wholes as well. This is the reason why some Center-right parties in Europe (like the Independence Party in Iceland, for example, or to a lesser extent, the Conservative Party in the UK) support the varying "welfare state(s)" that their country has built and currently has, even though privately, they may want to do away with some inefficient or overgenerous policies, but either do not or cannot because of high public approval of them. So what is my point in this? Different countries and their respective spectra evolve based on what that country has had built/up and running for a long enough period of time to know that it works in at least some aspects. The conservative Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans are, in this case, excused from the constraints of what "Center" means or constitutes (a balance between Center-left and Center-right) because their beliefs revolve around a current system that despite being less progressive than those in Europe, for example, they still manage to fit into a Right-wing umbrella position because they do balance Center-right and comparatively Right-wing ideas to an extent, but they do it within the confines of their specific country's political spectrum. However, in order to make absolutely sure that everyone is on board, a note will be included next to the position in the infobox, in order to explain this point accurately. Like this short summary, or this more detailed explanation.

In addition:

I went on a little exploration mission across every Wikipedia that has an article on the party, and collected the current positions listed on the page if there was one. Here is what I found as of 21 March 2017.

With all of this taken into consideration, I feel that there is enough here to make this position the new consensus. Below, to judge public opinion, I will create a "Responses" section, where you can either Support, or Oppose this proposed change (type this in bold, followed by your reasoning). If you have any questions/concerns (including about my reasoning above), or are unsure, you can leave a Comment in the "Responses" section, followed by your question/concern. It has taken me a while to formulate this, so I'd appreciate some feedback. I may respond to any concerns. Thanks! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Also: an interesting/informative discussion I had on Reddit about the subject is located here.

TL;DR The Republican Party is one of the few remaining political parties to not list a position in the infobox, and each time someone tries to bring it up again to possibly change it, people come in from both sides and it ends in no new consensus. This will keep being an issue/will continue to be brought up until a decision is reached. Some non-political or non-American observers/opinions may be required to avoid perceived bias (See overall talk page section for more). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Dude, you've had this RFC up for four months now and there's nothing close to a consensus. Probably time to give up on it for now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would, but my end goal was to just get it done. If it isn't it's bound to constantly be brought up in the future, so I wanted to avoid others constantly having to have this discussion repeatedly. If necessary maybe having some non-American or apolitical observers/inputs will help eliminate any biases and help reach a conclusion (regardless of what it may be, as long as there is a conclusion-- not no consensus again). It still boggles me as to the variety of reasons why a position has not been listed while it has for most other parties, so I wanted to change that. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Responses/Survey

Enter your opinion on this change here, prefacing with either Support, or Oppose in bold, followed by your reasoning, then signing your name after. You can preface with Comment for anything else. good idea how about mine thogh

The U.S. political system is currently designed to create large centrist parties. Both the Democratic and Republican parties contain many factions. They are "big tent" organizations. Throughout their histories they bob and weave to gain majorities. It seems best to avoid false labels, or trying to label moving targets, especially since there never has been a faction that is unique to one and not the other.68.40.122.133 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take your comment as an Oppose. But to address your concern, the position in the infobox has always been the current median/mean position of the party as a whole. That's why we wouldn't list all the times they've alternated, because you're right in the fact that there would be too many. However, my goal is to place the position based on current policies and positions, and based on the fact that in recent years, with the parties becoming more and more polarized, the Republican Party has become nearly completely composed of conservatives (on the right of the spectrum) of varying degrees (which is why the position I suggested was reached using a compromise tactic), I believe my position satisfies the requirements for a change in consensus. I am not denying the fact that the party may have had a big tent approach before, but it no longer seems to. I also find it hard to believe that anyone would argue today that both parties are centrist (or if they do, it would be a minority in the party). Feel free to ask anything else if you have more concerns. Thanks for your feedback! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support although I have seen pages which have included the "American position" alongside the "Global position". For example something like the Green party would be Centre-left for European parliaments while being Left-wing in American legislatures. --Hsvkr (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Not only are both major parties too complex and divided into factions, but also historically there are changes and significant fluctuations. Single terms as "center-right" etc. would simply not be sufficient and adequate. Eventhough most parties have got a position in their infobox, some for certain reasons do not, like Australian parties for instance. In this case one should simply keep it as it is. --Joobo (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback! The Australian Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition in Australia, from what I have gathered on the talk page and main page, do not have a position listed because of much more dramatic differences than exist in either the Republican Party or Democratic Party. For example, the Labor Party contains two main factions: The Socialist left (which supports democratic socialism) and Labor Unity (which is more like moderate to average Republicans). This is a much greater difference than exists today in either party, Democratic or Republican, which is mostly liberal or conservative, respectively. This would be a true example of a big tent party. If you have any other questions/concerns, ask away! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment – HapHaxion I appreciate your detailed rationale but it's a bit daunting for readers to get to the point. Could you possibly add a one-line summary of the proposal you are seeking support for? — JFG ^talk 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure! It would certainly help make it easier to understand. My basic argument is this: The reason a political position hasn't been placed on this page yet is because:

• It is unclear as to what the position would mean, as it varies by country (i.e. center-right in one country is not always the same as the center-right in another); and
• The wide breadth of opinions and ideologies in the party from moderates to hard-liners would make it "difficult" to position it, as a large range exists in the party today.

I seek to remedy this by using a compromise position, which would both acknowledge the party as being more conservative than the average center-right party elsewhere, while also acknowledging that a variety of opinions exist (from center-right moderates to hard right Tea Partiers) by bundling them in the umbrella term of Right-wing which encompasses all of them. If you have any other concerns, or want to support/oppose the change, I'll welcome your opinion! You seem like a very experienced editor, so I'd appreciate it! You are also welcome to ask others to share thoughts as well, or share thoughts on my effort to change consensus regarding the Democratic Party position as well. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification. I would then oppose, because left–right politics is a rather outdated notion, and "right-wing" or "left-wing" are open to countless interpretations by readers, depending on their own ideological background, their own country's politics, recent events, etc. That change would not clarify things, but raise more questions. — JFG ^talk 03:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hope I clarified everything necessary. Also, just as a reference, most other parties have a position listed, so is the outdated notion relative to the US specifically? HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks pretty outdated worldwide. Communist China is the greatest promoter of personal enrichment while maintaining an iron fist on political discourse. France just elected a coalition President based on the top two candidates explicitly rejecting the left-right divide. Elsewhere, right-wing authoritarian leaders are known to apply socialist policies. Welcome to the 21st century! — JFG ^talk 15:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I admit that some parties are hard to classify, but that doesn't mean that every one is. Also, regarding France, that doesn't mean that the position is meaningless or is fading away, just that voters chose a party in between the traditional right and left (thereby making it a centrist party, as it is labeled on its page). By the way, which right-wing authoritarian leaders applied socialist policies? Again, that may just be an instance of that specific leader/party being outside paradigms. That doesn't mean that all others are on average as well. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

We are drifting off-topic; I've made my position clear, and we should just agree to disagree. — JFG ^talk 06:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Broad consensus has been to have no political position, because both parties are big-tent and the section is redundant anyway. Nothing said here is new at all and honestly there is no reason to have this vote. And FYI, "right-wing" is not a compromise. Judging parties by some nonexistent "international" criteria is also silly - on economics Republicans are right, sure, but their views on church-state separation, monarchy, and immigration are well to the left of most right-wing parties. There is no "international" standard. Toa Nidhiki05 20:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts! How is the section redundant? Also, I based my research on the fact that the position matches the majority of the party. That is not to say that other factions don't exist, just that the position is to be based off of the majority/ideology in control currently, and the fact that I sought to sate both problems as described above. I also don't see how their philosophies are left of right-wing parties. Right-wing parties don't have to support monarchism (most don't, like in France, Italy, Germany, etc), and based on what I've seen, their policies regarding immigration and church-state separation are far more conservative/right-leaning than the main center-right parties elsewhere like the Conservative parties in Canada, the UK, France, etc. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The UK has a state church. It has a monarch. The UK Conservative party is conservative in supporting both monarchy and religion. Canada and Australia have monarchs, and their right of center parties support that. Even the most religiously conservative Republican Party members don't support a state church, let alone a state religion. Republicans are a big-tent, republican, classical liberal party and as such don't fall neatly into the European right-wing paradigm. In some regards the Republicans share more in common with European liberal parties than with conservative ones. This is part of the problem of an imaginary "international political spectrum". Calling them "right-wing" is no compromise, just like calling the Democrats center to center-left isn't one. The US system has two big-tent liberal parties with no membership requirements and no ideological test. It's not remotely comparable to Europe. Toa Nidhiki05 14:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

According to this poll, a plurality of them do support making Christianity the official religion. Also, as far as I'm aware, all the major parties in the UK support the monarchy. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlike in Europe, anyone can join the GOP. A more accurate measure is politicians or the party platform. Again, there is no "international political spectrum" and in the US, the GOP and Democrats are big-tent liberal parties. In regards to monarchy, the leader of Labour is a republican, the Green party is republican, SNP/Plaid and the NI republican parties are all republican. The Lib Dems favor reforms of the church. The only party that is unequivocally pro-monarchy and pro-church are the Conservatives. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Since both parties are more like coalitions, it makes more sense to look at them in terms of factions. The pages for the ideological factions (Republican Main Street Partnership, Blue Dog Coalition, Congressional Progressive Caucus, etc.) already have positions on the left/right spectrum listed in the infobox. So I don't see the point in adding a position to the pages for the parties. Maybe I'm missing something. I also don't see any compromise in simply using another country (or countries) political spectrum as the basis. Articles for parties in the UK are given a position on the left/right spectrum relative to the UK. So why should it be any different for American parties? Alexander Levian (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is easier to look at the position on one page to gauge the average, rather than visiting five or six pages. Also, my compromise stems from the fact that positions vary by country, and as such, my umbrella term of Right-wing includes the acknowledgement that the party is further to the right than mainstream center-right parties elsewhere (see responses above), while also acknowledging the large diversity in opinion by grouping them into an umbrella term (of which right-wing includes everyone from center-right moderates to hard-right Tea Party members, while the note that would be written after the position would explain it, as shown in my full description above). I appreciate your thoughts! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question. Why are we not using the political spectrum relative to the country of said party (like we do for UK parties)? I didn't see any compromise (I say we should use the American standard, you say we should use the a so-called international political spectrum), you're ignoring the faction issue, and a lot of what you said borders on WP:OR. I have to continue to oppose. Alexander Levian (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mostly because in most other countries, the center-right is signified by liberal conservative (aka moderate conservative) parties (of which the Republican Party has a faction, but it is not the majority), and because even in countries where the spectrum is shifted (i.e. where this is not the case, such as in South Korea and Japan, which have mainly/dominant center-right parties), the position is similar to what I suggested here (i.e. the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan and the Liberty Korea Party in South Korea, parallels to the US Republican Party, are listed as center-right to right-wing, despite occupying the center-right of their respective countries' political spectra). The only difference between this and what I am suggesting is that the position is fully written out instead of an umbrella term (right-wing) being used, in addition to the fact that the Republican Party has hard-right elements in the Tea Party movement. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that justifies using the term centre-right in that fashion in those countries. But you're still not giving me any argument for why parties in the United States should be the only parties for which we use the standard of other countries to determine position on the political spectrum. I've been asking this for a while now and your only responses are to compare this party to parties in other countries and then state where those parties are in the their country's spectrum. Those arguments would be compelling... if I already agreed that the standard of another country's political spectrum should be applied to American parties. That's the main problem I have with this. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I believe rather than me using the standard of other countries to determine the position, it is just the fact that the US and a few other countries (that I mentioned above) seem to go against the general trend, which makes them exceptions to the whole, rather than a victim of an unfair comparison. Labeling the position in the way I suggested is comparing the party's position to the ideologies associated with that position as a whole, rather than those of a specific country. For example, I mentioned the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan earlier-- it is not labeled as Center-right despite occupying that position in the country of Japan (such as the GOP does in America). Rather, it is labeled to compare (the majority of) its ideology to that associated with the positions selected to be on the page (Center-right to Right-wing). Most political parties seem to have this on Wikipedia (a general comparison to ideologies associated with the position, rather than the position the party occupies in its native country), so I don't see why the 2 main American parties should be any different. Position should also reflect what is generally associated with positions of that party. I hope I clarified your concerns! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The idea Republicans are "further right" than other center-right parties comes mostly from American Democrats, who compare platforms under an American standard rather than also comparing what it means to be a conservative, liberal, or socialist in Europe. There is no "international political spectrum". Toa Nidhiki05 14:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the idea that Republicans being further right is a product of American Democrats, I have found multiple sources online which seems to discredit this based on opinions of people who live elsewhere. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your sources are Reddit, Vice, and Quora? Look, we've had this discussion numerous times here. Nothing new has been presented. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Support - I agree that there are many different political ideologies and policies in the republican party, but almost all of them fall under the right-wing umbrella. Because of this, it makes sense to classify the party as right-wing. --Skipper1931 (be sure to ping me when you reply) (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Question - Doesn't it list things already for ideologies? Skipper1931 (be sure to ping me when you reply) (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It does, although the main concern here is the position on the political spectrum overall. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I think we should do what is done on the Turkish page (i.e., Center-right (minority) to Right-wing (majority). I'm not sure if that is considered "support" or "oppose". Ezhao02 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd consider that a support, since you are in favor of changing the consensus. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- The fact that the Republican and Democratic parties control roughly equal numbers of legislative seats at all levels of government is a strong indication that (by the only measure that really counts) the political center of the country lies roughly midway between the two. All the controversy on this topic arises from politically motivated attempts to label one party more centrist and the other more extreme. In order to forge a compromise for the infobox position it needs to be done at the same time for both party infoboxes and it needs to place the two parties equidistant from the center. A simple "right" and "left" would probably be the easiest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.122.131 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Are you saying someone like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski would not be considered center-right internationally? They aren't that much more right wing, if at all, than say, Theresa May. George Pataki most certainly is center right. I think the whole "US is more right wing than the rest of the world" line is somewhat exaggerated. On the economic front, it may be truer to an extent, but on the social front? Germany just barely legalized gay marriage yesterday, which the US has had since 2015. Abortion laws in most of western Europe are much stricter than the US (for example, Germany caps at 13 weeks + mandatory counseling and 3 day waiting period prior to receiving one). The GOP is a member of the International Democrat Union of center right parties. I would support center-right to right wing to take into account nuances, would not support standalone right wing. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, regarding Collins and Murkowski, that's exactly what I'm saying (they are moderates, and therefore center-right), but placing the position as Center-right to Right-wing seems to ignore the much more conservative hard right factions of the party like the Tea Party Caucus or the Freedom Caucus (which hold an equal, if not greater amount of power than the moderates), which is why I suggested using Right-wing as more of an umbrella term (since both Center-right, Right-wing and hard right can all be considered "Right-wing"). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 23:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that the Right-wing/hard right factions of the Republican Party hold more power than the moderate factions, which is why I suggested saying "Center-right (minority) to Right-wing (majority)" as a kind of compromise. Besides, this source lists the Republican Party as both center-right and right-wing. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Also as a heads up: Joobo seems to have been blocked for various POV violations ("WP:DE, WP:IDHT, WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV, etc" as stated on talk page), so take his comments with a grain of salt if possible if it looks like he is trying to push a certain idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HapHaxion (talk • contribs) 01:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Joobo was blocked two months after commenting here, and this thread was not part of the reasons discussed; I don't think this event should disqualify their comment here. — JFG ^talk 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Just as a gauge, since using Right-wing as an umbrella term for diversity from center-right to hard right and as a comparison to common center-right parties being liberal-conservative in nature seems to be a stretch, would everyone be up for doing something along the lines of what Ezhao02 (talk) suggested? That way Right-wing wouldn't group in the moderate center-right faction but would still condense the remainder of the party (hard righters and current mainstreamers) enough to avoid confusion. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 05:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No. This has been here for four months and there is clearly no consensus to add anything - that's not a compromise at all, and it's not consistent with formatting used on any other pages. I think it's pretty clear there is no consensus to add anything and the consensus that says not to add anything on either page should stand. Toa Nidhiki05 10:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

in my opinion it just seems insane to not write anything about the party's position. for starters it's a bit hypocritical.(i.e i assume that a disproportionate number of english wikipedia editors are from the united states due to language) labeling other countries parties as right wing or left wing(i.e instead of center right center left or leaving it blank) while ignoring the elephant in the room(pun intended) logically speaking is there anyone who thinks that this is not a right of the centre party? it's common sense really. obamacare is a center-right wing program.(for confirmation you can even look at the programs of some libertarian parties in europe). if a majority of a party opposes it ,then that makes it a right wing party. it's no nuclear science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.59.205 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Comment Yes, there's diversity within the American political parties, but it's quite silly to suggest that political diversity is unique to American political parties, and we provide descriptions of position for most others. Though there's never going to be unanimity, it's fairly clear to me that right-wing is the most accurate descriptor with respect to other political parties across the globe, which is really our only standard. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - again, just do not see a need and think it's not got WP:WEIGHT in usual sources. Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support as that part of the infobox is supposed to be an oversimplified generalization anyways. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

in a previous post someone mentioned susan collins as centre right by international standards..doesn't the recent tax bill( and the way it was rushed usually seen only in other kinds of olitical regimes) disprove this claim? the only moderates seem to exist on a state level alone. fidesz is listed as "centre right to right wing" even though by the standards of hungary it's the centre right. now i personally think it should be just right wing(on social issued anyway) but my point is that for uniformity's sake alone we should do the same for the GOP. still a joke IMO for the word "Centre" to be on the GOP's page but not to the extend of leaving nothing.failing that we should at least remove the ideological party classification from every political party on earth. 200 countries or so. or perhaps judge every country by the USA's spectrum. yeah i think i'll go to the conservative party(UK) page and write "mild leftists" if you think this is ridiculous they you see my point!! we can't apply one standard to every single country on earth EXCEPT the united states also is there a way to hold a vote on this issue?2A02:2149:847E:3700:E4CF:1101:1795:D7A3 (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support I've seen a ton of articles on Wikipedia using "center-right to right-wing" - isnt that the most sensible compromise?

• Comment: I looked at the first citation you gave for Right-wing, and it seems to claim that the Republican Party is Center-right. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 05:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment In general, member parties of the International Democratic Union are center-right. Using center-right here is just fine. There are two large parties in the U.S.—one representing the American center-left and one the American center-right.[1] It is true that, as with any major party, internally there are factions and exceptions. But when we use terms like "far left" or "far right," it is all relative (to, for example, other members of Congress). Certain Democrats are said to represent the "far left" of the party, but that too is just relative; those individual members do not subscribe to actual far-left ideologies. As this study from the Center for American Progress states, "Despite claims to the contrary, there really is no 'far right' or 'far left' among the electorate in the country. Based on this evidence, it is more accurate to talk about 'far center-right' and 'far center-left.'" Terms like "far left" and "far right" should be reserved for the absolute extreme ends of the political spectrum. I say just use "center-right" and explain factions in the infobox and further in the body. --Precision123 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment/general support I agree that the GOP should be considered "Center-right" because it encompasses much political territory to the right of the mean. However: I strongly support making a distinction between American and International (or Western) conceptions of the political spectrum. As Nationalists/Populists have gained ground in the Party, it is starting to look less Center-right, and more in the mold of the Law and Justice Party of Poland or UKIP. Both of these parties de-emphasize Conservative dogma, in favor of nationalism. Also, Law and Justice has a Christian Right thing going on, just like the GOP. This is a rather long-winded way of saying that these parties are useful analogs when thinking about the modern Republican Party. My advice is to look at their wikipages. --Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Election symbol

I think we should place the "Republican Disc" file in the "election symbol" parameter of the infobox. The Libertarian Party article has this feature. Raku Hachijo (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

2017: very little GOP support for white nationalism

We have a newbie who wants to claim the Republican party supports white nationalism. Polls say no they do NOT.

• 9% percent of GOP respondents said they strongly or somewhat SUPPORTED white nationalism
  • 64% percent of GOP respondents said they strongly or somewhat OPPOSED white nationalism
• 7% percent of INDEPENDENT respondents said they strongly or somewhat SUPPORTED white nationalism
  • 61% percent of INDEPENDENT respondents said they strongly or somewhat OPPOSED white nationalism
• 7% percent of DEMOCRATIC respondents said they strongly or somewhat SUPPORTED white nationalism
  • 73% percent of DEMOCRATIC respondents said they strongly or somewhat OPPOSED white nationalism
• Source: September 14th, 2017 A new Reuters/Ipsos poll done in collaboration with the University of Virginia Center for Politics' see the detailed numbers online here Rjensen (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Butt Hole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.200.21.185 (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point. Lukacris (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Log Cabin Republicans listed in infobox as "LGBT wing"

Responses/Survey

Enter your opinion on this change here, prefacing with either Support, or Oppose in bold, followed by your reasoning, then signing your name after. You can preface with Comment for anything else.

• Support:The Log Cabin Republicans should be listed in the infobox of the Republican Party, as they represent the LGBT wing of the party's constituents. Nowhere does it state that for political parties, only official wings of the party can be displayed in the infobox (in this case wings of the RNC), and is demonstrated by there being several organizations that are listed which are not official "wings" of the party. These include College Republicans, Young Republicans, Teen Age Republicans, National Federation of Republican Women and Republicans Overseas. These are political organizations targeted towards certain factions of the Republican Party, ans the LCR is no different. Also, this would not be the first Wikipedia page to list the LGBT wing of the party (see Democratic Party (United States), Likud, Conservative Party (UK), etc.). These parties represent LGBT interest groups on their infoboxes, so shouldn't the Republican Party's page list its LGBT interest group?--AirportExpert (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert
• Oppose LCR isn't remotely as official as the other groups, which exist primarily to support and elect Republican candidates. There is considerable controversy, for example, when local wings of the College Republicans voted to endorse someone other than Trump, because it runs counter to the goal of electing Republicans. LCR is a Republican group, but its primarily goal is to lobby the party on gay interests (Per the website: "Log Cabin Republicans work to make the Republican Party more inclusive, particularly on gay and lesbian issues"), not to promote and elect GOP candidates. Moreover, it isn't as remotely accepted as other groups: there have been disputes in the past as to how Republican it actually is. Toa Nidhiki05 21:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because the LCR has no official recognition from the Republican National Committee, and all currently listed wings do. Nuke (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a difference between officially recognized wings of the party (Such as the ones AirportExpert listed above) and an advocacy group like LCR. As far as the Democratic Party's LGBT wing, The Stonewall Democrats actually receive funding from that party's national committee. So it's pretty well established that they are an official wing of the Democratic Party. But as of right we don't have anything to show that the Log Cabin Republicans are an official wing. Alexander Levian (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 - Adding white nationalism to Ideology discussion

A user recently added White Nationalism to the list of ideologies in the info box. I reverted the change for being controversial, and believe further discussion is necessary before something of that nature is added. Based on a previous section on this talk page, there is evidence to show the Republican party does not endorse White Nationalism as a whole. DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 02:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: Without the Republican party ever endorsing White Nationalism, I don't see how it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a Republican ideology. Some Republican officials may have had contact or past ties with White Nationalists, but that is a far stretch from the entire party supporting White Nationalism. A handful of incidents does not equal party-wide support. DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 02:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It was placed in the factions section of the infobox, even if it does effectively paint the entire party in a negative light due to the fact it's a loaded label being triple-cited. Nuke (talk)

If ThinkProgress is an adequate source to define the GOP by a single registered membber, would it be fine for me to cherry-pick an article from a similarly conservative website - say, National Review - identifying a member as, say, a communist? Toa Nidhiki05 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: I previously added "white interests," but white nationalism is not only a controversial label, but describes a mere subfaction of voters concerned with white interests. If I added black nationalism to the Democrats, even though Keith Ellison made statements to that regard, it wouldn't be black nationalism like the New Black Panther Party we'd be describing there, but a subgroup among blacks who support the interests of their racial group. Furthermore, for WP:NEUTRAL reasons, I believe that similar demographic interest groups would need to be listed on the Democrats' infobox likewise; and as a final note, some of the sources, in relation to the overcite undue weight issue, some of the sources seemed bizarre -- for instance, it cites that John McCain did a photo op with Svoboda, despite the fact that some dispute this claim ([2]). And another citation in the revision calls the Party for Freedom fascist as a means of denouncing the Republicans as white nationalist, in addition to relying on the fact one Representative in Iowa is named. And the other reference deals with one individual member of the Republican Party -- might as well just put Trumpism in there with these sources. Nuke (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose:No unbiased reliable sources call this a Republican ideology. Even if some fractions of the base support it, there are no elected officials or leaders that endorse it. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Republican Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030802175908/http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~thomast/essays/filler/filler.html to http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~thomast/essays/filler/filler.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101195440/http://www.wvwv.org/docs/WVWV_2004_post-election_memo.pdf to http://www.wvwv.org/docs/WVWV_2004_post-election_memo.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wvwv.org/docs/WVWV_2004_post-election_memo.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

fix seats from 52 to 51 due to election source https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/alabama-senate-race-winner.html 71.169.153.34 (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Although most media have "called" the Alabama Special Senate election, the Alabama Secretary of State has not yet certified the results, so they are not completely official. In a day or two some-one will probably update this once the results are certified. WP:NODEADLINE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

DEAR CONGRESS OF THE USA ;ALL THE PUERTO RICANS PEOPLE WANTS THE STATEHOOD I PUERTO RICO NOW WE CAN'T WAIT NO LONGER WE NEED IT NOW PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:8003:C8A6:D8FC:8483:B39:5B14 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

Please change this paragraph...

"The Republicans' dominant worldview was once social liberalism, mainly in the form of abolitionism, and economic reform. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate in the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party, leading to a switch of political platforms between the Democratic and Republican Party."

.. to...

"The Republican Party started out as a party dominated by classical liberals who supported abolitionism. In the early 20th century a social liberal faction formed within the party, before it split of in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt ran as an unsuccessful third-party candidate in the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party. When this party dissolved a few years later some followers switched to the Democratic Party, where social liberalism in the form of Modern American liberalism grew to become the dominant ideology over the course of the 20th century.

This paragraph which I want changed was recently added by user R9tgokunks, if my reading of the history log is accurate. It stood out to me as soon as I read it, as it seems like a gross simplification and inaccurate account of the complex history of the American two-party system. R9tgokunks' paragraph furthermore provides no source for his account of history. He implies that social liberalism in the United States took the form of abolitionism, but social liberalism didn't emerge until the latter half of the 19th century, centuries after the abolitionist movement in the United States, and social liberalism didn't appear in America until the early 20th century. Also, until recently the parties was much less homogeneous, with there being multiple competing factions within each party, meaning that a statement such as there having been a "switch of political platforms" between the parties is a way too simplistic account of history. My version doesn't have any source either, though. So I would suggest removing the paragraph entirely if my version is not deemed any better.

Thank you! :-) Johansunden (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I've messaged R9tgokunks about this. Stickee (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

the early GOP -- before the Civil War--supported all sorts of social reforms, as part of its Whig heritage. The early GOP was NOT abolitionist-- it did not call for the abolition of slavery before 1862. (It demanded an end to the expansion of slavery, in the West, the South, and in Latin America.) The History of Rep Party article is designed to cover the history, not this article. As for "classical liberal" (ie libertarian) no--those were the Democrats. GOP favored tariffs and govt spending on internal improvements (eg Railroads, ports). Rjensen (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rjensen:, i'm sorry but I can't seem to understand. Is this in support of the wording? -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 08:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm changing the wording to this until we can come up with a consensus on the content of the paragraph.

"The Republicans' dominant worldview was once [[social liberalism|social reform]], especially supporting [[abolitionism]], and economic reform. In 1912, [[Theodore Roosevelt]] ran as a third-party candidate in the [[Progressive Party (United States, 1912)|Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party]], leading to a switch of political platforms between the Democratic and Republican Party." 

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 08:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

that does not work so i dropped it--it is unsourced and partly false. GOP explicitly opposed abolition until 1861. "economic reform" is too vague to be useful. "social liberalism" is too vague for pre-1890 era. Rjensen (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you Rjensen, your latest version of this paragraph is great. I think it would be improved additionally if the word 'liberal' in the "a highly liberal platform" part was made into a hyperlink to the page about Modern liberalism in the United States, and the word 'conservatism' in the "conservatism on economic issued" (also you misspelled 'issues') part was made into a hyperlink to the page on Conservatism in the United States. (Given how "conservatism on economic issues" in American colloquial usage denotes economic liberalism, which could make this wording confusing without the clarification that such a hyperlink would provide). Cheers! Johansunden (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for suggestions--i will follow them all up. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Well... that paragraph initially seemed to be a lead-in for the following one, attempting to show how the party's platform has changed. Now it's just a stray paragraph... -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I reworked it to have a two-minute capsule history, Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Rjensen, your edits did a few things very wrong

• Your edit removed a source I added
• You also you improperly added (<ref> Liberal New Deal Democrats dominated the Fifth Party System (1932 to 1960s) at the national level. Only Dwight Eisenhower won a presidential elections (1952 and 1956). The weak liberal Republican element was overwhelmed by a conservative surge begun by Barry Goldwater in 1964) and fulfilled by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Reagan remains a heroic party icon.<ref>)
• That is not valid as a source at all. You cannot source statements with your own WP:OR, you have to find articles, etc that do that for you (WP:SOURCES).
• Lincoln and his close supporters were seen as classical liberals, as shown in James G. Randall's Lincoln the Liberal Statesman, and here [3], and I could also find other sources stating this if you like. I'm going to re-add that to the article. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 03:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Normally the lead does not need footnotes except for quotations. Randall is one of my favorite historians, but what he means by "Lincoln the liberal statesman" requires you to read his famous book. Randall refers to Lincoln's moderation and His strong opposition to the Radical Republicans. Liberalism for Lincoln means democracy... Equal rights and freedom for all men. Randall says: "what does conservatism mean? If it means caution, prudent inherence to tested values, avoidance of rashness, and reliance upon unhurried, peaceful evolution, Lincoln was a conservative." Randall identifies conservatism with reaction and indifferent apathy toward human problems. Randall says Lincoln rejected do-nothing government, he favored government help for the promotion of education, emancipation of slaves, Department of Agriculture, the Homestead act. I think Randall (writing in 1946) is suggesting Lincoln resembled Franklin Roosevelt --the New Deal for the common man. Randall also examines the role of John Bright,, emphasizing public welfare of all people, and abolition of slavery. Randall defines Lincoln's liberalism: "in his magnanimity, friendship for the soldier, humor, tolerance, opposition to oppression, readiness to reason with his people, and careful effort to maintain the Union cause on an enlightened level, Lincoln developed his statesmanship in liberal terms." [p147] he was not a classical liberal along the lines of Adam Smith Ricardo Malthus, etc [p 145]...Randall ridicules laissez-faire economics [page 145]-- something Lincoln never supported. Rjensen (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Political Position (infobox)

Most western parties Wikipedia pages show their political position. I think it is fair to say they are a centre-right party at the very least. However, they increasingly have some strong far-right elements. Look no further than President Trump's election platform and talking points: "Ban all Muslims" "Build a wall"

Here are some sources:

Centre-right to Far-right Andersen, Kurt. "How the GOP Went Crazy". Slate Group. Retrieved 13 February 2018.James, Frank. "Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years". NPR. Retrieved 13 February 2018.Martin, Lawrence. "In the new Washington, there is only far left and far right". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 13 February 2018.O'Malley, Nick. "Republican Party schism: Is the Tea Party leading the GOP into electoral oblivion". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 13 February 2018.

I think their position is somewhere between centre right and far right. We all know that the US has a two-party system and that both parties are big tent parties to a certain degree. It makes sense that they have a large ideological spread. After all, the ideologies parameter shows multiple contradicting ideologies.--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that international academic publications see this much differently. . Nathaniel Persily (2016). Solutions to Political Polarization in America. Cambridge University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-107-08711-8..--Moxy (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That article is so pathetically partisan it doesn't even warrant consideration. There's no imaginary international political scale. The US has two parties, a big tent right-wing party and a big-tent left-wing one. There is no standard for membership in either party, no standard for party approval of primary candidates, and effectively no candidate having to agree to a party manifesto. This has been discussed numerous times and there has repeatedly been no consensus to include anything, nor should there be. Toa Nidhiki05 03:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur with above comment. As much craziness is going on with Republicans right now, it's best not to narrow it down.The way it is now is best. We can deal with the various ideologies and craziness elsewhere. There are a wide variety of beliefs amongst all these voters, largely because there is only a two party system with only two tangible choices, unlike Europe, so people go wherever is closest. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 03:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well to be fair I am not really narrowing it down by saying it is between centre-right and far-right. If I anything I am saying that there is a diverse set of views that are right of centre.--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "There's no imaginary international political scale" ....not sure where to start on this non academic reply......when there are 4 main models. But agree best we dont list anything as Americas views on the political scale is out of step with the rest of the world. test your self --Moxy (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Right-wing in the lead

This book and others by actual political scientists, instead of partisan commentators, place the GOP among the most conservative in the world, far "surpassing European center-right parties" yet not a member of the far-right.

Because of this, would anyone object to this wording? I propose we add to lead that it is "Considered to be on the right-wing on American politics, and political scientists have described it as one of the most conservative in the world" and list the infobox as right-wing.

There is a near universal consensus that the Republiczn party neither center-right or far-right. Republicans neither has the moderation of European center-right parties or the political radicalism of groups like Greece's Golden Dawn or Hungary's Jobbik. Despite a lot of the partisan bickering, this seems like an area we could get consensus on fast.

MichiganWoodShop (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. There is no political position as there is not imaginary global political system. Moreover, US political parties have no membership requirements, members and politicians don't have to adhere to any platform to run for office, and control is incredibly decentralized; this is in comparison to the strong-party structures of other countries, where manifestos are incredibly important and parties often have to approve candidates. Parties generally have no control over who runs in what districts and what their beliefs are or what their votes will be. Effectively, the two parties are big tents of the left and right, respectively. All of this has been discussed repeatedly and there has been no consensus to add any political position.

Even putting that aside, your source was deceptively edited. It's not even a global comparison, but a comparison between the US and four countries. It says it is more conservative than the center-right parties in those countries - not that it is right-wing or isn't center-right itself. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RFCs on Third Party inclusion in the election infobox

FYI, there are two RFCs asking about third party inclusion in election infoboxes. They can be found here at talk page for project E&R.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"America First" Ideology and Republican Party Transformation

I am surprised that, in this article, there is little mention of the "America First" wing that emerged with Donald Trump. It seems to be that this ought to be differentiated. Thus far, it seems to take the Republican Party in several directions: 1. Trade Protectionism. 2. Lack of interest in growth of the national debt. 3. Appeal to the working class. Consequently, a movement of upper-middle class and better educated voters towards the Democratic Party. 4. A "Presidential Party": a party whose ideology is not so much a driving force as is its commitment to a particular leader, such as "United Russia" and Putin. 5. Return to international isolationism, while retaining options to project predominant force to attain international goals. 6. Dramatic reduction in antagonism towards traditional Great Power rivals, such as Russia. 7. A radicalization of many of the other traditional U.S. conservative policies.

Isn't this a rather unique mix of policies, and a major shift in Republican Party ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibycusreggio (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not including position because people can't agree is stupid

The majority of people consider it as solidly right wing. Because there are centre-right and far-right factions doesn't mean that it is the normal. The Republican party is considered right wing 90% of the time. Alex of Canada (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct ....but as seen above ....like the denial of evolution.....there is a segment of editors here that dont even think there is a standard. Best move on....cant argue with people that dont have a basic understanding of the Political spectrum.Jonathan Sperber (1994). The European Revolutions, 1848-1851. Cambridge University Press. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-0-521-38685-2.--Moxy (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why bother arguing with the people who don't understand? Pretty much every expert believes they are right wing, and the people arguing against that are either biased or uninformed. We shouldn't hurt the article to please them. Alex of Canada (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For the past decade or so the younger generation of conservatives have dismissed the label. Can't really blame them as there is so much negative press about the right side from previous generations. We have this generation now editing here. They view right-wing as defamatory..Department of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh..although conservatives embrace that particular label—conservative—they generally reject others, such as right-wing, racist, extremist, and far right, as negative or belittling.--Moxy (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ideology

On the right hand side, with the ideologies tab, shouldn't it list Classical Liberals with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.251.53 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why? Alexander Levian (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Should be added Trumpism?Paul Lincoln (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe as a faction. Do you have sources showing trump's political ideology is distinct from the othre ideologies listed and are held by Republicans in congress? Alexander Levian (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Fiscal Conservatism

Why is fiscal conservatism listed under "factions" instead of "majority"? Ezhao02 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be confusing economic liberalism (which is listed as majority) with fiscal conservatism. Alexander Levian (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing positions

The following positions are missing:

• Health care
• Voting rights
• Criminal justice
• Campaign finance
• Trade

I also think that we need to make clear that there is a divergence between GOP elites and the base on some issues. GOP elites are for instance more pro-trade and anti-Obamacare than the base is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we also need to make clear what an elite it. I abhor Newspeak. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This shouldn't be too hard to do. Someone somewhere has obviously written on all of those matters. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 - Adding "white nationalism" to factional ideology

Both before and since Trump's election, multiple members of the Republican Party - both elected and running - have held inexorably white nationalist positions. While it is certainly incorrect to argue that it is a guiding ideology of the party, there is clearly a faction of the GOP steering in this direction, and it should be added as ideology. Docktuh (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2018 (EST)

Sources

Fringe elements are undue. We're not adding Marxism to the ideology box of the Democratic Party either. — JFG ^talk 20:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you wouldn't, because there is nothing Marxist about anything in the Democratic Party, but the white supremacists in the Republican Party are obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

More on what they said, if we can say that there's a democratic socialist section of the Democratic Party (when the DNC itself is very clearly not so, and DSA members are clearly the minority) then it is becomes entirely inappropriate to ignore this section of the GOP, especially given all the evidence on the matter. Docktuh (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2018 (EST)

Well the main problem is the sources. First, four of those six sources talk about candidates, not elected officials. Second I'm not sure how reliable we can consider an opinion piece from Vox that simply asserts that the party is driven by white nationalism to be. And it does so without naming members that belong to said faction. And finally, the Huffpost article says that one white nationalist had become "the state GOP’s precinct committee officer for Precinct 129 in Whitman County" which hardly constitutes a faction. With that said, once we see enough of these candidates get elected and even forming organizations that work within the party to promote white nationalism, then I'll support including them in the minority ideology section. Alexander Levian (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

????

split status?

expedite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.205.128.241 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

I think the political position for the page should be added in. The position should be "Right-wing to far-right" as it reflects the party's shift in ideology following the 2016 election. The party's support of neo-nationalist policies also reflects that right to far-right shift. Nonagram babies (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your request begins with "I think..." What YOU think counts for little when it comes to article content. What matters is what reliable sources say. There is also the problem of finding a clear political position for any party, particularly one with so many members. Obviously different people in the party have different views. Attributing a single view to a party just doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Provide reliable sources that say what you think not just what you think. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/02/this-astonishing-chart-shows-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/?utm_term=.915248223932, https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread (from 2012), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/symmetric-polarization/544059/ attributes some of it directly to Trump, https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/22/opinions/health-care-history-gop-zelizer-opinion/index.html, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/cpac-2018-s-extreme-message-proves-gop-has-embraced-its-ncna850936, https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-republican-party-leave-democrats-members-us-president-a8432196.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/republican-convention-issues.html, and of course there's the fact that Nixon signed the EPA into law and now the GOP wants it gutted to benefit extraction industries and polluters. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional wings

The party website lists several "GOP Groups" at the bottom of the page, but those do not appear in the infobox here. They include:

• Black Republican Activists
• GOP Hispanics
• RNC Women
• GOP Faith
• Asian Pacific Americans
• Young Leaders
• Veterans & Military Families

Shouldn't these be listed in the "wings" section of the infobox? Why would they NOT be there?

— TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 01:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Centrism

Centrism is listed as one of the factional ideologies in the infobox. I take issue with this, not because of partisan reasons, but because there is little evidence to suggest any members of the GOP have strayed far from the ideology of conservatism, certainly not since the 1970's at least. Trialer992 (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Earliest discussion I can find. I tend to agree to keep centrism in the infobox. Especially with the citation as is.--intelati^talk 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Surely it's a mistake going back in history. It's current ideology we presumably need. It's funny. As I wrote that I thought, that post itself is classic conservatism. Looking to the past when we should be looking at now. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Source reliability - socialsecuritywaste.com

See [4]. An IP editor contends that the source used for the second paragraph of Republican_Party_(United_States)#Education is not reliable sourcing. I kind of agree at a quick glance - that is a blog or blog-like analysis of Pew data, so we should probably base it on the Pew source if it is in there and drop it otherwise - hence I report the issue, but I will not touch that article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The text should of course be removed. If a source to substantiate the text can be found, it can be reinserted. One editor just restored this text with the absurd assertion that this was sourced to the WSJ. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at the wrong thing. The stats are from the Pew Research Center, which is a non-partisan think tank.Exzachary (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Then cite Pew, not some random-ass website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

GOP=Grand Old Party

Most Americans are likely unaware that the rest of the world hasn't a clue what "GOP" means. Most of the world likely also doesn't even know what "Grand Old Party" means. It would improve the article immensely if some kind of note was included, especially in the lede, since the way the article is written, it reads like it was written by a self-centered, unaware type person. I made the change, but it appears self-centered and unaware won out and the change was reverted. Santamoly (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Republican_Party_(United_States)#Name_and_symbols explains it nicely. ZaneGlaze (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Good grief! Do you expect that a non-American would discover that un-Godly link? That suggests just more unconscious thinking! The article suffers from this kind of clueless participation. Santamoly (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Seat changes, don't take effect until terms begin

Be on your toes folks. After tonight's election results, many editors & IPs will be erroneously changing the seats numbers. This changes shouldn't be made, until the new members actually take their seats. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

Republicans now have 193 seats instead of 235 72.65.126.150 (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC) http://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/politics/house-control-midterm-election/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.126.150 (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. No, they will have less seats but a) the final count is not yet completed with some races still being counted and b) seat changes only take place when the new Congress starts, which is January 2019. See above as well. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Under 'factions' in the infobox, it would be more accurate to say "libertarian conservativism" than just libertarianism

Given that the other flavors of conservatism have their own descriptors (social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, paleoconservatism, neoconservatism) it makes sense to describe the libertarians within the republican party as libertarian conservative than just libertarian. Left leaning/bleeding heart libertarians tend not to support the GOP and either retain independence or support democrats if they prioritize social liberalism over economic conservatism.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Democratic Party (United States) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: Remove "right wing to far right" description side box

I don't know if this issue has been discussed at great length, but the "right wing to far right" label currently in the side box seems inappropriate to me because the Republican Party contains within itself a spectrum of opinion ranging from the centre right to the far right. The fact that Donald Trump's political positions happen to lie farther to the right than earlier presidents does not, in and of itself, indicate that the Republican Party is a "right wing to far right" party; in any other level of government than the executive branch of the federal government, there are many centre-right Republicans who are generally considered to be within the fold of the Republican Party.

One compromise could be to change the side box description of the party to "big tent of the right" as was done with Syriza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.147.182.16 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is an issue which really deserves attention; at the moment, neither of the two sources in the sidebox describe the Republican Party as either right wing or far right. One of them notes that Steve King associates with far right groups in Europe, but it ignores the fact that King was rebuked for these actions by Steve Stivers, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. The rebuke indicates that we shouldn't be too quick to ignore centre right views in the Republican Party; indeed, the Tuesday Group, which includes 50 members of the House of Representatives, has been described as centrist.

There has been much discussion about this issue on the talk page, and it simply isn't enough to have a single user change the article unilaterally without resolving the dispute.

My suggestion to change the political position to "big tent of the right" as was done with Syriza, the ruling party in Greece, stands as a possible resolution to the ongoing dispute. At the very least, we should remove the "political position" section altogether for the moment.

References

Current House membership

Note that the House membership is now 237, in the lame-duck 115th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018

This particular line is controversial and an associate professor is the source. I don't think it has enough standing to be in this page. I can't find the sources from the associate professor and if this line is to remain, I think it should be sourced by the actual numbers instead of opinion.

"After the 1960s, whites increasingly identified with the Republican Party.[22]" 204.57.109.142 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324267606_Polarization_Demographic_Change_and_White_Flight_from_the_Democratic_Party This is an alternate link to the same journal article with the host being research gate. The references that the associate professor used can be clearly seen, and they used a lot of sources. Thus the article itself is sourced enough to be a valid journal article source for Wikipedia. If you think my decision is wrong you can clarify over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where users with more expertise over reliable sources will answer to you. You may refer my comments if you want to say anything there. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Fiscal conservative"

The body of the article disputes this designation in the infobox. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Conservatives, moderates, liberals and progressives

This section is a mess. I have fixed it up somewhat by removing unsourced material. I have tagged the section, as it needs expansion, context, and more sources. The primary problem is that the section talks about various factions of the party in a muddled, disorganized way without making any effort to define the terms it is using. SunCrow (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019

It is not fair to only say that senate majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked President Obama's supreme court nomination in the last year of his second term without also pointing out that this action had been suggested at the end of President Reagan's second term. The implication is that this action was some new action devised by the Republican party. It was not.

A sentence or two should be added at the end of that paragraph such as:

"However, this action had been earlier suggested by Senator Joe Biden near the end of President Ronald Reagan's second term and was described as a way to allow some degree of the public's direct participation in the process due to the upcoming presidential election. Although not a law, it has become known as the "Biden Rule"." Concern for complete truth (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

The republican party at that time did not discrimate in federal policies that was the democrat party. why are you lying? 2604:6000:1011:A14A:156E:3BA:5AC3:5502 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Roadguy2 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Absurdly POV filled section "Democracy"

I move that this entire section of the article be removed. Op-eds have no place being used as sources on Wikipedia, even op-eds written by academics and masquerading as academic work-product. The heavy use of moralistic terminology "misuse" "abuse" "obstructed" "undermining democracy" "constitutional norms" should be enough to can this section for absurdly transparent bias. I realize the editors on this site have a left-wing tilt but can you please try to control yourselves just a bit? This section of the article could theoretically be improved by the introduction of certain historical information that pre-dates say, 1992. I realize that's like going back to the Pleistocene for some of us, but please recall Cicero's words "To be ignorant of the world that existed before you were born is to remain forever a child."

Newt Gingrich did not, in fact, introduce the concept of inflammatory political rhetoric, and any attempt to suggest he made it worse in an objective measurable way is partisan special pleading: Orwell was observing as far back as the 1940s that the term fascist had already become a generic political insult. The first contested US presidential election between Adams and Jefferson featured accusations of hermaphroditism, and women burying their Bibles for fear Jefferson would somehow ban Christianity. Lyndon Johnson's insinuation during the election of 1964 that Barry Goldwater as president would mean America's children being incinerated in a nuclear inferno was I suppose in some sense, unprecedented. Did it signal the Democratic party "undermining democratic norms"? The examples could be multiplied a thousandfold. Much of the remainder of the section is nothing more than a series of political scientists being very very upset that Mitch McConnell is more effective as a legislative leader than they wish he was. The nonsense about Merrick Garland being treated in an "unprecedented" manner is in a sense technically true, but might be improved by some additional "unprecedented" events from slightly earlier history, to wit: The equally unprecedented series of bald-faced lies told by "Lion of the Senate" and vehicular manslaughter perpetrator Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D-MA) about Robert H. Bork during his confirmation hearings. The unprecedented practice of trying to deny Clarence Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court based on unproven and unprovable rumours that he engaged in such felonious conduct as making jokes about pubic hair and renting pornographic video tapes. The unprecedented discovery in 1973, by the Supreme Court, of a right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution. This event was unprecedented in the sense that a right to abortion can not actually be found anywhere in the text of the constitution itself and many people both with and without PhD's in political science believe that it was the cause of the treatment received by Bork, Thomas, Garland, et. al. Adding all this information listed above would make the section neutral, balanced, and factual, but would also turn Wikipedia into a political debating forum, which it was not meant to be. Thus I suggest the section be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.61.128 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you finished with your rant? You can't make changes to the article without sources supporting them. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Dimadick (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of “democracy” section

I’ve put an NPOV tag in this section. I have several issues with it: namely, the use of opinion pieces from left-leaning outlets as authoritative sources with no counterbalance, the conflation of the person opinion of political scientists with tested academic work, the lack of any dissenting or comparative views towards the other political party. I also question why we need an entire paragraph on how terrible Newt Gingrich is; this article is about the party, not one person, and so this would likely be better suited for the Newt Gingrich article. Toa Nidhiki05 16:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nearly every source in the section is either a peer-reviewed study or an assessment by a recognized expert. The section documents changes in the GOP from the 1990s onwards, and the political science literature has accurately identified Gingrich as a key actor in the transformation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Toa 100%. SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas this has controversy highlights one of the deep flaws that appears to be inherent in Wikipedia. We must rely on "reliable sources" by "recognized experts" which of course in practice means that any nonsense published by someone with an academic job can be passed off on this site. Hume's distinction between facts and values is of eternal relevance, and we should try to stick to the facts, even if political scientists rightly or wrongly believe they can do both. If Wikipedia had existed in the early 20th century I'm sure the website would have been infected with "reliable sources" written by all manner of special pleading pro-Eugenics "recognized experts". And dismissing what I wrote originally as a "rant"" without engaging with any of the obvious historical problems with the analysis presented by those "recognized experts" is the purest example of the argument from authority one can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.61.60 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I see that you have POV-ified this section in your typical fashion. It looks like you even lifted some of the material verbatim from your similar POV work on the Mitch McConnell page. I do not have the time or the inclination to attempt to correct the problem, as past experience indicates that you will simply revert and edit-war in response. So, I have renamed the section to reflect its actual content. SunCrow (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Climate change

The sources cited in this article document climate change denial by numerous Republicans (not some), and that this climate change denialism makes the GOP unique among Western political parties. I've therefore restored text which reflects what the sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:HoldingAces, your thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The official GOP platform does not deny climate change, it just underplays it as a national security issue and rejects most international agreements. Every GOP senator except one backed a resolution saying it is real. It's worth noting Republicans are part of the Climate Solutions Caucus. This might be better:

Republicans have opposed international policy measures on climate change like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement as well as national proposals like the Clean Power Plan, American Clean Energy and Security Act, and Green New Deal. Some Republicans reject the scientific consensus on climate change.

Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We stick to what reliable sources say, not how you interpret various documents produced by the GOP. As you can see in the source that you cited, even climate change deniers voted for that resolution, because climate change deniers also accept that the climate can change - they just reject the scientific consensus as to why the climate is changing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That was one Senator, James Infhoe (who is not even in Congress anymore) that said that. The fact remains that the Republican platform doesn't deny climate change. Toa Nidhiki05 01:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article at no point says that the Republican Party denies climate change in its platform, so what exactly is your point? We have a multitude of sources, including peer-reviewed sources documenting that the party and numerous party members deny climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just finished reading that Hill article that you linked to, and it's quite comical that you use it as evidence that the GOP supports the scientific consensus on climate change. According to the article, only FIVE (!) Republican members of the Senate supported an amendment saying that humans contribute significantly to climate change (i.e. the scientific consensus on climate), and at least one of those added qualifiers to that determination. Only 15 Republican Senators would support an amendment saying humans contribute to climate change (without the word "significantly"). The source that you yourself brought to bear supports the notion that this party denies climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Five supported a Democratic amendment due to concerns over the language. They all supported a similar amendment with the language removed. You still haven't established the Republican platform rejecting climate change. Toa Nidhiki05 02:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(1) Your own source shows that only five Republican Senators support the scientific consensus on climate change. But still you won't back out of this. Lame. (2) The article at no point makes any reference whatsoever to the Republican platform endorsing climate change denial, so it's completely irrelevant. We don't sift through primary sources like political platforms to substantiate Wikipedia articles, we use reliable sources. (3) You have just edit-warred long-standing content out the article, in violation of WP:BRD. Just because you personally disagree with what reliable sources say, that does not give you permission to unilaterally remove long-standing content. If the discussion concludes that the long-standing content should be removed, then it can be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't edit-warred anything. I made one reversion. This is your third, so I'd suggest you calm down, stop yelling, and stop reverting or else I'll have to report you.

And yes, the platform is relevant, because saying "The Republican Party rejects climate change" is factually incorrect. The platform, the party's policy program agreed upon at the 2016 Republican National Convention, does not deny climate change. That's an indisputable fact. The party has no control over what individual people believe, but all of their Senators except one acknowledged climate change exists in 2015. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Political platforms are not an accurate reflection of what parties stand for. There's a reason why we do not use political platforms or campaign websites as sources, but rather use reliable sources. The only RS that you brought to bear shows that only five Republican Senators would support language consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change. The last sentence in your comment is WP:DONTGETIT and not intellectually honest. And no, you are the one removing long-standing content in violation of WP:BRD. I am restoring the long-standing content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, the disputed content has now been reverted by a total of three different editors, and yet you have re-added it three times without waiting for this discussion to happen. Until you stop edit-warring, I don't think any other editors should even listen to or engage your arguments. (It's a waste of time anyway; experience has shown that you have no interest in reaching consensus.) You have pulled stunts like this more times than I can count. Knock it off. SunCrow (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever else the article says about climate issues, I believe it should include the 2015 U.S. Senate vote referenced above by Toa. SunCrow (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So you believe we should add text noting that only five Republican Senators accept the scientific consensus on climate change (i.e. that humans significantly contribute to climate change)? I'm entirely fine with that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. I added it. SunCrow (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the Fringe Theories noticeboard.[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but your addition to that page reads a lot like canvassing to promote your position. Toa Nidhiki05 13:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that this talk page discussion centers on whether the GOP endorses a fringe theory, it's entirely reasonable to ask for input on the fringe theory noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s fine to give notice. I did so at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. What’s not okay is explicitly saying people need to support your position. That’s canvassing and isn’t allowed. Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You are right, that would not be okay. That is probably the reason why Snooganssnoogans didn't do it. Can we please put this silly side quest to rest and concentrate on the matter at hand?

"Climate change denial" is generally defined as rejection of any part of the scientific consensus, including the reason why the climate is changing. There are enough reliable sources to support the statement that the GOP is anti-climate science, or full of climate change deniers. Snoogans is right, and his reverters are wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing the sentence because it is unsourced. In addition, unlike foreign political parties, U.S. parties have no mechanism for determining who joins or who gets expelled and exercise no ideological discipline even on elected members. So it is misleading to make sweeping statements such as that the GOP denies scientific consensus on climate change. It should also be pointed out that while center right parties outside the U.S. (not all of whom are conservative btw) accept the science, they don't actually do anything about climate change. The difference would seem to be that the U.S. is the only country where there are large numbers of people who don't accept science. TFD (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Which sentence is unsourced? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, we are talking about Snooganssnoogans original edit, which read: Unlike other conservative political parties in Western nations, the GOP denies the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.”

Let’s look at the NYmag article Snooganssnoogans provided for the edit. It states, “Indeed, the Republican Party stands alone in its conviction that no national or international response to climate change is needed.” We know that is false. See this, this, this, this and many more. In fact, even Vox acknowledges that “hardcore denialism of the ‘it’s a hoax’ variety has largely receded. . . [and moved] to the next line of defense: Yes, the climate is changing, but we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible.” For the same reasons, we now know that using the word “numerous” over “some” is incorrect, unless one is simply to trying to weasel their POV into the article.

Now Hob Gadling pointed out that “climate change denial” is “generally defined as rejection of any part of the scientific consensus, including the reason why the climate is changing.” So I expect to hear an argument that goes like this: The GOP says “we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible,” it is therefore engaging in a form of “climate change denial.” That would be correct if there was a scientific consensus on exactly how much humans contribute to climate change, but there is not—look at this graph which is accompanied by hyperlinks to the actual studies to see. Put plainly, there is significant variation in the estimates of human contribution to climate change. Therefore, the argument that the GOP “denies” climate change because they say they do not know how much of climate change is caused by humans is incorrect because the scientific community does not know exactly how much humans contribute to climate change; albeit, they agree it is “signficant.” If the GOP, as a whole, said that humans have not contributed to climate change at all, then it would be appropriate to call them deniers. But they have not said that.

Let’s all be honest. The GOP does not deny climate change exists. They do, however, largely oppose climate-change policies. They do that not because they don’t believe it exists, but because they are trying to protect oil companies and other large industries that contribute significantly to climate change. If you want to avoid this whole conversation spanning weeks (which I sure do), don’t attempt to take a cheap shot at the GOP’s intelligence when you have more than enough ammo (RSs) to challenge their motives. HoldingAces (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The sentence Unlike other conservative political parties in Western nations, the GOP denies the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.” has four cited sources, including two peer-reviewed studies, one of which states verbatim: "The U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change." Of course, disappointingly, the motives for the removal of the content have now been made clear, as the removing editors have espoused fringe views about the scientific consensus on climate change. The scientific consensus on climate is very simply that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. It is not that human activity contributes an unknown amount to climate change. Furthermore, the body of the article documents at great length that numerous Republican politicians reject the science on climate change, and that the GOP has changed since 2008 (I notice that you cite a source about McCain from 2008). I suggest you read the body of the article, which already documents a shift since 2008. Bizarrely, one of the editors edit-warring this content out of the article even inadvertently cited a source showing that only 5 Republican Senators support language consistent with the scientific consensus Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you did not twist my words and make a veiled accusation that I subscribe to “fringe views about the scientific consensus on climate change.” I never said that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change. I said there was variation in the scientific community’s estimates of human contribution. Suggesting that my stating the fact equates with a belief that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change is logically fallacious and dishonest.

But let’s looks at the “four sources.”

From the TIME article: “But it’s clear that more Republicans have realized that the topic isn’t going away. Forty-three Republicans have joined the Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group in the House meant to foster discussion on the issue. Right now the majority of its Republican members continue to oppose many meaningful climate measures, but they insist that climate change is real and that they want to do something about it.” I am not sure how this supports your edit?

Could you point to the content in “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism” where it says the GOP denies climate change? I cannot find anything.

Now, I cannot access the “More than Markets: A Comparative Study of Nine Conservative Parties on Climate Change” article, but the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Guardian state that the article’s conclusion is “that the US Republican Party stands alone in its rejection of the need to tackle climate change.” Could you point to something in this comparative study—other than the abstract—that says the GOP denies climate change?

And the NYMag article just cites to “More than Markets” article. HoldingAces (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence in the TIME article: "The Republican Party questions the science of climate change and the need to address it more than any other party in the Western world." As has already been made explicitly clear in this discussion, climate change deniers often accept that "climate change is real", they just refuse to attribute climate change to human activity. The POP study: "with increasing unanimity, Republican politicians rail against climate-change reforms and seek to undercut environmental regulations of all kinds. As Vox reporter David Roberts has detailed, popular views are not sufficient to explain why the U.S. Republican Party has become “the world’s only major climate-denialist party,” an outlier even compared to other conservative political parties worldwide". The other study states: "The U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You claimed that Republicans holding the view "we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible" was consistent with the scientific consensus. That's fringe nonsense. The scientific consensus is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is old stuff by this point ..must be some academic publications analysing this. -- 00:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The environment section cites several academic publications, including the pristine (2018) book "The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump" by Turner and Isenberg, and published by Harvard University Press. Here are some relevant bits from that book:

• "Trump’s environmental agenda put him in lockstep with many of his Republican contemporaries. By the time he announced his candidacy, his most extreme statements, such as his pledge to eliminate the EPA and his dismissal of climate science, had become familiar conservative talking points. " p. 2
• "Rohrabacher’s views were the product of decades of rightward movement in the Republican Party, which increasingly dismissed scien- tific expertise and saw in environmental policy an insidious political agenda that put global interests, not American interests, first." p. 2 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• "it was clear that to be a con- tender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, dismissing global warming had become an imperative—a sharp reversal from just four years before." p. 189 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It might also help to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing. Climate Change or (anthropogenic) Global Warming. Whether it's happening or not vs whether it's happening and there's little we can do about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Just in case anyone has lost track of what the argument is about, here is the text that is under dispute:

The Republican Party is unique in denying anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties across the Western world.

I recall that there has also been a dispute about whether a similar sentence should be included in the lede.

Also, please note that the article, in its current form, already contains a five-paragraph section that discusses the GOP position on climate change and other environmental issues in some depth (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Environmental_policies).

I do not see anything in the article that compares the GOP's position on ANY issue to the positions taken by conservative parties elsewhere in the world. Putting aside (for the moment) my concerns about the accuracy and neutrality of the disputed sentence, I ask: Why should the article compare the GOP's position on this one issue to the position taken by political parties in other nations? I would argue that it should not. Let's leave the article as it is. SunCrow (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, along with HoldingAces, I object to your dishonest characterization of the perspectives held by me and other editors regarding climate change. I have not expressed a viewpoint about climate change in my comments, so you have no idea what my views are and have no business characterizing them at all. Cut it out and focus on the topic at hand. SunCrow (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"I object to your dishonest characterization of the perspectives held by me and other editors regarding climate change." You and Toa Nidhiki05 are literally edit-warring long-standing content out of the article because you believe "climate change is real" is the same thing as "human-cause climate change is real". You and Toa Nidhiki05 have done this even though it's been explained repeatedly that these are different. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Didn't you people forget to delete the paragraph starting with "From 2008 to 2017, the Republican Party went from "debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist""? It pretty much says the same thing as the deleted one. It also has reliable sources, like the deleted one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Good question, Hob Gadling. The first sentence of that paragraph is a total crock, and is flatly contradicted by the 2015 vote referenced above (see https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230316-senate-votes-98-1-that-climate-change-is-real). I have removed that sentence. SunCrow (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My contribution was sarcasm. Perhaps I should have marked it as such.

Oh, I was well aware that it was sarcasm. But your question was still good. It was just unintentionally good. ;) SunCrow (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, climate change denial includes denial of "the reason why the climate is changing". The source you just gave says that the Republican senators rejected the "anthropogenic" part. So, yes, they are denialists. And you are denialism denialist. You are whitewashing the GOP's anti-science stance by removing the sourced statements in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Bologna. SunCrow (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. The objection of Republican senators to the Democratic amendment was not the “human” part, but the “significantly” part. In other words, they all agreed that it is caused by humans, they just objected to that specific language. Toa Nidhiki05 12:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that human activity contributes significantly to climate change. You've been informed of this repeatedly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

And no, not all Republicans agreed that it was caused by humans. That is a blatant and brazen lie. Per your own source, only 15 Republican Senators agreed that human activity played *some* role in climate change (note that the scientific consensus is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I am going to try and consolidate Snoogan’s and Gadling’s arguments and address them. Please, Snoogan or Gadling, if I mischaracterize your arguments, do not mention one, or otherwise misstate them, please let me know and know that it was not intentional.

(1) That Republicans say, “[W]e don’t know to what extent humans are responsible” is inconsistent with the scientific consensus and therefore amounts to denial of anthropogenic climate change.

I disagree with this assessment. Extent is “the area, length, or size of something.” And the question, “To what extent” means “how much.” Let’s do a quick example. But first let’s set up some parameters: (1) climate change denial is different from denial of anthropogenic climate change—the latter is the topic of our discussion, and (2) denial of anthropogenic climate change can take a number of different forms, including a flat-out denial that human activity contributes to climate change and a denial that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Here’s the example: Let say I believe that human activity contributes 20% to climate change and Snoogan believes human activity contributes 95%. That is a difference in “extent.” In other words, Snoogan and I disagree on the “size of [human contribution]” or “how much” human contribution affects climate change. Nevertheless, because—in this example—I say that human activity contributes only 20% to climate change, that makes me a denier of anthropogenic climate change under the definition provided above (that is, parameter (2)). But what if I believed that human activity contributes 91% to climate change and Snoogans believes it contributes 95% to climate change. Just as it was a difference in “extent” when I believed it was 20% and Snoogans believed it was 95%, so too here. My belief that human activity is 91% responsible for climate change and Snoogans’ belief (in this example) that it contributes to 95% is a difference in extent. The critical difference between this 91%-versus-95% scenario and the 20%-versus-95% scenario is that one cannot say that I am a denier of anthropogenic climate change because “primary” means “main” and surely my belief that human activity contributes 91% to climate change is a recognition that human activity is the “main” cause of climate change.

Now this leads to my conclusion. No source discussed thus far claims to define the “extent” to which the GOP believes human activity contributes to climate change. All that we have are sources saying that the GOP says it is unsure about the “extent.” This is critical because without knowing to what extent the GOP believes human activity contributes to climate change, you cannot—without assuming that whatever the GOP’s belief is, it is something less than human activity as the primary cause of climate change—conclude that they are deniers of anthropogenic climate change.

(2) Republican Senators voted not to pass a bill that said human activity has “significantly” contributed to climate change. That is a clear denial of “anthropogenic” climate change. (I will assume for this argument that “significant” and “primary” are in fact synonymous.)

I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, to equate the Senators’ vote not to pass the bill as an expression of their belief that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change is WP:SYNTH. That is, you must “combine material from [one or more] sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” Specifically, no source provided thus far says that the Republicans’ no vote was an expression of their belief that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change. Second—and this is implied in the first argument—a vote to not pass a bill does not necessarily mean that a senator disagrees with the merits or factual contentions in the bill. Here are some extreme examples, lets say the bill that had the word “significantly” comes back to the floor of the Senate, except this time, shortly before the Senate was about to vote, a Republican inserts a provision that reads, “Oh yeah, abortion is hereby and forever banned across the United States.” I think it is fair to say few, if any, Senators (especially the Democratic Senators) would vote for that bill. (FYI the insertion of absurd material into a bill to dissuade others from voting on it is known as a “poison pill” and it, unfortunately, happens quite often.) Another example of where a Senator’s vote does not necessarily reflect her beliefs is where a Senator believes that a bill should be passed but is threatened by lobbyists who say they will pull funding from the Senator if she votes to pass the bill. See this Atlantic article as an example.

But let’s look at a close-to-home example: Mitch McConnel’s effort to get the Senate to vote on the Green New Deal. Many news organizations have called out McConnel’s action, claiming that he is simply trying to undermine the Green New Deal’s vision—these sources are likely correct. McConnel knows that the bill is underdeveloped and plans to capitalize on that by forcing a vote, knowing that many Democrats will not vote to pass it because, although those Senators believe the bill’s goals are good, they think it needs to be developed through committee hearings, expert testimony, and a true national debate. Here are some sources NPR, E&E, and NYT. Now I don’t think anyone could seriously argue that because the Democratic Senators who do not vote to pass that bill out of concerns that the bill is underdeveloped do not support the Green New Deal’s efforts. All of these examples are just to illustrate one point: A “no” vote does not necessarily mean the Senators disagree with the factual assertions a bill makes or the bill’s concerns.

I believe, based on our discussion and the sources provided, there is strong support for a sentence that reads: The GOP acknowledges that anthropogenic climate change exists, although some GOP representatives are unsure about the extent to which human activity contributes to climate change. HoldingAces (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:HoldingAces: Item (1), parameter (1) is already wrong. Read the article Climate change denial, and you will learn that the term, just as I have been saying, and just as Snoogans has been saying, includes denial of "the extent to which it is caused by humans". Of course, every measurement has error bars, but this goes far beyond them. Your thought experiment is beside the point, and you should just have read the article Climate change denial instead of armchair philosophizing (or original research, if you prefer that term).

Item (2) is also irrelevant. We already have enough reliable sources saying that the GOP is a hotbed of science denial. Original research is not needed for the sentences you people removed, since the sources for those sentences were deleted together with them.

"The GOP acknowledges that anthropogenic climate change exists" is exactly the whitewashing I am talking about. That phrase - "to acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change exists" is one of the talking points of denialists. See Climate change denial#Taxonomy of climate change denial, items 3 and 4 in the "six stages of denial".

All this shows that you people have fallen for at least part of the denialists' propaganda. You hold fringe views about what climate change denial is and about the consensus within the scientific community about the amount of climate change that is anthropogenic. So, User:SunCrow's accusation "I object to your dishonest characterization of the perspectives held by me and other editors regarding climate change" was plain wrong.

You probably did not know that your views are fringe, because you live in a Republican echo chamber and because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Nonetheless, the article should not be based on your mistaken ideas about those aspects of climate science. Instead, it should be based on reliable sources. The way it was before the deletions, for example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I did not know I had fringe views and lived in a Republican echo chamber. Thank you for enlightening me! LOL. SunCrow (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, are you related to User:Snooganssnoogans? SunCrow (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We are both science-oriented and do not like pseudoscience. To people who get their information from fake news sources, we may look very similar, but almost any other skeptic would also look the same.

So you have run out of justifications that at least seem to be related to the matter at hand? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Enough vitriol, please. I incorrectly phrased what I was trying to say with parameter (1). All I meant was that there is a conceptual difference between one who says there is no such thing as climate change and one who says that climate change is not, or not primarily, caused by human activity. That both of these concepts would fall under the “climate-change denialism” is not a fact I disagree with, which should be evident from my comments above. All that I was trying to do with parameter (1) was to clarify that we are talking about the claim that the GOP denies anthropogenic climate change and not a claim that the GOP denies climate change is occurring. That’s it, nothing more.

I am neither “armchair philosophizing” nor performing any OR.

With (1), I was simply trying to get you to realize that you are assuming the Republicans believe that human activity is not a primary contributor to climate change when they say they’re unsure “to what extent humans are responsible.” I provided the 20%-91%-95% examples to highlight exactly where in your logic you make that assumption—an assumption you reaffirmed when you state, "Of course, every measurement has error bars, but this goes far beyond them."

With (2), I again used examples to illustrate how the idea that Republicans voting “no” on a bill does not necessarily mean they disagree with the bill’s substance, and that to conclude otherwise would require sources that explore the motivations for those votes—the sources have not been provided. HoldingAces (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

However, I do think you're right that my suggested sentence would be improper. Sorry about that. I've stricken it. HoldingAces (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything like that. Yes, the wording "to what extent humans are responsible" can be interpreted like that. But if this was about the difference between 91% and 95%, nobody would be talking about it. Who cares about a few percentage points? The only reason why a political party would make such a statement is that the differences in extent between their view and the view of climate science are huge. The wording is an attempt to deny it's man-made, while keeping face for the eventuality that the voters find out who is right.

And yes, there could be another reason for voting no. Republican politicians are (besides free-market think tanks and the fossil-fuel industry that finances them) one of the most important forces of climate-change denial, but somehow they may have voted no on a cliamte-change resolution for another, unfathomable reason. All these talking points are just exploitation of loopholes in logic and language.

And why would politicians believe they had the competence to contradict virtually an entire scientific field anyway? Dunning-Kruger again.

But all that is beside the point. I said it before, and will repeat it in a clearer way:

• Nobody wants to do original research and draw conclusions from the sources that are in the article now, to the statements that have been deleted.
• Instead, we want the statements that have been deleted to be sourced to the sources that have been deleted.

This is about the deletions from the Environmental policies paragraph in this difference [6]. For example,

From 2008 to 2017, the Republican Party went from "debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist", according to The New York Times. In 2011, "more than half of the Republicans in the House and three-quarters of Republican senators" said "that the threat of global warming, as a man-made and highly threatening phenomenon, is at best an exaggeration and at worst an utter 'hoax'", according to Judith Warner writing in The New York Times Magazine. In 2014, more than 55% of congressional Republicans were climate change deniers, according to NBC News.

References

turned into

"According to the Center for American Progress, a non-profit liberal advocacy group", more than 55% of congressional Republicans were climate change deniers.

So, the fact that the percentage came from a survey disappeared, and the source changed from a highly reliable newspaper to some "liberal advocacy group". So it's probably just some number made up from scratch by activists with sinister intent, and does not reflect reality. And all the other stuff that emphasizes the GOP's growing distance from science and reality has disappeared entirely. It is as if this were just a difference of opinion between Republicans and "liberals", when it is actually virtually the whole of science, plus most of the non-US world, on the other side.

So, is there any justification for that removal? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Read my edit summary. I removed the NYT source because it’s an opinion piece and not remotely a reliable source of fact. On top of that, citing it to The New York Times instead of the author is extremely misleading and improper. The content was removed because it wasn’t actually the news site making the claim - they were citing the Center for American Progress, an ideologically-driven progressive advocacy group. Rather than cite this source three times and drag its claims out, I reduced it to one source and gave proper attribution to the source (CAP, which is indisputably a liberal advocacy group). As for the PolitiFact report, I again gave actual context to what the source said, which is they only found 8 that agreed - not that only 8 Republicans in Congress agreed. By their own admission, many Congressmen haven’t taken an explicit stance on the issue.

I’m not actually sure you understand how sourcing works here if you think what I removed deserved to stay. Toa Nidhiki05 12:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate why you believe the NYT article to be an opinion piece? It's not marked as opinion by the newspaper itself and there is no other disclaimer on it that would lead me to believe that. Regards SoWhy 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to hear that too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, the 91%-to-95% was just an example. But I agree that reasonable people would not care about a few percentage points, but we are not talking about reasonable people. We’re talking about US politics and its related news coverage. And they will nitpick facts, and they will talk about it. Here’s an example. Politfact ran an article in which they analyzed Trump’s claim that “[o]ne in three women is sexually assaulted on the dangerous journey north” (i.e., 33%). Politicfact concluded that Trump’s claim was only “half true” because “[a] 2017 report from Doctors Without Borders said 31.4 percent of women had been sexually abused during their transit through Mexico.” (Emphasis added.)

Further, as WP editors (required to follow WP policy, including WP:VERIFY), we are not in a position to interpret the GOP statement that they are unsure “to what extent humans are responsible” as an implicit acknowledgement that they do not think human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Similarly, we cannot say the statement shows that the GOP does think human activity is a primary contributor. (This is exactly why I conceded that my suggested edit above was improper.)

You acknowledge that “there could be another reasons for voting no” but maintain that the idea that “they may have voted no on a climate-change resolution for another . . . reason” is “unfathomable.” Reasonable as your assessment may be, we cannot impute our experience or knowledge on a topic into an article’s contents. See WP:VERIFY (“[C]ontent is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors.”).

To quickly address your beside-the-point statement: I do not think the GOP is necessarily suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. They often cite their inability to meaningfully assess the evidence while dodging the topic, saying things like, “I am not a scientist.”

Now I move on to your two bullets points: (1) “Nobody wants to do original research and draw conclusions from the sources that are in the article now, to the statements that have been deleted,” and (2) “Instead, we want the statements that have been deleted to be sourced to the sources that have been deleted.”

First bullet: I agree that nobody wants to do original research and draw conclusions from the sources that are in the article now, but no one said that about the sources currently in the article.

In a previous comment, I noted, “even Vox acknowledges that ‘hardcore denialism of the it’s a hoax variety has largely receded. . . [and moved] to the next line of defense: Yes, the climate is changing, but we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible.’” Snoogans replied to that comment, explaining “The scientific consensus on climate is very simply that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. It is not that human activity contributes an unknown amount to climate change.” It was this comment that sparked the to-what-extent-humans-are-responsible discussion. Since then, I have been trying to show that the argument—that the Republicans do not believe human activity is a primary contributor because they say they’re unsure about the extent of human contribution—is logically unsound.

Similarly, Snoogans also commented, “Bizarrely, one of the editors edit-warring this content out of the article even inadvertently cited a source showing that only 5 Republican Senators support language consistent with the scientific consensus” This led to me explaining why a “no” vote does not necessarily equate with disagreement with the contents of the bill.

Second bullet: The original edit by Snoogans—which read [t]he Republican Party is unique in denying anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties across the Western world—was supported by four sources. Those were as follows: (1) “More than Markets: A Comparative Study of Nine Conservative Parties on Climate Change” (2015); (2) “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism” (2016); (3) a NYMag article; and (4) a TIME article. Let’s take a look at them. The “More than Markets” article contains the following sentence in its abstract: “The U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change.” This article presents an excellent example of why abstracts should rarely be quoted—they do not always accurately represent the claims made in the article. Fortunately, I got a hold of this article. What this article did was compare conservative parties from nine different countries “to address two questions. First, to what extent do conservative parties treat climate change as a serious issue? And second, is it possible to find a common conservative approach to the issue of climate change . . . .” (Bastrand, 2015, 540). With respect to the GOP, Bastrand (the article’s author) expressed his finding this way:

Following the critical approach to climate politics, the party does not promote new measures. Quite the contrary, the party opposes emissions trading in the form of cap and trade legislation without referring explicitly to climate change. The party seems to treat climate change as a nonissue, and hence skirts the need for any measures, either based on state or market initiatives. This appears to be consistent with the U.S. national context as a country with large reserves of coal. (Citation omitted.)

This conclusion is a far cry from the claim in the abstract.

What’s more, the article performed its analysis by comparing “the manifestos of nine conservative parties.” (Emphasis added.) For the GOP, it used the 2012 Republican Platform. (Bastrand, 2015, 546). And the conclusion quoted above was based solely on the following statement in the 2012 Republican Platform: "We also call on Congress to take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations that will harm the nation’s economy and threaten millions of jobs over the next quarter century. (Republican Party 2012, 19)"

That statement is no longer in the Republican Party platform. See here. So, if what Snoogans says is true—that “Political platforms are not an accurate reflection of what the parties stand for"—then the source he provided is worthless. Nevertheless, the fact remains: “More than Markets” is no longer current and therefore cannot support a claim that the GOP is currently the only party “across the Western world” that “den[ies] anthropogenic climate change.”

Let’s look at the next article, “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism.” This article similarly does not support the original edit. The article’s primary concern is to explain, in its view, why the Republican party’s “far-right lunge” does not seem to match the desires and opinions of its base. (Skocpol, Hertel-Fernandez, 2016, 681). The entire article’s purpose is encapsulated in the final paragraph of its introduction: “As we will show, the rise of the Koch network may help explain the increasingly-extreme economic positions espoused by most GOP candidates and officeholders.” In other words, although it does attempt to describe why the GOP opposes Democratic climate-change policies (i.e., because of the recent and far-reaching involvement of the Koch network), it has nothing to do with whether the GOP denies anthropogenic climate change.

Nevertheless, in the introduction, while describing its purpose, it does state: “As Vox reporter David Roberts has detailed, popular views are not sufficient to explain why the U.S. Republican Party has become ‘the world’s only major climate-denialist party,’ an outlier even compared to other conservative political parties worldwide.” Notice it states “climate-denialist party, which could easily be understood to mean climate-[policy]-denialist party” as that it one focus of the article. But that’s not the main problem with this.

More problematic is the Vox article written by Roberts that is cited by the Koch article. In that Vox piece, Roberts cites to NYMag to support his “only major climate-denialist party” claim. This is the same NYMag article that Snoogans provided as source for his original edit. And guess what that NYMag article cites to. You guessed right, the “More than Markets” study by Sondre Batstrand. Accordingly, the “Koch” article and the NYMag article fail to support the original edit for the same reasons the “More than Markets” study does.

Finally, the last source provided for the original edit: the TIME article. Just read it. There’s nothing in there approaching a claim that GOP is unique in denying anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties across the Western world.

Bottom line: The sources provided for the original edit fall short of carrying their burden. HoldingAces (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)