Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Remove "Centrism" from the ideology list?

It is no secret that the modern Republican Party is rapidly abandoning centrism as an ideology--even the few remaining moderate Republicans are far more neoconservative than centrist. In light of this, I am seeking consensus to remove centrism from the ideology list. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there are still centrist Republicans, although I agree they are rapidly leaving the party and are much reduced in influence. Potentially moving them down the list to denote their decreased influence could be warranted assuming it could be backed up with RS? BootsED (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems logical. DN (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This non-American says that, by global standards, NO Republican person or policy could be considered a centrist. Democrats get closer, but a lot of them a bit far to the right too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Centrist should be retained. It may not be a part of the party that gets much press these days but I don't see evidence that it simply doesn't exist any more than "centrist" Democrats don't exist. Springee (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

TFD makes a very salient point (below). "Moderate" would seem a more appropriate term. The 2019 citation in the info box refers to Republican Main Street Partnership. The website which lists current caucus members can also be found here.

According to sources the partnership was dissolved in 2019 and reformed in 2021.

I understand we say what RS says, but this citation about RMSP caucus members and "moderates" seems to be given UNDUE weight as it doesn't really discuss "the moderate faction of the GOP" other than the demise of RMSP, unless I missed it somewhere. Am I overlooking some expertise in the opinion of the author, Susan Davis?

I realize my own personal observations here are OR/SYNTH, but I must point out that "moderate" RMSP members (former and current) have also sometimes propagated, enabled or downplayed far-right/conspiratorial rhetoric and tendencies, such as Elise Stefanik, Roger Marshall and Guy Reschenthaler.

I would also note that some of the reps listed on the Republican Main Street Partnership wiki page are no longer in office, as well as the fact that a number of them initially refused to certify the 2020 election results, such as Dan Meuser and Bill Johnson (Ohio politician), who recently resigned. No offense to any editors working on that page, their work is much appreciated.

The number of Republicans that came to be known as the Sedition Caucus was 147, and then only 35 out of 211 republicans voted to approve legislation to establish the January 6, 2021 commission to examine the event in which some of them came face to face with a violent mob and still continued to double down...

"The votes to reject the election results have become a badge of honor within the party, in some cases even a requirement for advancement, as doubts about the election have come to define what it means to be a Trump Republican. The most far-reaching of Mr. Trump’s ploys to overturn his defeat, the objections to the Electoral College results by so many House Republicans did more than any lawsuit, speech or rally to engrave in party orthodoxy the myth of a stolen election. Their actions that day legitimized Mr. Trump’s refusal to concede, gave new life to his claims of conspiracy and fraud and lent institutional weight to doubts about the central ritual of American democracy." NYT 2022...

So, while we must still acknowledge the history of the moderate faction some changes need to be made. Moderates were on shaky ground over 10 years ago, and most experts seem to agree they have only diminished. If we are to keep asserting any claim that moderates still constitute any significance in the current "post-Bush" GOP party dynamic we need other/better sources, otherwise it seems like it needs to be be removed from prominence in the infobox.

• Peter Plympton Smith via NYT 2022 Over the last 30 years, the Republican Party has effectively eliminated its moderate and liberal voices as well as the conservative voices that put country over party. The consequences of this takeover by an increasingly right-wing faction include the threats to democracy that have become increasingly prominent since the Jan. 6 riots... There is little room left in the G.O.P. for any disagreement."
• Glenn C. Altschuler via The Hill 2022 "As the Republican National Committee voted to censure Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) for voting to impeach President Trump and joining the House Select Committee investigating the assault on the U.S. Capitol, RNC chair Ronna McDaniel maintained, “Disagreement in our party is welcome. It makes us great. We can have a big tent." In practice, however, Reagan’s 11th Commandment — “Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican” — is a dead letter. Since the 1980s, the Republican and Democratic parties have become more ideologically homogeneous. But partisan polarization has been asymmetrical."
• Heather Cox Richardson via PBS 2023 "Yes. But let’s start with what you just said, the idea that for the speaker of the house, who is a Republican, to work with Democrats who, of course, represent their constituents, to keep the government open is somehow something that makes him in his own conference be unpopular. That is completely antithetical to the way the government was always supposed to work. So, from the beginning, we’re in a really unusual moment. One of the things that I study, of course, is what’s happened to the Republican Party. And one of the things I like to emphasize is this is not your mother’s Republican Party. It has become an extremist faction that has within its goals to get rid of the kind of government under which we have lived since 1933."
• Reihan Salam via Foreign Affairs 2012 "After the Republicans gave in to Democratic and popular demands that the payroll tax cut be extended, Obama experienced an immediate surge in his approval ratings. Conservative Republicans and their Tea Party supporters were chastened by this defeat, and the Tea Party’s grip on the GOP shows some signs of loosening. But moderate Republicanism will not return as a bonafide movement anytime soon, despite the efforts of right-of-center public intellectuals such as David Frum and David Brooks (commentator)..."There is no doubt that a reliance on antigovernment rhetoric has created a troubling vacuum at the heart of the conservative project. The Tea Party movement and its rejectionism now define public perceptions of the post-Bush Republican Party. Moderate Republicans may no longer exist, but their legacy persists, and conservative Republicans will need to recapture the moderates’ creativity and problem-solving impulses if they ever hope to take power, hold on to it, and govern effectively."

Cheers. DN (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples I brought this up last year (see here). The issue with the current sourcing is that the one source in the side bar talks about how the moderate faction has broken down. The "Moderate Republicans" section only mentions that moderate Republicans generally exist, and names a few. There's no mention of them even qualifying as a faction. Considering the rightward shift that the GOP has done in recent years, I think it's appropriate to question whether they still exist as an actual action/party wing. Cortador (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The Republican Party is a big tent party in the American two party system. Same as the Democratic Party. We should leave centrist in the inbox as it is definitely a faction as outlined in the article. Completely Random Guy (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources say that the centrist faction of the party has ceased to exist, there is nothing to discuss. It needs to stay in. MonMothma (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to amend my previous comment. I don't care whether we include centrism or moderate Republicanism in the ideology list as long as one of them is included. MonMothma (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Moderate Republicanism isn't centrism by any standard other than what some commentators within the USA might say. The rest of the world sees it as well to the right of centre. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Political articles use the right/left spectrum of that country, not the average of the western world. Also the rest of the world is the not the west. PackMecEng (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A big tent party, or catch-all party, is a term used in reference to a political party having members covering a broad spectrum of beliefs. What sources say this about the current Republican Party? DN (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove. Centrism isn't an ideology, it's a position in the political spectrum. That can vary depending on where left and right happen to be. TFD (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus

I'm proposing to change "loosening gun laws" to a) "protecting gun rights", because the first phrase more sounds like POV pushing, since even progressive Vox calls it "protecting gun rights". b) either to "opposing restrictions on gun possession and sales" https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/5/28/23145600/uvalde-school-shooting-republicans-defend-gun-rights-nra-convention Udehbwuh (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

To me, as a non-American, "gun rights" sounds extremely POV. Remeber that this is a global encyclopaedia. "Loosening gun laws" just sounds like sloppy language. Maybe you need to be a lot more specific with what you mean. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's two different things. GOP wants to loosen existing gun laws, and it also wants to protect a particular view of the 2nd Amendment. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the headline? The subject of the citation doesn't seem to be about the republican party as much as the NRA, Ted Cruz and Trump, however, in the paragraph right above the section titled "Controversy over the gathering is the latest to hit the NRA" it says...

• "In 2020, a study in the Journal of Public Economics found that state-level responses following mass shootings heavily tilted toward loosening, not tightening, gun regulations. As the authors wrote: “In states with Republican-controlled legislatures, a mass shooting roughly doubles the number of laws enacted that loosen gun restrictions in the year following the incident.

DN (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"loosening, not tightening, gun regulations" I have read news articles about the topic in Daily Kos for years. So what? Mass shootings are also connected to temporarily increases in the sales of firearms. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of cited context in the Far Right sub-section

Udehbwuh has removed context cited by Joe Feagin from his most recent book. The context appears in chapter 3 "Manufacturing White Racism, Ignorance, and Fear" (abstract:Here Feagin highlights how the contemporary white conservative and Republican Party turn toward more overt white supremacist framing and actions is not new, for it has its origins in the 1950s–1960s white suburbs of metropolitan areas.) Do we need to debate whether or not the far-right faction of the Republican party supports white supremacy, or is this somehow different from the Radical right (United States)? Until this is resolved I feel it is a possible NPOV violation to leave it out, so hopefully a banner will help encourage more discussion. Cheers. DN (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The book doesn't say, that (far right) Republicans support white supremacism. I have nothing against the source, it's valid and reliable. But saying, that Republicans support white supremacism is baseless, it doesn't appear in the book Udehbwuh (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"But saying, that Republicans support white supremacism is baseless" - That's not what it said.

The context was... "The Republican far-right faction supports white supremacism."

See the difference?

Perhaps we need some clarification in regard to what constitutes the far-right factions of the Republican party, however, I am fairly certain the far-right (regardless of party) seems to support white supremacy. Events such as the Unite the Right rally seem indicative of this aspect. According to the SPLC, "The white nationalist movement has been greatly aided by the continued radicalization of the GOP, exhibited by the party’s embrace of racist concepts like the “great replacement,” vilification of immigrants, attacks on reproductive care and demonization of queer and trans people."

If you remain unconvinced, perhaps wait for others to chime in, or check with the WP:TEAHOUSE

Cheers. DN (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I know, that the discussion here is about far-right faction, and under "Republicans' I mean the far-right faction. But still, the book doesn't say, that the far-right faction supports white supremacism. And white nationalism and white supremacy are different things. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"white nationalism and white supremacy are different things." How different exactly? Setting Joe Feagin's book aside, let's look at yet another example. Namely, the America First Political Action Conference. Would you say some of the Republican attendees at this event qualify as members of the Republican far-right faction? DN (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, being far-right and supporting white supremacy are different things. Not all far-right politians support white supremacy. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Where did it ever say "all far-right politians support white supremacy"?

Please point it out to us. DN (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you also familiar with the Proud Boys? DN (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up Proud Boys is meaningless, as this organization has been condemned by all mainstream political parties and news outlets. And it isn't aligned with the Republican Party Udehbwuh (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Really?... DN (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I will repeat it again, proud boys isn't aligned with the Republican Party. No party officials voiced support for the organization and multiple of them condemned it. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Repetition does not equal clarity, as far as I'm aware. DN (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No party officials voiced support for the organization... except, of course, Donald Trump, the last GOP president. Cortador (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In the 2020 presidential debate, as far as I know, he told proud boys "stand back and stand by". And by the way, the discussion here is about, whether the far-right faction supports white supremacy. There is no point in talking about proud boys. They aren't even related to the topic Udehbwuh (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If there's no point in talking about them, why do you talk about the Proud Boys then? Cortador (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

it's not me started talking about them, as you can see Udehbwuh (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you join the conversation then? Cortador (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't clog the talk page with unnecessary discussions Udehbwuh (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you join the discussion about the Proud Boys if you seem it unnecessary? Cortador (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I was asked, whether I know Proud Boys, and I answered the question. I didn't intent to engage in an unnecessary debate. That's why I proposed to stop this discussion Udehbwuh (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The book states: "Far-right Republican politicians in Congress - very disproportionally white and male - rarely will compromise on major legislative matters with moderate and liberal Democratic Party politicians. Their mostly white voter base often penalizes them for departing from an arch-conservative "party line". Indeed, these politically and racially extremist Republicans have often been backed or featured in the conservative talk radio and television commentary programs. This intentional, and frequently profitable, political polarization has resulted in the near extinction of moderate Republicans and has brought about legislative paralysis or arch-conservative legislative domination at numerous local, state, and federal government levels of the past few decades."

I'd call "racially extremist Republicans" which are also predominantly white and have a likewise predominantly white voter base "white supremacists", but I'm willing to call them "white racially extremists" instead. Cortador (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Calling them "white supremacists" and claiming that they support white supremacism is an original research. Udehbwuh (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? Cortador (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. With all these loaded terms, it is probably best to stick to direct quotes. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Loaded according to whom? Cortador (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Me. Or at least, how I interpret the rules. ([1]) Instead of all this pointless bickering, why not quote directly from RS? That's the best solution to these kinds of disputes. Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing contentious about far-right politicians being white supremacists. Cortador (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As long as you provide reliable sources for that claim, which you haven't Udehbwuh (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Cortador. I believe including an attribution to Feagin would also be appropriate, so that can be reapplied into the Far-right subsection in some manner. DN (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, considering how hellbent some editors here are on erasing that information. Cortador (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a good cut to me. That absolutely is a statement that needs lots of context. Part of the issue is the statement is presented as an absolute. While I'm sure some of the far right republicans are white supremists, claiming all are is an issue. Given the absolutist nature of the claim this absolutely needs multiple reliable sources. Per ONUS this should be out until better sourcing and consensus has been established. Springee (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't see a reason for the NPOV tag. Springee (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

So you disagree that no mention of White supremacy in a section about the far right faction of the Republican party seems like a pretty big omission? DN (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll need reliable sources for that claim. There is no information in the book, that would confirm far-right factions "supports" white supremacy Udehbwuh (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the book is probably just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but that's just my opinion. DN (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I can put together an RfC... Something like this?

• "Does the far-right faction of the Republican party support white supremacy?"

Short and sweet. DN (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That wouldn't be an appropriate RfC since you haven't provided the supporting sources nor provided some sort of evidence how widely this view is supported by a range of historians (not just ones on the left). Springee (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In hindsight, a more appropriate question might be closer to...

• "Are there elements/politicians within the far-right faction of the Republican party that appeal to white supremacy?"

DN (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a good question. As a parallel, consider this sort of misleading question. "Is there an element of the far-left Democrats that appeal to freeloaders who just don't want to pay back their student loans?" The implication in that example quote is that the Democrats are deliberately appealing to undesirable traits in order to buy votes. Your question suggests something similar with respect to white supremacy. That isn't to say a white supremist wouldn't find something appealing in say a "close the boarder" policy. However, the problem is deciding if the policy is meant to appeal to the racists or if it's meant to address what many view as a problem. Does fixing the roads appeal to the racists or to others as well? Springee (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a rhetorical question, and makes engaging with you seem absolutely pointless. DN (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

DN, I'm not trying to question your good faith in this discussion. I'm saying the problem with that question is it asks, in effect, do the WS people like this. The more relevant question would be, is this a demographic the GOP is actively chasing. The question has an association fallacy built in. As this is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't use the language of persuasion. Rather we should be clinical in how we present things. Sadly, many of the sources we tend to use are not. Springee (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Which historians "on the left"? You are using weasel words here to dilute the issue. Cortador (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be ducking the comment I made. Springee (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Which historians "on the left"? Cortador (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You are taking a generalized statement and trying to turn it into something it wasn't meant to be. Are you suggesting that no historians/political scholars have left/right biases? Your comment suggests as much but I doubt you really believe such a view. Springee (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Which historians "on the left"? Cortador (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in feeding your red herring. Springee (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Then bring some less weasly than "leftist historians" as a reason to exclude content from the article. The onus is on you to do that. Cortador (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason for excluding that part is an impossibility to verify that information, because it simply doesn't exist in the provided source Udehbwuh (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Every time I do, you curiously stop replying - likely because you know that you don't have a case. Cortador (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I stop replying from time to time because I have other things to do? That's firstly. Secondly , you still haven't provided any reliable sources, that would confirm your claim. You stated as a fact, that the far-right faction of Republicans "support whir supremacy", though there is nothing in your book, that would confirm this. And again, "racially extremist" doesn't necessarily mean white supremacists. It's your interpretation, that you're trying so hard to push. Udehbwuh (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And yet you have time to write this reply. But to get back on topic: What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? This is the fourth time you will dodge that question. Cortador (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No matter, what I will answer. It won't change anything Udehbwuh (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Predictably, you still can't answer the question. Cortador (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell us what you think is the difference or if you think they are the same. Asking the same question over and over is not going anywhere and is becoming disruptive. If you think people don't know the answer to your question just stare as much and then tell us why you think it matters. Springee (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You are the one advocating the removal of cited content from the article, and have repeatedly failed to justify why, and likewise failed to gain consensus for the removal. The burden is in you, yet you have nothing to offer but weasel words ("leftist historians"), and as soon as your flimsy reasoning faces scrutiny, you accuse others of being disruptive. Cortador (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You've been told multiple times, why that part has been removed. There is simply nothing in that book, that would confirm your unsubstantiated claim. What do you want us to prove? The absence of something, that doesn't exist? Udehbwuh (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have provided you with the part of the book that supports my claim, and you have repeatedly failed to explain why, in your eyes, it doesn't do so, with your latest excuse being that you don't have enough time to reply. Cortador (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you to read this: WP:Verify Udehbwuh (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Which historians "on the left"? Cortador (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I will suggest you to read this WP:Verify. It's impossible to verify your bold claim, that more looks like an original research Udehbwuh (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have verified it, and weasly claims that the author of that book is too left won't change that. Cortador (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You're just pushing your own interpretation, that is impossible to verify Udehbwuh (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? This is the third time I'm asking you that, and every time I do, you can't answer the question. Cortador (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If they are the same thing, which you seem to imply, why have two terms? Why use the term the source didn't use? But that doesn't get to the issue of DUE or even if the source supports what was put in the Wiki article if, for argument sake, we say the terms are identical in meaning. Springee (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks you likewise are unable to tell me what distinguishes the two terms. Cortador (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Just looking at what comes up with an initial 5 minute search...

• 1.Armed Conflict Location and Event Data ProjectCurrent trends suggest that these efforts — while failing to achieve significant electoral victories for the Republican party during the midterms — have indeed been effective in spurring widespread mobilization: far-right activity2 is on track to be higher again this year than it was last year,3 even as the landscape of far-right actors has continued to become more defined as fewer distinct groups have remained active (see figure below).
• 2.New Haven University
• 3.SagePub Journal
• 4.The New Republic"Trump’s racial signaling, which was magnified by luminaries in his circle, such as Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, and Stephen Miller, emboldened a new, openly racist alt-right movement that sought to extend and radicalize the new administration’s tendencies in this direction." "Trump remains the far right’s leading figure, commanding a devoted following and remaining the center of news coverage. The most popular focus of grassroots political work in 2023 was attacking LGBTQ+ issues, with a particular concentration on transgender rights. The main organization driving these actions is Moms for Liberty, which was founded in 2021 and has since grown to 285 chapters."
• 5.AP News
• 6.Axios"A growing number of elected Republicans are openly promoting "white replacement theory."
• 7.Chicago Tribune"The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it “legitimate political discourse,” formally rebuking two lawmakers in the party who have been most outspoken in condemning the deadly riot and the role of former President Donald Trump in spreading the election lies that fueled it. The party’s far-right flank has been agitating to boot Cheney and Kinzinger out of the House Republican Conference for months, a push that Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, has tried to brush aside. And their formal censure is sure to stir up those efforts again."
• 8.ABCRosenthal told ABC News that there are various "manifestations" of this ideology across the spectrum of the right in the U.S., but that in recent years those expressions have become more "explicit" and have "assumed rhetorical predominance" in the Republican Party. "The magnitude of how much replacement theory has infiltrated [the] spectrum of the right in this country is something we haven't seen before," he added. "It had immense resonance on the right here and around the world," Rosenthal said, explaining that fear of and hostility toward non-white immigrants was a rallying cry of the Tea Party movement and was espoused by politicians like 2012 Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. The notion of "replacement theory" was prevalent in the U.S. as early as the 1920s, according to Rosenthal and was embraced by the fringes of the far-right for decades. But the rise of former President Donald Trump in recent years propelled the theory into mainstream U.S. politics, according to some experts (FiveThirtyEight)
• 9.NBC GOP leaders in the House and the Senate on Monday denounced a pair of far-right Trump allies — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. — for speaking at a gathering of white nationalists in Florida over the weekend.
• 10.The HillEarlier this week, ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sent a letter to Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) urging Republicans to join him and his fellow Democrats in denouncing “white nationalism and white supremacy in all its forms, including the ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory.”
• 11.Washington Monthly"We’re using standard social science methods, drawing on Marcon’s national polling data and questions that we designed. Depending on the question examined, nearly half of Republicans signal support for the Great Replacement theory and for prioritizing a white national identity. What I’ve found, though, is that conspiracy theories are more common on the American right due to the Republican Party’s mainstreaming of them."
• 12.The Guardian"Many far-right candidates have no direct links to violent extremist groups, but do support a range of far-right views. Fringe political candidates are a part of every US election cycle, but while these 2022 candidates hold far-right views they are also part of a wave within the Republican party that is no longer fringe but increasingly represents a powerful – even dominant – wing in the party. “The real danger is not just the wave of extreme candidates, it’s their embrace, their mainstreaming by the Republican party,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and the co-author of How Democracies Die." The “great replacement” theory describes a supposed elite conspiracy to change the demographics of America, replacing and disempowering white people – and their influence – with people of color, immigrants and Muslims. In recent years the lie has gone from far-right fringe to Republican party mainstream. But anyone hoping that Buffalo would break the fever looks set to be disappointed. On the contrary, critics say, Republicans will probably intensify their racist rhetoric to prey on fears and energise supporters for the midterm elections, increasing the likelihood of more Buffalo-style violence. (GRCT) "Born from far-right nationalism, the extremist ideology expounding the view that immigration will ultimately destroy white values and western civilization has found favor not only with media figures, such as the conservative Fox News host Tucker Carlson, but a host of elected politicians and others seeking office. The effect of the backlash against US politicians promoting the theory following the Buffalo attack remains to be seen."
• 13.Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor"Not only have white supremacists largely averted being disrupted or even investigated, but they also have had the comfort of seeing their racial fantasies expounded through the bully pulpit of Donald Trump and the wider mouthpiece of the Republican Party."
• 14.Cas Mudde
• 15.Max Boot
• 16.Diane Roberts
• 17.Carol Anderson
• 18.Ibram X. Kendi"Instead of combatting white supremacists, the Republican Party has harbored white supremacists, has mainstreamed their mantra that anti-racism is antiwhite, and has embraced a president who has called them “very fine people,” has told this growing army on national television to “stand back and stand by,” has incited them to attack the Capitol, has defended their carnage, and has urged the American people to move on from the greatest domestic terrorist threat of our time. This Republican Party is not the party of any group of parents, but the party of white supremacy."
• 19.AljazeeraWhile Cas Mudde, author of The Far Right in America, sees no “cause for concern” in the candidacies of Jones and Nehlen, he said they nonetheless “reflects how the current GOP [Republican Party] is perceived by far-right activists, including anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. They don’t necessarily see the GOP as sharing their views, but they do believe the base is open to them.” Explaining that although the shift taking place within the Republican Party started before Trump’s rise, he argued that it accelerated upon Trump taking office." Spencer Sunshine, an associate fellow at Political Research Associates who follows white nationalist movements, explained that the “ideas of the alt-right are now part of the GOP”. “Clearly, the policies of the Trumpists in the GOP are what’s driving this,” he told Al Jazeera. “Trump has made them interested in going into the GOP. Two years ago (2016), white nationalists were not interested in doing so.”While experts have said the ideology underpinning the conspiracy is not new, nor is it confined to the US, they have warned in the aftermath of the killings in Buffalo that the “great replacement” theory now holds a prominent place in mainstream discourse. That is thanks to right-wing politicians, including former President Donald Trump, and popular commentators such as Fox News host Tucker Carlson, repeatedly spreading ideas that lie at the heart of the theory, said Kurt Braddock, an assistant professor in the school of communications at American University in Washington, DC. “[Trump] used a lot of different kinds of rhetoric that demonized immigrants and really, it echoed a lot of the same kinds of ideas that you hear in the ‘great replacement’ theory,” Braddock told Al Jazeera. “It’s been brought into the mainstream by the ascension of a populist right wing that has weaponized rhetoric around immigration, and [is] weaponizing fear around the idea that white America is being replaced,” he said. “And then normalized by being discussed as though it is a true fact.” “A common way of spinning it is to say: ‘Oh it’s a conspiracy to bring in new voters who will be obedient Democrats and undermine the voting power of real Americans,'” said Gorski (a sociology and religious studies professor at Yale University). “That’s the version of it that Tucker Carlson often disseminates and it’s also a version that a lot of Republican politicians like Elise Stefanik or Marjorie Taylor Greene or Matt Gaetz have been disseminating."
• 20.SPLCRepublican politicians now mingle freely with members of the organized white nationalist movement and employ their rhetoric more freely than at any other time in recent American history. At the forefront of this mobilization is Moms for Liberty, a Florida-based group with vast connections to the GOP that this year the SPLC designated as an extremist group.This group of Republicans also embrace lies and conspiracy theories to spin away what happened that day (J6). Repeatedly, such high-profile Trump backers as Tucker Carlson have opted to further stoke the feelings of paranoia and bitterness that undergirded the attack, rather than work to calm the tensions of a nation in turmoil. “What happened today will be used by the people taking power to justify stripping you of the rights you were born with as an American,” Carlson told his audience...The tenor of rhetoric like this and the infusion of once fringe, white supremacist ideas into mainstream discourse has raised alarm within Southern Poverty Law Center. "The extreme far-right margins of the political spectrum broke into the mainstream of the Republican Party when Trump first ran for president, and Jan. 6 appears to have pushed that trend further along the path of extremism. Six years ago, the Republicans treated Trump and his extremist adviser Stephen Miller as a sideshow. Today, a significant number of mainstream Republicans continue to fall in line behind Trump, even after his supporters called for the execution of his vice president while roaming the halls of Congress." “My job … is to keep pushing things further. We, because nobody else will, have to push the envelope. And we’re gonna get called names. We’re gonna get called racist, sexist, antisemitic, bigoted, whatever. … When the party is where we are two years later, we’re not gonna get the credit for the ideas that become popular. But that’s okay. That’s our job. We are the right-wing flank of the Republican Party. And if we didn’t exist, the Republican Party would be falling backwards all the time,” Fuentes said."
• 21.WaPoIn the primaries, the former president (Trump) backed far-right candidates, propelling them past more-moderate alternatives, who then lost in the general election."The relationship between the Republican Party and the far right had long been a complicated push and pull, in which white-supremacist and anti-communist groups help build right-wing movements only to be marginalized once the GOP was in power. But now Trump’s presidency has brought the fringe into the mainstream."While Donald Trump’s presidency was the fillip, this fundamental change is the culmination of three decades of dynamic interaction among white supremacists, far-right organizations and populists within the Republican Party. Across these years, party insurgents enlisted the energy and ideas of radicals outside the system to ignite and direct the passions and resentments of White Christian voters inside it. Their success depended on the ability of activists to provoke racial resentments without openly embracing white supremacy.""Last December, the Associated Press and NORC conducted a large national poll examining conspiratorial ideas including this one. They found that nearly half of Republicans agree to at least some extent with the idea that there’s a deliberate intent to “replace” native-born Americans with immigrants.""An expanding body of research by psychologists, economists and political scientists suggests that voters' racial biases help the GOP win elections, and critics say the party is capitalizing on that fact. Though researchers haven't settled how successful dog-whistle politics are at tapping into those prejudices, some believe that race will become more, not less important in the party's future campaigns."
• 22.Business InsiderAfter Trump's comments during the Tuesday night debate, far right groups took to social media to celebrate, and experts on extremism warned that the president essentially just helped the Proud Boys recruit. Rita Katz, the executive director of SITE intelligence Group, which tracks far-right groups, told the Washington Post that Trump "legitimized" the Proud Boys in a way that "nobody in the community expected."
• 23.Wired
• 24.PoliticoThe House GOP has so far confronted no large-scale blowback from Gosar’s speech to the America First Political Action Conference, or from other incidents that link a few of its members to far-right imagery or rhetoric. But some fear that if the conference — which just ushered in a historically diverse freshman class — doesn’t stomp out those political brush fires now, there’s a risk they will spread and engulf the party.
• 25.Mark PitcavageThe American far right is not a monolith but a convoluted landscape encompassing an array of movements and causes. White supremacy is an important feature of that landscape, but hardly the only one. Indeed, when one examines right-wing terrorism in the United States, white supremacist attacks and plots make up only a plurality (43%) of such incidents.Some of the Republican campaigns denied that their statements amounted to replacement theory, but among the experts, there is little question. Five experts on hate speech who reviewed the Republican candidates’ comments confirmed that they promote the baseless racist theory, even though the Republicans don’t mention race directly. Indeed, a mainstream interpretation of replacement theory in the U.S. baselessly suggests Democrats are encouraging immigration from Latin America so more like-minded potential voters replace “traditional” Americans, says Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism.
• 26.HeraldTribune(Florida)Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a Proud Boy and other far right individuals were sworn in Thursday as members of the Sarasota GOP’s executive committee, giving them votes in party matters and setting the stage for a possible shift in local GOP leadership toward a more extreme approach.
• 27.USA Today
• 28.Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United StatesIn Republican politics, the idea – if not the exact language – of the "great replacement" has been woven into the campaigns against Democrats.
• 29.ProPublica
• James Allsup
• Mark Finchem
• Steve King
• Wendy Rogers (politician)
• Janice McGeachin
• 30.The Nation Walsh, currently a postdoctoral associate at the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism, is part of a cutting-edge cohort of scholars who reject the traditional view that there is a strong distinction between mainstream conservatism and the far right. Rather, the emerging research on the right documents a long history of porous boundaries, with respectable elected officials and mainstream pundits repeatedly working with figures on fringe, including Nazis.
• 31.ADL"In January 2022, the ADL Center on Extremism identified more than 100 right-wing extremists running for elected office nationwide, and warned that these candidates had the potential to shift the Overton Window -- what is considered “normal” or “acceptable” in political and social discourse."
• 32.FortuneThe majority of the Republican Party’s stance against an investigation into the full scope of the Jan. 6 attack, including the members of the GOP involved, both upholds the concept of white supremacy and blatantly disrespects democracy. The Republican Party’s refusal to support a bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol signals the GOP’s full embrace of the white nationalist platform. However, as I discuss in my book Homegrown Hate, based on more than a decade of research, the Republican Party’s worldview of white supremacy and an exclusive claim to what it means to be American have long been part of its strategy to assert political control.
• 33.LA TimesTrump’s groundbreaking 2016 presidential campaign energized far-right groups as he made harsh attacks on immigrants, Muslims, liberals and the idea of America as a collaborative participant in international diplomacy and trade. He embraced what are sometimes called “white grievance” politics, attracting large numbers of white voters, most frequently men, who believed that they themselves had been the victims of racial discrimination. As The Times reported in 2016, David Duke, a former Klan grand wizard, declared that “the fact that Donald Trump’s doing so well, it proves that I’m winning.” Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, who called for a separate white nation, said, “Before Trump, our identity ideas, national ideas, they had no place to go.” Andrew Anglin, operator of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, said, “Virtually every alt-right Nazi I know is volunteering for the Trump campaign.”
• 34.NPR"From there, the conspiracy theories migrated toward progressively less fringe conservative media platforms, said Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO and national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "We have literally watched as ideas that originate on white supremacist message boards, or like the dark web – the places that are very difficult to get to – move," said Greenblatt. "They literally jump to [internet message boards like] 4chan and 8chan, which are much more accessible, [then] they jump to web sites like The Daily Caller or Breitbart, and then they jump to Tucker Carlson's talking points or Laura Ingraham's talking points, or other AM radio DJs' talking points. And then you have theoretically mainstream Republican politicians repeating some of this stuff."
• 35.Time magazine
• 36.Council on Foreign Relations"In fact, in the post-Trump era, Republican politicians are just as frequently targeted by conspiracy theories and hateful rhetoric spread by the violent far right as more typical victims on the political left. As scholars Colin P. Clarke and Tim Wilson write, for the modern violent far-right in its interactions with its own party, “disagreement is akin to treachery and violence can have a cleansing effect.”
• 37.Kathleen Belew(WaPo)(You write that white power groups were heavily present in the Jan. 6 mob. Is it fair to say parts of the movement see Trump and Jan. 6 as carrying forward their own war to overturn the U.S. government, in service of a vision of a global Aryan nation?) "The movement saw that as a stunning act of propaganda. We saw upticks in recruitment drives. And the lack of condemnation of those events by the mainstream Republican Party really showed these activists that there is plenty more space for them in our political process." (Right now, we’re seeing a version of this. Numerous 2024 GOP rivals to Trump are declining to condemn his dinner with Fuentes. That’s another white power propaganda victory.) "I think that is a significant and different step forward for the white power movement. It’s not just one person, it’s not just this cult of personality thing, it’s not just the Trump administration. That says the white power movement has become a permanent force within the GOP in some sense. It’s important enough an ideological current that other candidates won’t or can’t distance themselves." (You’ve argued that in our public narrative, the Oklahoma City bombing has been purged of its white-supremacist motives. I wonder if something similar is happening with Jan. 6 and the role of white power ideology in driving the insurrection.) "Absolutely. Although the white power activists there were highly organized, had a plan to breach the building and were leading the charge, the fact that they spurred the event — and then used the event — is missing from our reckoning with it. This is the part that the Jan. 6 committee needed to more forcefully articulate. The broader social problem of the white power movement is a threat to targeted populations, to our infrastructure, and to our electoral system and self-rule." (If anything, the Fuentes dinner shows that the insurrection — as underpinned by white power ideology to some degree — is continuing.) "The fact that other candidates aren’t condemning it is a new and alarming escalation."
• 38. Bart Bonikowski (Harvard Gazette)Society in general has seen these groups as fringe and reasonably contained, but not everyone has that experience. African-Americans are often confronted with explicit forms of white supremacy from these kinds of movements, but also more subtle and passive forms of it in everyday life. So it’s probably more of a surprise to the general public than it is to certain communities that have been targeted in the past. The other thing is, my research suggests that Trump’s ability to capture the Republican Party in the primary was partly a result of a tension between cultural cleavages based on popular conceptions of national identity in the U.S. These cleavages are partly about who gets to be a legitimate American. Trump’s rise to power is a result of the successful mobilization of ethnonationalist forms of American identity. If that’s the case, it’s not all that surprising that the most extremist movements would be capitalizing on these developments during his presidency. At the same time, what the current moment might produce is a stronger reaction against President Trump’s discourse among Congressional Republicans, among people who have otherwise been willing to turn a blind eye to his previous norm violations. Fortunately, at least some people draw a sharp moral line when it comes to the KKK and white supremacy. Unfortunately, not everyone has been vocal about this, but a number of Republicans have. And so, there’s hope that as a consequence of these events, there will be a greater willingness to censure the president in the future. But again, as we’ve seen in the past couple of months, this all too often consists of little more than statements of dissatisfaction and concern, but no concrete action. (NYT's Thomas B. Edsall) Ethnonationalist Trump supporters want to return to a past when white men saw themselves as the core of America and minorities and women “knew their place.” Because doing so requires the upending of the social order, many are prepared to pursue extreme measures, including racial violence and insurrection. What makes their actions all the more dangerous is a self-righteous belief — reinforced by the president, the Republican Party, and right-wing conspiracy peddlers — that they are on the correct side of history as the true defenders of democracy, even as their actions undermine its core institutions and threaten its stability.

DN (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Please be careful with keyword news searches. That some reporter who may not be careful in their usage of "far-right" etc seems to generally support this isn't sufficient. This is meant to be a high level, zoomed out discussion of the GOP, not a case of trying to find all the dirt and pretending that represents the whole. Also, we need to be careful with things like the material described by The Hill. Political gamesmanship shouldn't be used to suggest a party is for/against something in general. This is the sort of thing that should only be added to the article after we have had historical hindsight and historical debate about what the various facts mean. Springee (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We had a scholarly opinion from Joe Feagin, and that apparently isn't good enough for you either. Please be careful not to keep moving the goal post around. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Scholars don't all agree. Presenting this as a given fact vs a claim one/some scholars requires a much higher standard of sourcing. Springee (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wich Scholars? Cortador (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, why you are desperate to put white supremacy "support" in the far-right Republicans subsection. But the scholarly opinion doesn't confirm, that they support white supremacism. I've said that many times Udehbwuh (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I'm not asking that we say "all far-right faction" members of the GOP support white supremacy. Not at all. My problem is that, as it currently stands, there is no mention of it, and apparently, you and Springee think that's somehow an improvement. Seems like a blatant NPOV violation to me, considering the prevalence of RS to the contrary. DN (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we have any direct examples of this support? Not political traps like those described by The Hill, but solid examples. Springee (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to do some more cite digging and try to avoid engaging for a while...I'm not trying to say all far right republicans support white supremacy, certainly there are extremists on both sides of the aisle, but it seems wrong to try and omit any mention of them, no matter their party affiliation. DN (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

See the book quote above. Cortador (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I did. It doesn't support the statement that was removed from the article. Springee (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. What do you think white racial extremist are? Cortador (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your question is a red herring. Springee (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Would it not be reasonable to make improvements by adding attribution to Feagin and changing the wording to more accurately reflect the context? Otherwise removing such a source seems problematic when it's the only mention on the subject, and in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. DN (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This presumes that Feagin's views are due. Remember, this is a very big topic thus we always need to take a zoomed out view. If we were talking about the WW2 article we would talk about battles in north Africa but it's far less likely we would discuss the actions of any particular enlisted soldier even if that soldier earned a VC or MOH. Springee (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you think white racial extremist are? Cortador (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What is your definition? Since you are going to ask perhaps you can propose a definition and we can decide if we agree. I will suggest that the definition is probably not a clear line. Springee (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you think white racial extremist are? Evidently the term isn't good enough to support my additions to the article, so state your reason why. Cortador (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing in the book, that would confirm support of white supremacy by far-right factions. "racially extremist" doesn't necessarily mean white supremacist. Udehbwuh (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

But the if we ask a red herring question enough perhaps the text of the book will change to support the removed text. Springee (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What distinguishes white racial extremists from white supremacists? I've already asked you that above. Cortador (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a very good question. Is it the same as trying to ascribe a difference between White nationalism and White supremacy? They are overlapping themes, so that seems a futile hair to split. DN (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

:Still in none of these articles it is said, that far-right Republicans support white supremacy.

1. the article is about a candidate who lost the primary

2. visited the event, no information, that the far-right faction supports white supremacy

3. no information, that the far-right faction supports white supremacy

4. for clarity: having links to white supremacists does not mean supporting and endorsing them

5. Another article is about two candidates, who lost the primary

6. The article is about some white supremacists attending events dedicated to white supremacy, no mention of the far-right faction supporting white supremacy

7.communist and qanon conspiracy theories, which trump promoted, some far-right white supremacy figures of the past. Still fails to confirm support of white supremacy by the Republican Party.

8. The whole article is about trump, doesn't even mention Congressional Republicans

9.once again, fails to confirm support of white supremacy by any Republicans

10.the whole document mentions neither Republicans, not Democrats.

11. The article doesn't even mention white supremacy or white nationalism

I suggest you to read your own references, before posting them here. None of these sources proves support of white supremacy by far-right Republicans Udehbwuh (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your dismissive comments all fail to address the elephant in the room. DN (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You've added a lot of sources but as Udehbwuh suggests they don't support the sentence in question. Would you mind quoting the passages you think support the sentence for each of those sources? Also, which of those are OP-Ed/commentary? I ask because at least the Fortune article appears to be (additionally that author has no other articles published in Fortune). Including the material you feel is supporting the claim helps others review it and if the source is paywalled, at least have an idea what is said. I would also note that sources like the SPLC and The Nation are probably not good sources for such claims. Yes, we can use biased sources but with care, especially when crossing the line between reporting factual claims and reporting their analysis/of evidence. Springee (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So one of the common themes here is this... Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States. The sources in the list I provided above are mostly from professors and academics, not "journalists". DN (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources you provided are journalistic articles. Some of them don't even mention the Republican Party and white supremacy at all. I suppose, you read your own references before posting them here, but most of them have no relation to our topic Udehbwuh (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt you've read them. DN (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So the SPLC is not a reliable source for what exactly? We are talking about racism, are we not? DN (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Fortune article appeared to be written by Dr. Sara Kamali, the author of Homegrown Hate. There's plenty of better sources, that article just seemed relative and it was easy to find. DN (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Fortune isn't rated (reliable or not) AFAIK, but that doesn't make it unreliable. The Nation IS rated as a reliable source, however the writer, Jeet Heer, is mostly known as a journalist and author. DN (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, Joe Feagin is an acceptable source in your view and Udehbwuh's, correct? DN (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The book appears to be published in 2023. Do you have any reviews to show his claims are supported by at least a consensus of scholars? Not just that some agree, that a wide range of scholars with a range of backgrounds would agree. That is one of the big problems with a topic as widely discussed as a major US political party. Many things have been said about the GOP. However, if we are going to report them here it needs to be something that is widely accepted by scholars across the board. If you recall our discussion at the Southern Strategy despite some sources treating the topic as basically fact, you presented a source that made it clear that scholars don't all agree on what happened. This is likely to be another such case. A big issue is what counts as true supporting "white supremacists" vs things that are characterized as such by people who are politically opposed but may also be supported for non-white supremacists reasons. Proponents of school bussing back in the day would often present those who opposed it as racists (and certainly some opponents were) but many opposed for practical reasons. Opposition to large demographic changes can be presented by supporters of the change as "Great preplacement" racism but such opposition may be based on issues other than racism etc. If we are going to include a claim that this block of the GOP is in favor of white supremacy (or what ever term we want to use) then it needs to be rock solid support, not a gray area that sources treat as negative because it supports their conclusions. Springee (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require academic sources to come with reviews of said sources, or the source to align with any number of other scholars of any specific background.Those are requirements entirely fabricated by you.

You are making up things to exclude Feagin's book as a source from this article, and I suggest you stop your disruptive behaviour now. Cortador (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Bring a source, that would confirm your claim then, or stop your disruptive behavior. Though you've been told multiple times, that Feagin's book can't be used for that claim, you still keep insisting on the opposite. Udehbwuh (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done so. You have repeatedly failed to explain why you consider the source unsuitable. Cortador (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up previous discussions from other articles here seems highly inappropriate on your part. I'm not going to mention what you tried to do at that article here, because I'm not trying to stifle the debate on the subject at hand in regard to THIS article. Moving on, you haven't answered my question as to why you believe the SPLC is not a reliable source in this case. Here's an excerpt from one of their 2022 articles. It was written by Cassie P. Miller and Caleb Kieffer, if that matters to you.

• "Hate groups, extremist activists, and one of our country’s major political parties have become increasingly intertwined since Donald Trump’s presidency began. Republican politicians now mingle freely with members of the organized white nationalist movement and employ their rhetoric more freely than at any other time in recent American history."
• "Indeed, 2022 began with a member of Congress speaking at a white nationalist event. In February, hard-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., was a featured speaker at the America First Political Action Conference hosted by Nick Fuentes, one of the country’s most prominent white nationalists and an outspoken antisemite who has repeatedly praised Hitler. Rep. Paul Gosar, R.-Ariz., Arizona Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Ariz., and Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin all prerecorded speeches that were played at the event."

DN (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that a source you provided stated that scholars aren't in agreement about the topic. I'm not sure why you think that's an issue. As for the SPLC, they are, quite literally, in the business of manufacturing controversy to generate donations. Springee (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to strike your first sentence. DN (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Why? A source you provided did say scholars aren't in agreement on that topic. Springee (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The SPLC is a generally reliable source as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources. If you doubt that, you are free to start a discussion on it and seek consensus to change that. There have been 19 such discussions already, but hey, maybe your will change the consensus. Cortador (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

RSP also says it's an advocacy organization and it's views should often be treated as RSOPINION rather than fact. Springee (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You are shifting the goalposts. Above you claimed that SPLC's interests are commercial ("in the business of manufacturing controversy to generate donation"), and now that you can't claim they are "not good sources" because Wikipedia consensus goes against that, you shift to "but it's just opinions". Cortador (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Opinions from academics and scholars that understand the subject are typically notable and have WP:WEIGHT. DN (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've told you why on your talk page. This is beneath you. DN (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. To be clear, nothing I've said here or there impugns your civility or good faith at either article. Springee (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The main problem here is, that the book doesn't support @Cortador's claim. Udehbwuh (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m on mobile for the weekend so I can’t do this, but just dropping a note that Udehbwuh has been confirmed as a sock so all of their comments can be disregarded/struck. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That is unfortunate as their comments here have been spot on. Please note that I will endorse most of what they have said and if needed will copy the comments so they aren't lost to a strike through. Springee (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Cortador (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm endorsing restoring the source objections that were struck above. While the editor may have been a sock, their comments were spot on. Darknipples, as you continue to edit the list, please make sure you don't change the order of the references. If you want to remove one please strike it out. Other editors have referenced those citations and changing the order can disrupt their answers. I'm still time limited but I will go through the list as many seem like they are either strongly biased (which may impact their analysis), basically opinion/op-ed or don't support the claim in question that the GOP supports white supremacy.

1. the article is about a candidate who lost the primary

2. visited the event, no information, that the far-right faction supports white supremacy

3. no information, that the far-right faction supports white supremacy

4. for clarity: having links to white supremacists does not mean supporting and endorsing them

5. Another article is about two candidates, who lost the primary

6. The article is about some white supremacists attending events dedicated to white supremacy, no mention of the far-right faction supporting white supremacy

7.communist and qanon conspiracy theories, which trump promoted, some far-right white supremacy figures of the past. Still fails to confirm support of white supremacy by the Republican Party.

8. The whole article is about trump, doesn't even mention Congressional Republicans

9.once again, fails to confirm support of white supremacy by any Republicans

10.the whole document mentions neither Republicans, not Democrats.

11. The article doesn't even mention white supremacy or white nationalism

Springee (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have since re-numbered the citations CAT. Apologies for any changes and inconvenience, feel free to reorganize these responses if necessary. DN (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done my best to limit opinion articles to academics, scholars, and those with otherwise notable opinions on the subject of US sociology etc... for WP:WEIGHT. DN (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

I think the best thing to do at this point is include an attribution to Feagin and more closely reflect the language he used, ie "racial extremists", in order to obtain consensus, for now. I don't endorse generalizing all far right republican politicians as endorsing white supremacy, however there are plenty of sources stating that many are endorsing the white supremacist conspiracy theory of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States. Agreed? DN (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about elsewhere/earlier in this. Direct quotes (especially attributed) are probably the best way to handle something like this. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

At most this needs to be an attributed quote. However, I'm still very concerned about how much (if any) weight this claim should get. Looking at the list of sources (many just so-so), it appears most of this comes down to some GOP members talking about GRCT adjacent ideas. The GOP members seem to be saying they think the Democrats are pushing for more immigration as they feel it will shift voting demographics. That idea certainly is compatible with the GRCT but it's not the same. The idea that Democrats would favor immigration with the expectation it would help them at the poles is hardly a new idea. It's easy to find news articles from a decade or more in the past that basically state as much. For example, Politico, [2], "The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily." If we are going to include claims of supporting GRCT then I would hope we could explain what is different now vs a decade back when something similar wasn't considered a conspiracy theory. Absent this clear path between clear claim of racism and the facts at hand I don't think this should be included as it comes off as current day partisanship rather than impartial, hindsight evaluation. In effect these claims should wait until they are hindsight evaluations and other historians have had a chance to review them. Springee (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Your source doesn't mention GRCT, or any conspiracy theory. Cortador (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You are right, that is exactly the point. The idea that the Democrats have an incentive allow more immigrants in because it helps them at the polls isn't new or controversial or a new. However, in many of the sources that DN provided the authors, not the GOP politicians, are the ones who make the leap from an old, non-controversial idea to a conspiracy theory. It's powerful political rhetoric when you can take a long understood and accepted idea (Democrats favor all types of immigration as it helps them at the polls) and turn it into a racist conspiracy theory (unamed powerful people are doing this to make the population less white). This is why we're should take the long term view of this rather than following RECENT reporting. This is especially true since the book in question is less than a year old. Who is trip say if it will have staying power. Springee (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you dismiss sources because you don't agree what the authors state, you are just doing original research. Cortador (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Nobody has brought forward arguments why this information shouldn't be included. We've had repeated claims above that the book doesn't support the statement, yet after providing a quote and asking five times why it supposedly doesn't, I have yet to receive an answer. Cortador (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is the proposed quote mentioned earlier...

• "Indeed, these politically and racially extremist Republicans have often been backed or featured in the conservative talk radio and television commentary programs. This intentional, and frequently profitable, political polarization has resulted in the near extinction of moderate Republicans and has brought about legislative paralysis or arch-conservative legislative domination at numerous local, state, and federal government levels of the past few decades." - Joe Feagin

DN (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we use GRCT as a lead in. We have nearly 40 reliably sourced citations, some from scholars and academics. I couldn't care less if anyone here considers them "so-so"...but we should aspire to find consensus, regardless. DN (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's not something the politicians are claiming and when 3rd party sources are using it they are conflating a long accepted idea, Democrats are immigration as helping them at the polls, with someone racist that the GOP politicians aren't actually saying. We are supposed to be impartial. Putting GRCT in the lead is absolutely not. Springee (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A "lead-in"...not "in the lead". DN (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to post a longer reply but the short version is do we have any sources that show The GOP as a whole is actually referencing the GRCT? I've seen a number of sources that say "politician X said something that is like the GRCT" or a reporter brings up the GRCT but in the cases I've seen it's the media that draws the parallel. Additionally, I've found at least a few sources that note that noting a demographic change isn't what makes it the GRCT. It's tying that change to a cabal doing this for racist reasons. Do we have examples of politicians doing that? It also appears that most of the media discussion of this topic started after a mass shooting manifesto was published. It's not clear that GOP politicians, especially those at the national level are the source of the GOP support claims. (Apologies for any typos, this is a phone entry) Springee (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, not liking the answer isn't the same as not receiving an answer. Springee (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You never gave an answer. Cortador (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. Sounds like a reasonable compromise for well-sourced material that is clearly WP:DUE. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that this author is considered to be a leader in his field of research? The book has been cited 1 time per Google Scholar [3]. That hardly establishes it as a weighty volume. Springee (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't require the author to be a "leader in his field of research". This is ahoop you made up. Cortador (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I support this as well. I'll go through the sources DN provided an see which ones are best-suited. Cortador (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added some excerpts for everyone to see. DN (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples Using the list you kindly provided, I'd say that these sources are best to back up statements I think should be included in the articles:

1. Trump's election has strengthened the GOP's far right faction: 4,19,33

2. The party's far-right (former) fringe is becoming increasingly established: 5,8,12,20,31

3. GRCT is promoted by an increasing number of GOP officials and members. This could also be included in another part of the article: 6,8,11,23,25,28,34

4. There is opposition to the party's shift towards the right fringe from elements within the GOP: 9,10,21.36

5. Parts of the GOP do not share the views of far-righters or white nationalists, but do not oppose them either: 19,20

There are a lot of sources backing the mainstreaming of the GRCT in the GOP. I think this should be in a separate section, as justified by the amount of material. Cortador (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Seems reasonable.

2. I would include this as a generally attributed opinion.

3. I oppose this. The long reply is something I'm working on as well as a reply to many of the sources. The short version is almost all GRCT accusations are made when the accuser conflates the long standing, uncontroversial view that Democrats benefit from open immigration policies, with the racist idea that the intent is to replace white people etc. The sources I've reviewed don't show that the GOP examples actually claim the "replace white people" etc parts of the GRCT. Instead the typical line is that what the GOP said is similar to, or echos etc the GRCT. Some of the sources make it clear that the GRCT has to have this racist element and not all people understand what all is included. In this regard it's similar to Cultural Marxism where some who use the term aren't intending the racist historical aspects.

4. Seems reasonable.

5. This might need some detailed review of the sources.

Note that so much of this is political commentary/writer's assessment/opinions. As such it should be presented not as historical fact but as contemporary claims. Springee (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree attributions may be needed, but something I haven't found are dissenting views (from authoritative figures such as academics) that GRCT is not promoted by an increasing number of GOP officials or becoming a more mainstream view of the GOP. Since you oppose this, please provide some sources that show this. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

"uncontroversial view that Democrats benefit from open immigration policies" Why is that "uncontroversial" or somehow the mainstream consensus? What sources show that Democrat immigration policies have benefited them politically? There is anti-immigrant sentiment on the left as well, as far as I'm aware. DN (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it is mainstream consensus or not....but the sources are numerous on this issue: "Some political commentators even see an inevitable demise of the GOP in the long-run, as first-generation immigrants become more numerous and vote for the Democrats. In our paper, we confirm this prediction by showing that, on average, immigration to the US has a significant and negative impact on the Republican vote share. [4] See also: [5], [6], [7]Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with GOP politicians promoting the GRCT? Cortador (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing that...I was responding to DN's question "What sources show that Democrat immigration policies have benefited them politically?"Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

They weren't talking about that, I went a bit off topic, apologies. DN (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Back to the subject of GRCT, I see the importance of discerning GOP talking points that focus on "replacement" rather than "demographic changes"...The scholarly consensus seems to point towards language being used by the "mainstream" GOP in the sense that the Far-Right, ie Trump's base, has essentially taken control of the party to a degree in their view, at least for the time being. I'm not sure I agree with them, but my opinion on that is seemingly irrelevant.

Rja13ww33, I appreciate the sources, thank you. As you stated, there is data that suggests immigration might be bad for the GOP in the long run, but issue has also helped GOP, Trump possibly being a prime example. Not that you have implied this, it's just that the idea that naturalized immigrants are some kind of monolith, that will always vote Democrat seems about as accurate as saying all Far Right Republicans are white supremacists.

• "Some political commentators even see an inevitable demise of the GOP in the long-run, as first-generation immigrants become more numerous and vote for the Democrats." - Such as who? Tucker Carlson? Who they are talking about, and what exactly they are saying, seems pretty important in this context, since Carlson was mentioned multiple times as being a primary proponent of GRCT.
• CEPR "Immigration is an important election issue that often benefits right-wing political parties."
• "In the US, the media and political analysts have focused mainly on the direct effect, pointing out the potential adverse impact that migrants can have on the electoral success of the Republican Party, as immigrants seem more likely to vote for the Democratic Party." - AFAIK Immigrants can't vote until they become naturalized, this process typically takes over a year. FWIW the Center for Economic and Policy Research seems to be a left leaning think tank.
• "The political returns of making undocumented immigration a salient issue, however, may be limited. According to our calculations the non-citizen immigrant share is high enough to help Republican votes only in a handful of states."
• Polling data I have no doubt that immigrants are viewed more favorably on the left than on the right, but I'm looking for something in terms of the political benefits. Correct me if I'm off base, but the subject of immigration policy seems much more of a motivation for voter turn out on the right.
• Jstor "Alternatively, prior political interests and experiences may be transferable to life in America, actually facilitating incorporation into the American party system. For example, Bruce Cain, Roderick Kiewiet, and Carole Uhlaner (1991) find that refugees from formerly communist nations wound up predominantly as Republicans, attracted to that party as more vigorously anticommunist than the Democrats." - "Historical data shows that Trump tends to perform better with Latino voters during economic stress." The Guardian "Republican front-runner Donald Trump appears to be gaining significant ground against President Joe Biden among Latino voters, according to new CNBC survey data." CNBC
• NBER "The impact of immigration on Republican votes in the House is negative when the share of naturalized migrants in the voting population increases. Yet, it can be positive when the share of non-citizen migrants out of the population goes up and the size of migration makes it a salient policy issue in voters' minds."

DN (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If we got off-topic than I suggest we drop it. I wasn't giving sources/trying to comment on the GRCT in my reply. Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as off topic. Many of the sources that accuse the GOP of pushing/promoting/etc the GRCT either are offering opinions on what they think the GOP member is saying or they fail to explain why what the GOP member is saying is different than the long standing claims (widely supported) regarding the Democrats being open on immigration because it favors the Democrats over the long term. If we are going to include this as "true" vs an attributed claim then it's important to explain why the current version is different than the claims from years back. Note, I've been looking this material up but it takes a while. It's easy to do an inclusive keyword search but much harder to find the disputing sources as most of the GRCT claims started after a shooting/manifesto in 2022. Springee (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

We could save time by simply referring to the currently existing article, which has this context currently in WP:WIKIVOICE. There seems to be quite a few more references there, which would seem to easily apply to this debate, but if you want to explore it further by all means take your time. Otherwise, I'm fine with finding some version of this that we can all agree on...

• "The theory has received a strong amount of support in many sectors of the Republican Party. According to David Smith "Two in three Republicans agree with the “great replacement” theory". As a result, it has become a major issue of political debate."

DN (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost none of the sources I mentioned are opinion pieces, and no claim is backed up solely by option pieces. Read the source properly before make claims like this.

Your opposition to including GOP support for GRCT in the article is soley based on 1) trying to frame reliable sources as "accusations" i.e. pretending that they aren't reliable and/or opinionated as well as 2) original rearch that attempts to equate GOP support for GRCT and the Dems supposedly benefiting politically from immigration. Cortador (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that the majority of any existing "political commentary/writer's assessment/opinions" from the citations comes from an academic, and or, scholarly viewpoint, as is Feagin's. So much so, that this may be the mainstream view from authorities on the subject. DN (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Absent you saying which sources are yours I can't say if you are correct or incorrect regarding opinions. However, looking at the long list above, many of the media articles are examples of commentators/writers offering their opinions. They aren't reporting the facts/claims presented by others. Instead they are offering their own takes on a subject. That means it's opinion (even if not an OpEd per RS). WP:NEWSORG notes that such organizations publish a mix of opinion and fact. While we by default treat articles marked as "opinion" or "oped" as such, but we also need to be aware when the author's own opinion/commentary is mixed into regular reporting. I've posted a NYT article from I think 2016 on this but I don't have the link at hand. Again, I'm working on a more complete reply to your concerns but in reply to the numbers: 1. When the source makes a claim but either doesn't present evidence or the evidence doesn't inherently support the claim (ie the same behavior in the past would be treated the same way and the evidence supports all aspects that are said to be required for the GRCT to be true (ie the racist "replace the whites" part vs just change voting patterns etc). 2. OR is specifically allowed/encouraged when making editorial choices like this. Additionally, we do have strong RS that say the Democrats benefit politically from immigration. As was shown above, that isn't OR. Springee (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about the source I specifically listened.

Reliable sources don't need to "present evidence". They are the evidence. If you dismiss statements from RS became you think they don't fit what you think constitutes GRCT, you are again doing OR.

Equating Dems benefiting electorally from immigration with GOP promotion of GRCT without presenting sufficient sourcing to support this is not an "editorial choice". It's an attempt at bothsiding.

Based on what you have written above, I question your ability to assess sources. Cortador (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please avoid such comments on editors. As was noted, news media often mix facts and analysis/opinion in articles we have to be careful about using the opinions vs the facts. If the RS can't present evidence for their claim then we need to be careful about giving much if any weight to the claim. Given how many sources have been mentioned would you kindly link to yours again so I can speak to it directly? Springee (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we do not. If, say, a RS such as AP releases an article that states "Half of GOP voters believe in GRCT", they don't need "present evidence for their claim". Wikipedia doesn't review RS in this fashion, and doing so would in fact undermine the way it works. You are, at best, trying to moddy the waters by making blanket statements about the reliability of news media, including ones considered reliable here, and at worst, have a fundamental lack of understanding how sourcing on Wikipedia works.

I have listed the sources above. Cortador (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've seen some of the surveys used to support claims like "half the GOP voters". Many also note that a large percentage of Democrat voters believe the same thing. In such a case both stats should be included. In the case of one of the surveys the question asked helps explain the result. The question wasn't "do you believe a cabal of Jewish elites are doing X". Instead it's asked in a way that someone who believes the non-conspiratorial aspect (ie Democrats support open immigration because they politically benefit from it). This is why this whole topic is difficult to parse. There is a strong core of truth that aligns with the conspiracy. When someone is asked the question how do we decide what they are thinking about? Presenting the GRCT without presenting the historically accepted views is misleading. To use your analogy, the waters are muddied by those who don't note the difference. Springee (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the article about the Republican Party. We don't need bothsidism; if you want to mention that Dems also believe in GRCT, feel free to add it to the articles about the Democratic Party or Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States. The topic isn't difficult to parse at all; we have plethora of good sources about, just not ones that link Democrats benefiting electorally from immigration and GRCT, which you are trying to inject here.

And, once more, if you think that reporting on GRCT should be rejected because you don't like how RS interpreted surveys, you are doing OR. Cortador (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review the WP:OR page. OR only applies to claims made in the article space. It doesn't apply to the talk page nor does it apply to discussions regarding weight, NPOV etc. Springee (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about content that is supposed to be included in the article here. Of course OR applies. Cortador (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR : "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Springee (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What that means is that you e.g. don't need in-line citations for statements made on talk pages. If you discuss content on the talk page that you wish to include in the article, OR obviously applies, or that content will never make it into the article. Cortador (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What content do you believe I'm proposing to add? Springee (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

See my comment above. Cortador (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, what content do you think I'm proposing to add to the article? Springee (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The equation of Democrats benefiting from immigration electrically with GOP support for GRCT, which is OR. You advocated for that above. Cortador (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Back to a more productive line of discussion, I think we could shorten the Feagin quote a bit further...

From...

• "Indeed, these politically and racially extremist Republicans have often been backed or featured in the conservative talk radio and television commentary programs. This intentional, and frequently profitable, political polarization has resulted in the near extinction of moderate Republicans and has brought about legislative paralysis or arch-conservative legislative domination at numerous local, state, and federal government levels of the past few decades." - Joe Feagin

To...

• According to sociologist Joe Feagin, increased media attention and political polarization by racially extremist Republicans has taken focus away from more moderate views and increased the political power of the far right at numerous government levels in the past few decades.

DN (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a better take. It preserves impartiality and while it may be possible to claim things are/aren't racist, there is no doubt that the influence of the right-wing of the party has increased. Springee (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

So, any more objections to adding this version in? At that point I think we can remove the banner and continue forward discussing the other additions without it. It doesn't seem to be attracting any more participants to this discussion. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The suggested phrasing misrepresents the source. He is talking about radio and television using the so-called "extremists" to increase their own profits. And "moderate" Republicans are not out of focus in his view, they are near extinct. Indicating that the "moderates" are not a sizeable part of the party's supporters. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick where does it say that? DN (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"the near extinction of moderate Republicans" Dimadick (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm open to other interpretations, would you mind restructuring it in the way you think it should read? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this any closer?

• "According to sociologist Joe Feagin, the increased media attention to political polarization by racially extremist Republicans has perpetuated the near extinction of moderate Republicans at numerous government levels in the past few decades."

DN (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Jan 6th

I propose we make a short mention of J6 in the Far Right section, in regard to their involvement in the Jan 6th attack. There are already some sources in the article's Trump section, but I haven't looked to see whether they mention any specifics on the Far-Right's involvement. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This citation from AP News seems sufficient and is also prominent at the J6 article in the section regarding Participants, groups, and criminal charges "The insurrectionist mob that showed up at the president’s behest and stormed the U.S. Capitol was overwhelmingly made up of longtime Trump supporters, including Republican Party officials, GOP political donors, far-right militants, white supremacists, members of the military and adherents of the QAnon myth that the government is secretly controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophile cannibal".

I propose condensing it down to..."The insurrectionist mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol was overwhelmingly made up of Trump supporters, including far-right militants."

DN (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable in principle. I would remove "insurrectionist" and just say mob or similar. While insurrection gets thrown around a lot it's not all sources call it that and even our article on the topic notes that people have struggled to find the correct term and does not call in an insurrection except in quotes. Springee (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That would make sense if we weren't describing the "militia" of far right supporters, but let's clarify that these particular individuals were convicted of seditious conspiracy. So in this case, I think it's worth debating whether the term "insurrectionists" applies. DN (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"Republican polling leader Donald Trump observed the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by glorifying people charged in the riot, repeating baseless claims that left-wing or government interlopers caused the breach, and attempting to turn the term “insurrection” against his political opponents.

“He’s now directly saying that violence and criminality is okay if it’s in service of my power,” said Michael K. Miller, a political science professor at George Washington University who studies democracy and autocratic elections. “Once you endorse violence in rejecting electoral outcomes, you’ve turned away from democracy, it’s really that simple. Having a large fraction of the population with that attitude is very dangerous.” WaPo. DN (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cortador (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If Springee would be happier with a version without the term insurrectionists, I would propose this as a possible alternative...

• "The overwhelming presence of Trump supporters during the January 6 United States Capitol attack included far-right militants and extremists, some of which were later convicted of seditious conspiracy"

DN (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would leave out the seditious conspiracy bit. That represents, I think 4 of the total number of prosecutions and in the case of at least one, what's his proud boy name, the person didn't actually go into the building at all. More importantly, unless those are specifically tied to GOP leaders it's probably best to stick with the rest of the sentence as it probably applies to many who were not charged but were present. Springee (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

In that case, to simplify and save time, I propose we simply reflect the mention from the J6 article that says..."A significant number of participants in the attack were linked to far-right extremist groups or conspiratorial movements."...Short and to the point.

• More than 1,200 persons have been charged with federal crimes arising from the attack. As of December 2023, 728 defendants had pleaded guilty, while another 166 defendants had been convicted at trial; a total of 745 defendants have been sentenced. A significant number of participants in the attack were linked to far-right extremist groups or conspiratorial movements, including the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters. Numerous plotters were convicted of seditious conspiracy, including Oath Keepers and Proud Boys members; the longest sentence to date was given to then-Proud Boy chairman Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment.

DN (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) DN (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think your propose sentence is good but perhaps with removal of "significant". It's a non-clear, subjective term. Just saying "a number" would be sufficient for the information in question. Springee (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What is "subjective" about it? These are facts based on the consensus of reliable sources. I suppose we could mention the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters. DN (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

In retrospect, the term "significant" is the most accurate or "clear" way to describe this far-right event according to the consensus of RS, not to mention it is in the lead of the J6 article. Besides, we wouldn't want to mislead readers into thinking this attack was primarily made up of these moderates or extremist groups (although extremists may still fall under the umbrella of FR from what I can tell). If you still feel it is UNDUE for the far-right section, we can take it to WP:NPOVN, unless you think an RfC is prudent. DN (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem with "significant" is it's not a well defined term. Significant with respect to what? One might be significant or all but one. That leaves it to the reader to decide. If there is a clear number (106 for example) then that is that. It's clear that the number linked is more than zero but presumably less than 100% charged. As this is an encyclopedic entry I think the more factual statement is generally better. I will say, if this is the extent of the disagreement then we have made good progress. Springee (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The term seems to refer to the amount or presence of far-right participants, as a "majority". Simply saying a "number" could be OR in this respect. DN (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can presume that. Majority would mean over 50%. Do the sources say that? Conversely, "significant" would be context dependent. In a statical context significant might be based on a 95% confidence interval. I'm not sure how a "significant number" is not OR while a "number" would be. Springee (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you really think the majority of those that attacked the capitol were "moderates"? We know that the extremists still fall into the category of far-right. Yes, that is what the consensus of sources say, I've read them, and if you haven't read them I think you should think twice before objecting. This is well documented. DN (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If you would prefer to say a "majority" or something along those lines, that's fine too. DN (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To clarify further, using the Far-right politics article as a source for reference material, in the Modern Debates section under Terminology, Cas Mudde states...

• "Within the broader family of the far right, the extreme right is revolutionary, opposing popular sovereignty and majority rule, and sometimes supporting violence, whereas the radical right is reformist, accepting free elections, but opposing fundamental elements of liberal democracy such as minority rights, rule of law, or separation of powers."

So, while I would agree that most alleged Capitol rioters were unconnected to "extremist groups", they still attacked the building. From the J6 article...

• "More than 2,000 rioters entered the building, many of whom vandalized and looted parts of the building, including the offices of then House speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress."

DN (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think my original suggestion was still on my mind during my last response, so let's try a new version that includes both of our suggestions in a way that isn't contradictory to sources...

• "The January 6 United States Capitol attack included significant participation by far-right Trump supporters including a number of militant extremists who led the initial attack."

Citations

• J1 NYT "It is difficult to say exactly how deep and durable the links are between the American far right and its European counterparts. But officials are increasingly concerned about a web of diffuse international links and worry that the networks, already emboldened in the Trump era, have become more determined since Jan. 6. A recent report commissioned by the German foreign ministry describes “a new leaderless transnational apocalyptically minded, violent far-right extremist movement” that has emerged over the past decade. Extremists are animated by the same conspiracy theories and narratives of “white genocide” and “the great replacement” of European populations by immigrants, the report concluded. They roam the same online spaces and also meet in person at far-right music festivals, mixed martial arts events and far-right rallies." (see Active Club Network)

DN (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not claiming they were moderates. Looking at your recent sentence I think that works better. While I still have concern regarding what is "significant" and to whom, I think it's far easier to say that "significant participation by far-right Trump supporters" vs the earlier version which claimed that a significant number of the participants were linked to various far-right extremist groups. Politically, I suspect most of the people who went in were on the hard right side of politics even while suspecting the majority were not associated with extremist groups (or any particular group). One final part, do the sources support "led the initial attack"? When sources say there isn't clear evidence of a coordinated plan[8] it seems odd to suggest someone/group "led the initial attack." Perhaps "involved in the attack" as it's clearly true even if they weren't the first to start the event (if sources say they were first then disregard this). Springee (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

John Birch Society

Currently this section states that...

• "The Republican Party's far-right faction emerged as a result of entrenchment and increased partisanship within the party since 2010, fueled by the rise of the Tea Party movement, which has also been described as far-right."

There seems to be a small but important discrepancy here in that it fails to mention JBS movement which peaked in the 1970's well before the Tea Party movement. The connections between JBS and the Tea Party have been pointed out by scholars and reliable sources... According to the bottom third paragraph in the lead on the John Birch Society page...

In the 2010s and 2020s, several observers and commentators argued that, while the organization's influence peaked in the 1970s, Bircherism and its legacy of conspiracy theories began making a resurgence in the mid-2010s, and had become the dominant strain in the conservative movement. In particular, they argued that the JBS and its beliefs shaped the Republican Party, the Trump administration, and the broader conservative movement.(Edward H. Miller is an associate teaching professor at Northeastern)(Professor Matt Dallek is a political historian)

In the JBS section Influence on conservatism

• "The historian D. J. Mulloy wrote in 2014 that the JBS has served as "a kind of bridge" between the Old Right (including the McCarthyites) of the 1940s–50s, the New Right of the 1970s–80s, and the Tea Party movement right of the 21st century.

A simple correction might be something along these lines...

• "While the influence of Bircherism peaked in the 1970s, the Republican Party's far-right faction started to emerge in 2010 as a result of entrenchment and increased partisanship. That same year, the JBS co-sponsored the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), ending its decades-long distance from the mainstream conservative movement. In January 2015 conservatives and Tea Party movement members in the GOP formed the House Freedom Caucus, with the aim of pushing the Republican leadership to the right.

Cheers DN (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

More citations.

• The Conversation
• WaPo Matt Dallek
• WaPo via E. J. Dionne
• The Hill Professor John Kenneth White, Ph.D. - Politics - Catholic University
• Time Matthew Dalek PhD historian and professor of political management at George Washington University
• The New Republic

DN (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• David Barstow via NYT
• Sean Wilentz via NPR
• Harvard.edu "Several of these organizations, along with right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, have been bankrolled by a small number of far-right businessmen, most notably the libertarian Koch brothers, sons of Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society. (p 28-29)
• John Cassidy (journalist) via The New Yorker
• Thomas Mallon via The New Yorker

DN (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• David Leonhardt "In the mid-20th century, tens of thousands of Americans joined the John Birch Society, a far-right group that claimed Dwight Eisenhower was a secret Communist. Today, however, falsehoods can spread much more easily, through social media and a fractured news environment. In the 1950s, no major television network spread the lies about Eisenhower. In recent years, the country’s most watched cable channel, Fox News, regularly promoted falsehoods about election results, Mr. Obama’s birthplace and other subjects."..."The roots of the modern election-denier movement stretch back to 2008. When Mr. Obama was running for president and after he won, some of his critics falsely claimed that his victory was illegitimate because he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. This movement became known as Birtherism, and Mr. Trump was among its proponents. By making the claims on Fox News and elsewhere, he helped transform himself from a reality television star into a political figure. When he ran for president himself in 2016, Mr. Trump made false claims about election fraud central to his campaign...In 2020, after Mr. Biden won, the election lies became Mr. Trump’s dominant political message. His embrace of these lies was starkly different from the approach of past leaders from both parties. In the 1960s, Reagan and Barry Goldwater ultimately isolated the conspiracists of the John Birch Society..."Mr. Trump’s promotion of the falsehoods, by contrast, turned them into a central part of the Republican Party’s message. About two-thirds of Republican voters say that Mr. Biden did not win the 2020 election legitimately, according to polls. Among Republican candidates running for statewide office this year, 47 percent have refused to accept the 2020 result, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis. Most Republican politicians who have confronted Mr. Trump, on the other hand, have since lost their jobs or soon will. Of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him for his role in the Jan. 6 attack, for example, eight have since decided to retire or lost Republican primaries, including Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming."

DN (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. The article on the John Birch Society also has a number of sources - including academic ones - that describe the JBS as far right; we can use some of those as well. Cortador (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I would add a couple points: a) JBS was very firmly under the thumb of Robert Welch (1899-1985)--he imposed an ideology and his refusal to allow local units to act without his permission meant they did very little acting. The influence on local affairs was small. b) Robert Welch was a product of the 1930s--esp the America First movement. I think 90% of ideas were in place by 1940 or so--see the excellent biography by Edward Miller, A Conspiratorial Life: Robert Welch, the John Birch Society, and the Revolution of American Conservatism (U of Chicago Press 2021).. p 69ff argues that key influences on Welch = John T. Flynn (1882-1964), Garet Garrett (1878-1954) and Clarence Manion (1896-1979), whose ideas were shaped in 1920s. That's when fear of Communism became a main theme on the far right. So I would argue JBS and Welch's ideas = a product of 1920s and 1930s Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rjensen That is a very insightful point. Well done. DN (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks--IN 1919 the Red Scare was in full force--Welch was a student at Harvard Law School and was writing newspaper commentary. Miller says his conservative views were already very strong--so I think 1919 pretty well dates his main ideas. By 1960 The JBS was a discussion club, based on the materials Welch was disseminating from national HQ--members were buying and discussing books on current affairs as selected by Welch. No other right wing organization I know of was like this--which casts doubt on the argument that Tea Party etc somehow copied JBS. Rjensen (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that any historians said they copied JBS, only that some, like Dalek, said there were similarities such as the propensity for gossip, conspiracies etc... DN (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content in Immigration section

@Springee @Muboshgu Please explain what you deem undue about mentioning GRCT in the article. WP:DUE asked that articles "should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". The fact that a significant amount of Republicans support the GRCT isn't a minority view, it is backed up by a plethora of reliable sources. In fact, I haven't seen any RS that deny this, or other viewpoints on the GOP's relationship with GRCT. If you think these exist in a quantify sufficient to justify removal under WP:DUE, please provide them.

Springee, since you mention that this information shouldn't be in that section, feel free to let me know where you think it should be included. Muboshgu, you claimed this also constitutes recentism; the border wall idea is from 2015 and has persistent for almost a decade, it's not recent. GRCT support on the GOP stems from at least 2021 and isn't breaking news. Recentism is also an issue with articles, and this article doesn't have a general issue with that. I also don't believe that this surge in support for a formerly fringe conspiracy theory won't have lasting notability. Cortador (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, WP:ONUS is on you to obtain consensus for the addition, not for us to tell you why it should be excluded. Since this is the article for the Republican Party, dating back to the 1850s, your addition is an UNDUE focus on recent events. Articles on the Trump administration and related topics are where that information belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding this information does not shift the focus on the article; it's two paragraphs in one section. If you cite WP:UNDUE, I expect you to be able to explain why, and you haven't done that. The GOP supporting GRCT isn't a minority view point. It is backed up by many quality sources. Cortador (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The section was on things like immigration policy in general terms. You almost doubled the length and filled it with controversial material that is very RECENT and involves a large degree of accusation etc. Given this is supposed to be a general article about a party that is over 150 years old this sort of recent, details material is generally UNDUE. As Muboshgu noted, it might be due in a related article but not here. Springee (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversial according to whom? What "accusations" does it include, in your opinion? Also, since you mention that this information shouldn't be in that section, feel free to let me know where you think it should be included. Cortador (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I see your points, but I think inclusion belongs in the far right section and it should be brief and to the point. Your previous edit placed GRCT in the immigration section despite the issue of GRCT not being the "official platform" for the entire party, so saying "A number of Republicans" is too ambiguous when we can see who has been using it, and who hasn't. RS says that GRCT stems from the far right, so that's what we should say. If things change we can address it at that time. Agreed? DN (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The political positions section isn't just about the party platform e.g. the section on trade includes polling numbers because there's no general agreement on trade policies in the party. I do agree that GRCT should be mentioned as something the party's far-right faction supports, but support goes beyond that. Most of the sources on GOP support for GRCT have number too high to be explained by just that one faction. Cortador (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the poles where that data come from is the question is asked in such a way that someone who believes in the GRCT or someone who believes the Democratic party is trying to build up it's base through immigration policy. This is especially true given the very open boarder policies since Biden replaced Trump [9]. When a number of sources on both sides are basically saying the Democrats will use the mass influx of immigrants to shift political power [10]. It would be honest to claim X% of people who identify as Republican agree that Democrats support open immigration policies because it increases their base. It isn't inherent in the answers that the respondents agree with the racist GRCT as a whole. Attributed inclusion in the far right category (possibly with attributed counter points) may be due but it absolutely isn't due in this section. This is especially true since this is a very long article, about 15k words in the body and well into the trim/split size (wp:SIZERULE). Springee (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You are, again, doing OR. If you want to question the reliability of sources, you can do so on the reliable¨le sources noticeboard.

And again: Controversial according to whom? What "accusations" does it include, in your opinion? Also, as I mentioned above, GOP support for GRCT isn't limited to its far-right section. Cortador (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR. OR is specifically allowed when discussing how/if/where etc content should appear in an article. It is allowed when deciding if a particular claim in a source is accurate to the facts etc. OR applies to the article space, not talk pages. Certainly claiming 50%+ of Republican voters support a "racist" "conspiracy theory" is a controversial claim (and not one well supported by the source. It is also controversial to claim that people who support a long standing idea (see my Politico link) actually believe the racist conspiracy version of the idea. Springee (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Our opinion on the data from the poll is fairly irrelevant. We are not proposing putting it in WIKIVOICE and there would be an attribution to the actual poll, which makes it very clear this isn't a "claim" we are making.

The poll received plenty of coverage in mainstream sources due to the 2022 Buffalo shooting (NYT - WaPo - NBC - fivethirtyeight - The Guardian - TIME - NPR - USA Today - US News the list goes on...) and it's not the only poll CNN - SPLC - Washington Monthly. I believe we can shorten this down to some key aspects. If you want to include counter arguments from those sources you provided it will make it longer, but that's fine if everyone agrees it's necessary, or more NPOV.

Expert opinions, including historian and analyst of far-right wing groups, Mark Pitcavage, seem to be clear. The language being used is GRCT. PBS - AP News - aljazeera, there's Anthony DiMaggio, a scholar that studies the far right who wrote a piece in Salon about it. There's Larry Rosenthal, chair and lead researcher of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies in a piece by ABC News.

"The extent to which “great replacement” ideas have migrated from the fringe into something more routine among Republican lawmakers appears new. As many have noted, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson has relentlessly promoted versions of the idea, and numerous Republican officials have done the same. What’s different is the careful mainstreaming of fantasies about a deliberate plot to replace native-born Americans. That puts a new spin on garden-variety nativism or even on various forms of racial nationalism that envision Whiteness as central to American identity, notes Yale professor Philip Gorski" (said in a 2022 WaPo op-ed). “It’s been gradually moving from the fringes into the mainstream,” “First it was the entertainment wing of the GOP. Now it’s the political wing as well.”. DN (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The opinion matters because we can look at the same set of facts and see that the difference isn't the base information rather it's the political climate of the times. With that in mind we can elect to take a wait and see attitude towards this minor fact/point. Putting the material in as an attributed claim in the far right section may be due but in such a case the conservative response should also be included. It need not be given as much weight but it shouldn't be given zero given the underlying claim is an accusation of racism against a large swath of the US population. Springee (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion does not bear as much weight as that of experts and scholars that are already 2 years in. What is there to "wait and see"? Show us your sources and scholarly opinions to the contrary, and you may have a point, otherwise there is not much left to debate here. DN (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree but that doesn't mean we can't look at the facts at hand nor that we need to rush in some controversial claims. We really need to be careful about treating political talking points as fact. Also, while yes, you have found some scholars who claim this, given this is a very zoomed out topic (ie this isn't the GRCT topic) we need to ask, is this a consensus view or just some claim it? Finally, you shouldn't ignore the fact that we have the same facts/claims being treated as non-controversial in 2013 (see Politico and others) yet now viewed as racist. Rather than this back and forth, why not propose text and a location and we can try to come up with some type of consensus. Springee (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We can work together to find a consensus and avoid any pitfalls, we just have to find sources and context we can agree on. There is more than enough here to work with. DN (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I do think we need a counterpoint even if we give it less weight. At least one scholar, James G. Gimpel (referenced in the Newsweek source), noted that immigration has been a force shifting voting demographics toward the Democrats. From the same article the political scientist Michael Anton noted claims of GR as an example where the same facts are viewed differently depending on the presenter. Springee (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

According to whom is any of this "controversial"? Name sources. This is the third time that you claim that any of this is controversial, and you have repeatedly failed to back this up by providing sources. Cortador (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

And I asked you to explain what OR you felt I was trying to add to the article. Springee (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done that twice already. Now I ask you again: name the sources according to which this is controversial. Cortador (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No, you never said what content you think I'm proposing to add to the article that is OR. Conversely, I've already said that when you are proposing adding content that says over half of Republicans (and a large minority of Democrats and independents) believe in a "racist" "conspiracy theory" and when we have a non-conspiratorial explanation of the same facts and we do have academics in the field who disagree with the claim, yeah, that is controversial. Please stop badgering since it is clear I'm not changing your mind and your claims of OR are equally unpersuasive. Springee (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Name the sources. Cortador (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you aren't following the logical arguments. That said, I've already named two scholars who have noted the conflation of a long standing, non-controversial view with the GRCT. Do you have sources that explain why the two aren't the same? Perhaps we need to zoom out. You want to add a large swath of recent, controversial content to this article. How would you show it's DUE? Remember when dealing with a topic like the GOP there are volumes of books, scholarship and media content regarding the topic. How do we narrow that down to the ~10k words that are most important to the topic? Just because you can find some sources that say what you want, are they actually DUE? Perhaps the best way to address that question is look to see what other professional sources have decided to include/exclude. The Encyclopedia Britannica has no "far-right" section and it's only mention of "far-right" is with regards to Trump's social positions. This suggest the total weight that should be given to such a topic would be quite small. [11]. So what high level summary sources do you have that show this level of detail is at all DUE in the article? Springee (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The article you cited is an opinion piece by Pedro L. Gonzalez. There is no consensus whether Newsweek is a reliable source. This one op-ed is not sufficient to conclude that there's any controversy over GOP support for GRCT. There's no consensus whether Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable sources/suitable for Wikipedia; it doesn't matter whether or not one specific encyclopedia has a "far right" entry.

Name RS that confirm that stating that the GOP voters and members support GRCT is controversial. You thus far haven't done that, and your behaviour increasingly looks like stonewalling. Cortador (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The author is a political scientist at U of Maryland. I'm cutting him to show that the claims are didputed. The fact that at least two scholars have disputed the claim and they have explained why means we should not treat this as fact. Furthermore how much weight it should get (or the whole section should get) needs to be established. The best way to do that is find summary sources and follow their lead. Can you point to any summary sources that include this content? Springee (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's an op-ed from an sources not considered to be reliable. It's unsuitable to conclude that there's any controversy over GOP support for GRCT. Name RS that confirm that stating that the GOP voters and members support GRCT is controversial.

I don't need to find you a "summary source" because there's no requirement for that. It's another hurdle you created that isn't Wikimedia policy. Cortador (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the view of a scholar on the topic. As for establishing weight, yes, we should look to outside sources to establish weight. That is how we're decide what is due in a high level article vs what is a detail. Prepare we should let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The term "controversial" doesn't even appear in your source. You are free to seek consensus that your single opinion piece from a source not found to be reliable here qualifies for the statements you want to make. Until you do that, it does not. Cortador (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Using your edit, I propose some version closer to this for the far right subsection...It's shorter and more focused on key aspects.

• Republican representatives on the far-right have espoused the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. According to a 2022 study by AP and NORC, half of Republicans surveyed agree with GRCT, compared to a third of all participants and 20% of Democrats surveyed. A poll by Yahoo News and YouGov in the same year showed that 61% of Trump voters agreed with the core message of the conspiracy theory. This is a shift from the party's 2013 post-election assessment, which concluded that the Republican Party needed to appeal to minorities in order to be successful.

I don't think a list of which representatives that have used it is DUE here. That would be better left to their own individual article pages. The House Oversight and Accountability Committee would only be relevant if we specify the 118th Congress. H.Res.413 - Condemning the Great Replacement Theory DN (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We could also use a qualifier including the names of notable scholars that concur with this. DN (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be included in the article, and I agree with DN's proposal. I also think that the party's embrace of Trumpism should be included within parentheses in the ideology section of the infobox next to right wing populism, but that's an issue for another day. BootsED (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems fair considering that the article body already links the two. Cortador (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This should not be added to the immigration section. Springee (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I've asked you to explain why you believe that the GOP supporting GRCT is a minority or fringe view, and you haven't done that. Please do so. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I never said that it was. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did. WP:UNDUE is the policy you linked to in your revert. What significant viewpoint do you think is not represented here? Cortador (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE both speak to NPOV, but they are not the same thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You linked here in your revert: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." What viewpoint do you think is not represented here? Cortador (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu You still haven't answered my question. This is the section you linked to in your revert. I'm asking you again: what viewpoint do you think is not represented here?

:::::Due and undue weight

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability". Cortador (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in here - the content is 100% appropriate, it's 100% WP:DUE, it's supported by high-quality sources, and removing it, or advocating for its removal, is clearly just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as I don't see a single solid reason offered in this discussion for whitewashing that content out of the article. It should be re-inserted immediately. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently, I think a brief mention the recent polls would be sufficient, but GRCT still seems primarily a far-right speaking point. While the FR faction has seemingly been guiding GOP social policy, unless RS shows GRCT as the long term dogma of the entire republican party, I don't see GRCT as anything other than the current FR view of immigration policy for the GOP. We don't list each factions views in this section. DN (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate and missing factions in the Infobox and article

Currently, the infobox for the GOP lists several factions, including fiscal conservatism and neoconservatism. However, in the section of the article called "Factions" it does not list fiscal conservatism or neoconservatism. On the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page, it does list neoconservatives but also does not list fiscal conservatism as a faction of the GOP. It also lists Trumpists and an Anti-Trump faction as factions of the modern GOP, two factions that are not mentioned on the main GOP page.

The separate factions page also states how "As of 2023, the dominant faction in the Republican Party consists of Trumpists – a movement associated with the political base of former president Donald Trump." Yet this fact is not made clear in this article itself, merely stating that it the modern GOP has intense factionalism (which it does) and that it has moved in a populist direction (which it has), but there is no great mention of Trumpists or the Never Trump movement. In fact, Typing in anti-Trump or Never Trump returns zero results.

The page also lists "Social conservatism" as a faction in the modern GOP; however, both this page and the factions page do not list "social conservatism" as a faction. The page for social conservatism in the United States itself lists how "In the United States, one of the largest forces of social conservatism is the Christian right." This page also lists social conservatism as a motivating factor under the Conservatives faction itself. Both pages do not list social conservatism as a distinct faction within the modern GOP, but merely an ideology influencing the Conservatism and Christian right factions.

Thus, I would propose the following changes:

1. Fiscal conservatism is removed from the factions section on the infobox, and mentioned instead as a strand of conservatism within the body of the article itself.
2. Neoconservatism is added as a faction within the body of this article under the 21st century section.
3. Trumpism and the anti-Trump factions are added to this article.
4. Social conservatism is removed as a faction in the infobox and instead mentioned and linked to within the body of the article under the Christian right and and conservative factions.

Another potential alteration (#5) would be to have the existing right-wing populist section and far-right section merged within the Trumpism section, or as a subheader within that section itself. As Trumpists are the dominant faction in the modern GOP today, it probably deserves a bit more writing than it currently has. BootsED (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources do seem to combine populist and far right factions under the same umbrella. They are not mutually exclusive according to any authoritative or scholarly opinions, AFAIK. DN (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

How is this different than the Trumpism discussion from December? Springee (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the previous discussion was narrowly focused on the infobox. This one seeks to harmonize Wikipedia’s own pages on factions of the Republican Party and the differences existing between and within them. BootsED (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Seems to make logical sense, and there are no arguments against it so far.

2. I'm not sure of who makes up the neoconservative faction anymore mostly due to Trumpism.

3. This makes sense to me

4. This seems to make sense, as most social conservatives seem to follow a theistic Judeo-Christian approach, but I'm not certain and might refer to others.

5. It makes sense to put Far-right in a subcategory under Populist DN (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The previous discussion was pretty clear that editors opposed adding this as a faction. If it doesn't make sense for the info box with factions then many of the same arguments would apply here. I would suggest pinging editors who were involved in the previous discussion. Springee (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not true. There were four people in favor (including me), and two people opposed, yourself and one other. One person was undecided. The conversation just kinda died out by itself. With that in mind, I think it would be appropriate to finally have this page updated. BootsED (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please ping the involved editors as well as provide sources here so they can be evaluated. Springee (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid to ping editors as it could be considered canvassing. BootsED (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinning editors involved with the previous discussion is considered reasonable notification. Springee (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If you’d like to you can ping all the former editors in the previous discussion. I just want to make sure I’m not breaking any rules. BootsED (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

In regards to neoconservatives I also agree with your assertion. However, it is listed on the separate Republican factions page so the main page should probably not say something different than what the more in-depth page itself says. Seeing that no one has raised any issues with #1 and #4 I’ll go ahead and make those alterations later tonight. BootsED (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I object. Please provide the sourcing Springee (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Part of my argument is that the page dedicated to Factions in the Republican Party (United States) mentions current 21st century factions that are not mentioned in this article. I don’t want to simply copy all the sources used there but it should hopefully suggest to you that there is a large body of evidence that these proposed changes are necessary. If you disagree with the factions in that article you should make your case why they should be removed on that articles talk page. Otherwise, I am quite simply updating this page to match what has already been said on the other page specifically about this very topic (obviously a much shorter version on this page, though). BootsED (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Springee, if you still object could you be a bit more specific or point out the previous discussion, please? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable as long as the article notes that the party as a whole is largely fiscally and socially conservative.

Reading the sources for social conservatism: the second one already states that the GOP "generally socially conservative". The third one states that "Reagan gave rhetorical support to the pro-life movement but made little effort “to deliver the legislative victories that social conservatives desperately desired”" i.e. doesn't mention a social conservative faction specifically. The first source mentions "the party’s socially conservative faction", but also states:

"The GOP adopted a platform Monday that takes a hard line on issues like abortion and gay rights, a sign that Donald Trump has ceded the party’s social agenda to evangelical Christians despite his own ambivalence on those matters."

This IMO makes it clear that the social conservative faction isn't isolated, but, according to this author, also the evangelical/Christian conservative faction. Cortador (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to put only actual factions into the info-box. Factions are groups that have formal organizations with defined membership such as the Freedom Caucus. Conservativism, libertarianism etc. are not factions but are ideologies, albeit unclearly defined with considerable overlap. Complex issues like that are better described in the article. TFD (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with you. It is interesting, however, that in the infobox for the Republican Party, it clearly states that the section is "ideology" which is listed as majority conservatism, but then it also has "Factions" within that same section that simply lists other ideologies and factions. The listed factions/ideologies are also different from what the page Factions in the Republican Party (United States) lists are the factions of the modern Republican Party. This is the issue we should resolve. BootsED (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to update everyone that I have started work on updating and expanding parts of the factions section. I will be filling out and adding better sources to the other factions in the near future once I have some more free time. BootsED (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hope it's not too late to add an opinion. I am not against the new factions list, it's more concise than the old one, however I am looking at the Trumpists faction listed. Wouldn't they fall under Right-wing populists in the old factions list? I can actually see them falling under most of the factions listed old and new notably except perhaps the centrist/moderate grouping. With that being said, I am not against the new changes. However they must be sourced inline. We can (and should based on this conversation) list the new factions. However we should put sources in the infobox to go along with it. Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Completely Random Guy, Trumpists consist of multiple ideologies including right-wing populism, national conservatism, and neo-nationalism, among others. As each faction of the Republican Party often includes multiple differing ideologies, such as the Christian right including social conservatism and christian nationalism, if we put every single ideology that each faction follows within the factions section it would be extremely long. Also, there was discussion about the difference between factions and ideologies of the party, of which right-wing populism would be an ideology and not a faction. The overarching ideology of the Party is conservatism, but right underneath that section it lists "Factions," so factions of the party and not ideologies should be instead listed. This was what my edit previously addressed. If we need sourcing for this that can easily be added as the listed factions are also listed within the "Factions" section of this page and the separate page Factions in the Republican Party (United States).BootsED (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see neo-nationalism's role in this party. American nationalism had seen new waves of supporters since the September 11 attacks. Is there much of a difference between American nationalists of the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, or the 2020s? Dimadick (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources state the Trumpist faction of the Republican Party includes neo-nationalism as a part of other ideologies including right-wing populism, Trumpism, and national conservatism. If you’d like you can review the sources on related pages that list Trumpists as neo-nationalists. Note, this is for the Trumpist faction of the GOP, which is a part of the larger GOP which is majority conservative. This is also another reason why we should not include each and every ideology of every faction within the party in the infobox, but merely link to the factions of the party as established in Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page itself. BootsED (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand. With that being said, should the new listing include conservatives twice? And last point should we rename "Moderates" to "Centrists"? Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Conservatives are listed twice as the first conservative is listed as "conservatism" next to "Ideology" as it refers to the overarching conservative ideology of the party. The second conservative is listed as "conservatives" as it refers to the faction of the political party as it is listed underneath the "factions" part of the infobox, which should list all factions, not ideologies. It just so happens that there is a faction of conservatives in a party which follows conservatism.

In regards to moderates vs centrists, I chose to call it moderates as that is what it is called in the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page itself and is what the provided sources call the faction/wing of the party. It could be renamed to centrists, but we would also have to then rename that part of the page and elsewhere on Wikipedia where we call them moderates in order to stay consistent. BootsED (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand! I agree with the changes! Now I was wondering if we should open a talk page discussion on doing the same for the Democratic Party? Not much needs to change on that page except maybe replace "Social democracy" with "Liberalism, as the other factions are already listed. Thoughts? Completely Random Guy (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic Party page currently has ideologies listed in its Factions section instead of linking to factions on the Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) page. There is also a discrepancy between the main Democratic Party page and the factions page as the main page says conservatives are a faction and a factions page does not. I have already commented on the talk page about this discrepancy. Once there has been a consensus about this issue, I hope to address the factions listed on the main page itself. BootsED (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll go add to the convo there. Completely Random Guy (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we get a citation or at least some proof here?

Why is "Republicans support overturning same sex marriage" on the page? This is not on the party platform, nor are ANY party officials, leaders calling for this.

A more fair, accurate and unbiased approach here is "Most Republicans support traditional definitions of marriage" instead of acting like overturning Obergefell v. Hodges is somehow part of the GOP policy agenda.

Even going way back to 2016, Trump endorsed gay marriage https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-president-elect-donald-trump-sex-marriage-settled/story?id=43513067

55% of Republicans support gay marriage https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004629612/a-record-number-of-americans-including-republicans-support-same-sex-marriage

Every single front-runner supports keeping the status quo of marriage, Ron Desantis : https://floridapolitics.com/archives/634459-gay-marriage-desantis/

Nikki Haley : https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/livefeeds/nikki-haley-disputes-that-she-opposes-gay-marriage/

This just makes no sense. How does this stuff make it to the page? Overturning 2015 supreme court ruling has never, will never and is not on the GOP agenda at all. Sufficient half (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Sufficient half, I don't see "Republicans support overturning same sex marriage" anywhere on this page. What I do see in #LGBT issues includes The 2016 GOP Platform defined marriage as "natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman," and condemned the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriages. The 2020 platform retained the 2016 language against same-sex marriage. So yes, it was in the GOP's most recent platform. If you're looking for "party officials, leaders" calling for the end of same sex marriage, take a look at the past statements of the current Speaker of the House. Clarence Thomas has called for overturning Obergefell. And "traditional definitions of marriage" is a biased framing straight from Republican talking points. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

So you don’t see “Republicans support overturning same sex marriage” on the page yet the page says “ overturning the legality of same-sex marriage” is party of the GOP agenda … I literally copied and pasted that. and yes, you even proved my point. The GOP platform supported the traditional definition of marriage, not overturning the Supreme Court decision. Trump clearly endorsed gay marriage in 2016z

funny how republicans supporting traditional definitions of marriage is “straight from the GOP talking points” yet the straight up lie that Republicans are working to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges isn’t from Democratic fear mongering tactics? This is absolutely ridiculous.

a clear majority- in poll after poll- of Republicans support gay marriage. It’s a settled issue.

Every single Republican front runner supported gay marriage as settled law. Every. Single. One.

but I guess wiki is deciding to live in fantasy land where Republicans are overturning Obergefell v. Hodges … even though there isn’t citation because it’s not happening and nobody is talking about this except for wiki lol. Oh, and a stupid quote by Clarence. 50.93.152.6 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The same-sex marriage bills was not supported by most GOP congresspeople and most GOP senators. I don't see where you are getting this image of a gay marriage-friendly GOP from. What individual people like Trump state about gay marriage doesn't matter - that can go into the article on Trump. There, you can also find out that Trump has no coherent position on gay marriage, and that you misrepresented his position here. Cortador (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I will discuss certain points you make, which are off-topic- but keep in mind this is strictly about the falsehood on the page about overturning gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, and how the page makes the reader believe this is one of the prominent goals of the party (its the fourth "goal" mentioned)

"What individual people like Trump state about gay marriage doesn't matter" What the standard bearer of the party believes is relevant to the national party beliefs section. Hence why Trump is mentioned on this page several times. I provided citations for every single Republican front runner for 2024 and their positions on gay marriage. All of which have agreed gay marriage is settled and will not be revisted.

"Where do you get the Republicans are gay friendly" Never said that. I care about the reader getting correct information about party goals.

From Politico "In interviews with Republican operatives, former Trump administration officials, and conservative leaders, there is a widespread acceptance that debate over marriage equality is settled. There is no serious discussion about trying to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges"https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/16/republicans-gay-marriage-wars-505041

The most recently conducted poll- that took 7 years to complete- from 2016 to 2023, was released in October (so three months ago) shows that since 2016 Republican support for gay marriage rose from 40% to 55%, now a clear majority and is only increasing. Predictions show 60% Republican support for gay marriage by 2026.

NPR gallup records 55% Republican support for gay marriagehttps://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004629612/a-record-number-of-americans-including-republicans-support-same-sex-marriage

The study I mentioned showing 55% Republican support also in a separate poll:https://www.statista.com/statistics/1249216/support-for-same-sex-marriage-in-the-united-states-by-political-party/

CNN lays out what Republicans are aiming for in 2024 agenda- Gay marriage is talked about no where https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/02/politics/republicans-2024-agenda-what-matters/index.html

"ISideWith" Which tracks the official stance of politicians, even notes Donald Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate to support gay marriage https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/donald-trump/policies/social/gay-marriage

The idea that reversing gay marriage is somehow even remotely on the GOP agenda now- or in the future- is an outright lie. That's why it lacks citations. Sufficient half (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You have dropped one citation for Trump. One citation is insufficient, as Trump's position on gay marriage isn't coherent. In the same year where Trump stated that he is fine with gay marriage, he also attacked it (see here). In the same year, the GOP platform (see here) stated that they "condemn the Supreme Court's lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges". They used the same platform for 2020. You don't need a primary source (the platform) either; there's sources reporting on that. So Trump said we wanted to overturn marriage, then didn't, then ran with a platform that said the GOP did, the said he didn't, and then ran again with the same platform. There's also sources that point that out (see here) i.e. that the party platform doesn't line up with some stuff Trump said. Cortador (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

To be safe, moving forward I will provide two citations for every point I'm making. Although, one citations is better than a whole swath of paragraphs having absolutely none (which is the case on this article, especially the reversing gay marriage lie on the page) . And there is zero proof, citations, articles, party officials or ANY iota of evidence that overturning Obergefell v. Hodges and abolishing gay marriage being part of the Republican agenda moving forward into 2024 and beyond- in fact the opposite is occuring where an official LGBT arm of the Republican party was created in 2022, partnering with the Log Cabin Republicans https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rnc-announces-pride-coalition-partnership-with-log-cabin-republicans-ahead-of-midterms

Second citation, but this one the RNC defended its decision and rejected their conservative base https://www.businessinsider.com/rnc-defends-ronna-mcdaniel-amid-calls-to-step-down-over-lgbtq-outreach-2021-11

Like I explained above with multiple citations, a clear majority of Republicans support gay marriage now. With 2016-2023 trends continuing, will reach 60% in two years.

and the 2022 marriage bill you mentioned, the GOP dropped official opposition to gay marriage and instead told members to vote their conscience.. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3566616-republicans-show-political-evolution-with-same-sex-marriage-vote/

https://www.axios.com/2022/07/19/gop-marriage-equality-lgbtq-rights

Virtually all news pundits discussed the political evolution of gay marriage for Republicans, and there is zero effort in congress or anywhere to reverse gay marriage. I'm not sure why you are supporting such a falsehood.

If anything a compromise could read "While the Republican party has some in its base that wish to reverse gay marriage, there are no current party efforts to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges and a majority of Republicans now support gay marriage"

This reflects current cultural changes in a political environment that is rapidly changing. It's also true to the reader. Sufficient half (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

None of that changes that the party has now, for the third time in a row, used a platform that opposes gay marriage explicitly- and yet you claimed that this was "not on the party platform" in your very first comment. You are free to try and get consensus for whatever change you want to make here, of course. Cortador (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"a clear majority of Republicans support gay marriage now... "If anything a compromise could read "While the Republican party has some in its base that wish to reverse gay marriage, there are no current party efforts to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges and a majority of Republicans now support gay marriage"...

I wouldn't be against adding 2022 voter opinion polls to that effect (if they are DUE), but voters are the extent of it. The majority of representatives in congress do not seem to agree with gay marriage.

• "During this year’s Pride Month, many prominent Republicans have expressed criticism of celebrations and in some cases resurfaced opposition to same-sex marriage." WaPo 2023
• "The group includes moderates and senators known for crossing party lines, a few who are retiring and some who had already broken with their party to support same-sex marriage. Still, the vast majority of House and Senate Republicans opposed the bill, and finding enough G.O.P. senators to pass it was not easy. In the end, supporters won over more than the 10 Republicans needed to break a filibuster." NYT 2022
• "When Gallup began tracking the issue in 1996, support was at about 27 percent, with 68 percent opposed. As of May, however, 71 percent supported same-sex marriage with just 28 percent opposed (1 percent had no opinion). Fivethirtyeight 2022 & similar report by NBC News 2022
• (Current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson) "Last year, Johnson introduced legislation that has been compared to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, and he continues to push to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015." NYT 2023 op-ed by Jamelle Bouie

DN (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly undue for mention in the lead

At the bottom of the lead it says..."The Republican Party is a member of the International Democracy Union, an international alliance of center-right parties." I don't see much about it at all in the body, let alone sources to warrant putting it in the lead. Am I missing something here? Cheers. DN (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It belongs in the info-box because it is an international affiliation. But it's not a major part of the story of the party. TFD (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• We could probably find sources for it, but without truly sterling sources it seems hard to argue that it belongs in the lead, yeah. A quick search finds basically no coverage of its membership at all. Not only are the current sources in the lead passing mentions, they don't actually say that the Republican Party is a member (they're just about speeches Republican figures gave there - actually it looks like they're both about the same speech?); the only source we have for their membership is the IDP website itself, which isn't going to give it enough weight for the lead in an article on a subject this high-profile. --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. A primary source alone isn't good here. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in an article in the Jerusalem Post.[12] It's standard for party info-boxes to provide information about international affiliations. TFD (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No objection here. DN (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding Reactionism to the Factions section of Ideology

Hi, I'm sort of new to Wikipedia editing so please excuse my lack of knowledge concerning procedure. I'd like to add the text I've pasted below to the factions section of the ideology thingy. I spent a while researching and found four decent sources. Of those four, the New Yorker, the Atlantic and the New York Times are already used in the Ideology section, for Right-wing Populism and Christian Right respectively, so I'd assume they are acceptable sources?

| Reactionism

Right as I was about to commit the change, I noticed the "-- Do not change without consensus at talk page. --", so I came over here. How do I achieve this consensus? I don't know how these procedures work, sorry. Carrot Powder (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! One of the reasons for that note, aside from WP:CONSENSUS is WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, among others. I am unfamiliar with any "reactionary faction" being listed on the article page, but that's not to say it doesn't exist. Please give editors here some time to look at the sources. There will need to be notable precedent for inclusion of this in the ideology section. Please be patient and utilize the WP:TEAHOUSE to find specific answers to your questions and other editors with more time to help guide new users like yourself. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Your first source, which incidentally does not meet Wikipedia policy for inclusion since it's an opinion piece by a non-expert, does not say the Republican Party has a reactionary faction. It says the party is reactionary.

Factions are organized groups within parties. Can you name the leaders of the reactionary faction, what they call themselves, when they were founded, what documents they issued and how many members they have? If you can't, it's not a faction. TFD (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that Carrot Powder (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Is Onondaga the birth place of the Republican party?

Syracuse.com reported Horace Greeely, Vivus W.Smith and Thurlow Weed on June 17th 1854; Made the plans for the Republican party under an Elm tree in Syracuse New York. Could this be accurate? EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The standard historians (like Gould, Mayer, Gienapp) do not mention this episode. It's a local legend (complete with a plaque on this tree at this spot but not true Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Position

It would be good for the Republican Party to have a political position, a first view of the page for anyone should clarify what line the party follows when positioning it on the political spectrum. I propose that I simply have this as a "Right-leaning" position, which is something that we all know is the party Monito rapido (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. The info-box already states the ideology of the party. Different informed observers will place that in different parts of the political spectrum. Even the same observers may use different descriptions which are clear from context. But labels in the info-box have no context.

Furthermore, the left/right division between the two parties only crystalized about 40 years ago. TFD (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

political position 2

I think its REALLY REALLY important for a political party to state their political position! the Republicans are centre-right/right-wing and it needs to be stated just like the Democrats being centre-left. or is it different over there in the states? cause almost every party here on Wikipedia has clearly stated their political position except maybe for the CCP but duhh thats expected. requesting the admins to take necessary actions Credmaster 20 (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this obsession with applying these simplistic labels. How do you determine the position of a party with some positions on the left and some on the right? Do certain positions take precedence over others for this determination? Could two such mixed parties wind up labelled the same, yet be diametrically opposed to each other? Are "right" and "left" related to the politics of the country in question or to some hypothetical world-wide standard? A clear description of the party's stated positions would seem much more useful than just slapping these tags on them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of research by scholars and research institutions about the left-right spectrum in political science. It is particularly studied in comparative politics and international relations to understand political trends globally and sometimes coordination across country boundaries. The formation of political groups of the European Parliament, like the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe, or the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is one demonstration of parties from different countries that are similarly positioned coordinating with each other. These parties also claim partners outside of Europe. The ECR claims the Republican Party as a partner, and supported the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2020 [13]. Another example are political internationals. Experts in this field have done research, gone through peer review, and have established how to define political positions. Center-left, center-right, and right-wing are also all defined here on Wikipedia with citations. How an individual editor defines these does not matter. The majority opinion found in the literature on this topic is what would be added. Editors should not be asked to rely on their own opinions. This has been stated many times by many editors. The insinuation that editors who suggest adding a political position are "slapping these tags on them" at this point is insulting when you have been engaged in this discussion over a long time. Ray522 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In comparative politics, political scientists group parties according to ideology, not position in the poltical spectrum. They use groupings such as liberal, socialist/social democrtic and Christian democratic. They place for example the Labour Party (UK), Social Democratic Party of Germany and Socialist Party of France in the same ideological group. They don't use the groupings of center left, left, centrist etc. because of their lack of precision.

We cannot use Wikipedia articles such as center left and information about parties to place them on the political spectrum, per WP:SYN. TFD (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of referencing the other pages was to see that sources exists, and others can be found if needed. And that asking for individual editors to define words would be asking them to do original research WP:NOR. Yes, ideologies are studied in comparative politics. Additionally, there is also research that looks at the left-right specturm, like this from the Manifesto Project Database, which was referenced by another editor a while ago, and written about in the New York Times. There are also articles like this article [14], which discusses and references both ideologies and the left-right spectrum in comparing political events in two different countries, or this book chapter [15]. Ray522 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support If for no other reason than to stop this issue from being brought up ad nauseam. To my knowledge, the Democratic party article also does not list it's political position either, however, we can all assume this issue will be raised over and over until it is addressed, as it has been for years. DN (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And then we argue ad nauseum about where specifically in the political spectrum each party lies. Presumably the two parties together cover the entire range of the political spectrum and in fact overlap, although not so much now as in the past. TFD (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

support

All other country parties do this

The Republican Party should be designated as right to far right

Democrats centre left to centre right 174.89.12.70 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Spelling error that I can't fix

The page is protected so I can't edit it but it says "As of 2024, Trumpist's are the dominant faction of the GOP."

"Trumpists" should not be not be apostrophised here. Hope someone can fix this! HYPERIAPATH (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Claims of missing viewpoint regarding inclusion of GOP support for Great Replacement Theory

@Springee You have once more removed mentioning of GRC in the article, citing WP:UNDUE. Which viewpoint do you think was not represented? The best you could come up in the past was a single opinion piece from a source not considered to be generally reliable (Newsweek). Do you have anything better at this point? Cortador (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like time for another round of discussion on this topic. Perhaps a poll? DN (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for what viewpoint is allegedly not represented here (based on removal of the bit citing WP:UNDUE). Cortador (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not due in a section on immigration policy and honestly, isn't due in the whole article for all the reasons previously outlined. Springee (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

What viewpoint is allegedly not represented here? Cortador (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is it undue for the entire article? DN (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Springee What significant viewpoint do you think is not represented here? Cortador (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ping me. I'm following the discussion. Your question doesn't make sense. Springee (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You removed content from the article repeatedly citing WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE states:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[c] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

What viewpoint is missing? If you are unwilling or unable to explain why a policy applies and why used it to remove content, revert your edit. You said you don't want Great Replacement Theory mentioned in the article at all, despite the topic being covered by plenty of reliable sources, and the inclusion having support from at least two other editors. Cortador (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've already said why this is an issue. First, it's a misleading talking point. What the survey found, while aligned with part of the GRCT, was not the same thing as the GRCT. Thus we are dealing with a talking point claim vs something that is a reliable fact. As I recall the same surveys found that a sizable minority of democrats believed the same claim about democrats favoring immigration because it they believe it helps them at the poles. And, just as importantly, this claim that you have been pushing is not a description of the GOP stance on immigration or immigration policy which is what that section was about. So it would have very little weight in the section at hand as it's only adjacent to the topic. Quoting large sections of policy text doesn't improve your claim but it, along with repeatedly asking the same question because you didn't like the last answer, becomes tendentious. I think we should let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You did not revert the addition for those reason, you reverted them because they supposedly missing a viewpoint, as per the policy you again and again cited. Your point about Democrats is whatbaoutism. Add that to the page of the Democratic Party if you wish to. GRCT us inherently tied to immigration, and the sources confirm that as well. Cortador (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. It's clear we aren't going to convince one another. I guess you are correct in that BALASP vs UNDUE is the correct reason. However, given how often UNDUE is cited when editors actually mean BALASP it is disingenuous to presume one vs the other and to ask questions such as "What viewpoint is allegedly not represented here?" vs perhaps clarifying if the content should be included at all. Again, let's give others a chance to weigh in. Springee (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice to see that you actually read the policy you have been citing a dozen times now. That said, BALASP doesn't apply because GRCT didn't get undue attention. Cortador (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Funny that you are saying undue as many editors, myself included, often use it. I wonder if you have ever used that same meaning? BALASP does apply because you are giving the topic undue attention, especially in a more policy related section. Springee (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not you like to cite policies incorrectly. If you cite and link to a policy, I expect that to be about that actual policy. You want GRCT not to be mentioned in the article at all, and you have yet to explain why considering the coverage the topic got in the context of the GOP. Cortador (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with Springee here. Ultimately it seems out of the sources cited there's one that might be relevant (NPR). The next source talks about Trump voters specifically (not synonymous with Republicans) and then the rest of the paragraph compares this to 2013. This strikes me as undue (or BALASP etc). — Czello ^(music) 13:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If we need to spur this discussion along I would propose an NPOV tag. DN (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Springee & Cortador, just a heads up I have consolidated the 2 talk sections. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. Precisely what is it you think is missing from the article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It may help to look at the previous discussion. There are dozens of RS on the prevalence of GRCT becoming a more mainstream talking point in the GOP, which we began discussing in January. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Didn't help at all. That discussion BEGINS by discussing an acronym! You may be obsessed with whatever this subject is, and know everything about it, but other editors don't. If you can't explain it simply here, maybe it doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You have to ask Spirngee and Muboshgu. Both removed the additions regarding GOP support for the GRCT on the grounds that certain viewpoints aren't represented (citing WP:UNDUE), and then repeatedly failed to iterate which viewpoints those are. Springee now claims that GRCT shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all, despite the topic being covered by RS in the context of the GOP. Cortador (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You could help by explaining what GCRT is. We DON'T have a Wikipedia article on it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Great Replacement (Conspiracy) Theory. We haven an article on it, and one on GRCT in the US as well. Cortador (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the name YOU were using needs to become a redirect to at ;east one of those articles. Searching Wikipedia for GRCT returns nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The section DN linked you to has "Great Replacement" in its name. It's not that opaque. Cortador (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples I started a RfC as per your suggestion as this likely won't be resolved otherwise. Cortador (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggested a poll, which is much less involved and time consuming than an RfC. I felt an NPOV tag would have also sufficed. I would reconsider the RfC at this point per WP:RFCBEFORE. There are other avenues for determing due WEIGHT and positioning within the article. DN (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe this is solvable without a RfC any more. Cortador (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, here are some recent reports of it's proliferation during 2024, as there are many stretching back to the Trump administration and the Unite the Right Rally in 2017.

• During the 2010s replacement theory became popular in the United States among white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and right-wing militias, among other extremists, whose racist rhetoric and ideas were more freely expressed during the presidency of Donald Trump (2017–21). Encyclopedia Britannica

1. Donald Trump, who has responded by calling Biden “the real threat to democracy” and alleged without proof that Biden is responsible for the indictments he faces, turned to Biden’s border policies on Saturday, charging that “every day Joe Biden is giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies of the United States.” “Biden’s conduct on our border is by any definition a conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America,” he went on to say in Greensboro, North Carolina. “Biden and his accomplices want to collapse the American system, nullify the will of the actual American voters and establish a new base of power that gives them control for generations.” Similar arguments have long been made by people who allege Democrats are promoting illegal immigration to weaken the power of white voters — part of a racist conspiracy, once confined to the far right, claiming there is an intentional push by the U.S. liberal establishment to systematically diminish the influence of white people. Trump leaned into the theory again at his rally later in Virginia, saying of the migrants: “They’re trying to sign them up to get them to vote in the next election.” AP News Axios

2. The Great Replacement narrative, rooted in white nationalism, posits without basis that a powerful cabal of elites are deliberately replacing white Americans with immigrants. In the last several years, the narrative has evolved into versions that appeal to different audiences. An antisemitic version of it, which surfaced during recent truck convoys focused on the border crisis, accuses Jews and Jewish organizations of engineering the surge of asylum seekers. Another version, voiced by some high-ranking GOP officials, asserts that Democrats are intentionally bringing in immigrants to dilute the strength of Republican voters. This narrative has been articulated by now-GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician), including at a House Judiciary Committee hearing prior to his elevation to party leadership. NPR

3. Vivek Ramaswamy also boosted the "great replacement theory," the white nationalist belief that immigration policies are designed specifically to dilute the political power of white Americans by making them a smaller share of the population. ABC News

4. The immigration debate has historically been laced with racist and antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories. These poisonous ideas are center stage in the drive to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Impeachment proponents in Congress accuse Mayorkas of deliberately inviting an immigrant invasion. This draws directly from the “Great Replacement” theory, which explains demographic change as a plot against white people, often instigated by Jews to undermine white dominance and usurp power. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote the impeachment resolution accusing Mayorkas of failing in his duty to “prevent invasion” and the “willful admittance of border crossers.” Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green (Tennessee politician) (R-TN) and House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) claim that Secretary Mayorkas is intentionally encouraging more immigration. Nefarious “intent” is a key feature of replacement theory – the conspiratorial idea that immigrants are lured to the United States to dominate and reshape American culture and politics. As Rep. Randy Weber said, “A full-blown invasion. America will be unrecognizable…..” Time

5. Michigan Representative Josh Schriver's staff was reassigned and he was removed from a House committee as punishment for sharing a social media post that included a racist conspiracy theory, the state's House speaker announced on Monday.Newsweek CBS The Hill

6. It’s a reminder that Republican and Trump’s own efforts to appeal to Black and Hispanic voters are happening as the party also centers heavily on the politics of White grievance, including in its most extreme forms. The “great replacement theory,” centered on a conspiracy involving immigration, is broadly accepted among Republicans, creating oxygen for fringe-right racists like those NBC saw at CPAC. WaPo

....This list keeps going... DN (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article mention support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP?

Should the article mention support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP?

• A: Mentioning of support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP should be included in the article.
• B: Mentioning of support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP should not be included in the article.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Background

Content regarding GOP support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory has been removed from the article, and at least two editors have voiced opposition to include mentioning GRCT in the article altogether. While the discussion around a recent edit started only recently, this topic has been discussed her before earlier this year and has been unresolved for several weeks (see here). Since general opposition to including information on the GOP and GRCT anywhere in the article has been voiced, I suggest to keep this RfC simple and determine whether or not this topic should be included at all. We have an article on GRCT in the US if you are not familiar with the topic.

Poll (GRCT)

• A: There a a lot of RS covering the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, both in the US in general and in the context of the GOP specifically. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Per discussion below this question is too vague to be useful. I suggest proposing a specific or reasonably specific edit (text and location) rather than suggesting that somewhere, someplace this content might be included. Springee (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  What if we determine which historians and academics understand GRCT well enough to rely on before we get into where we put it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't their opinions help us determine the answers to those questions? Cheers. DN (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• B - because it is not really a part of the Republican Party so much as a belief among some Republicans, politicians and supporters. Relevant in the pages of those notable Republicans that do espouse such views, less so in the article on the party itself. nableezy - 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• B - Agree with User:Nableezy's reasoning. MonMothma (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• B, it's not a mainline belief of the GOP specifically.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• B, doesn't appear to be the political party's official stance. Best keep the info within the aforementioned GRCT article. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (GRCT)

I'm not sure this is helpful as there is a big difference between "don't mention at all" and putting this is the section on GOP immigration policy as was recently done. Perhaps pulling this RfC back and replacing it with something that is closer to a proposed change would be helpful. Springee (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You voiced blanket opposition to inclusion of mentioning of GRCT in this article, therefore determining whether that should be included at all is the way to go. Cortador (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that A is vague at best. Would we then have an RfC on positioning and one on weight? — Czello ^(music) 14:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Czello. This RfC is too vague, and I think we should start over with something more specific (e.g. some proposed language to consider). At present, my response to this RfC is "it depends". If someone proposed to add a sentence stating, "Polls show that x percent of Republican voters believe the GRCT", that would be worth considering (I believe some polling along those lines was referenced above in the endless talk page discussion). However, if someone proposed to add a sentence stating that the Republican Party as an entity supports the GRCT, that would be unacceptable unless there was some mention of it in a GOP platform or some other GOP document. MonMothma (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason why mentioning of GRCT has repeatedly been removed from this article is because one editor stated that it shouldn't be mentioned be included in the article at all. I opened this RfC to determine whether or not GRCT should be mentioned or not.Cortador (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) I'm not staking a position on whether or not it is appropriate to mention this particular subject matter in this particular article, especially given the very broad (and as others have noted, overly-flattened) yes/no dichotomy of the OP inquiry. I'm very hesitant to endorse any inclusion without more particularized discussions about the exact context and wording (largely because of concerns regarding WP:EXCEPTIONAL), but I also can't completely rule out the possibility of connecting the two subjects in this article, depending on the specific connection being identified and how the sources discuss said connection.

So, insofar as my first paragraph there goes, I think we are in strong agreement. However, I also want to point out that when you go on to say "However, if someone proposed to add a sentence stating that the Republican Party as an entity supports the GRCT, that would be unacceptable unless there was some mention of it in a GOP platform or some other GOP document.", that is absolutely and without question not how inclusion on this project is determined, and would be unambiguous WP:Original research. It is not the place of our editors to scrutinize the conduct and actions of a subject to analyze whether or not some value or belief ascribed to that subject is an accurate representation (whether we are using the official statements of the subject or any other measure).

Rather, if enough WP:Reliable sources created enough WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT, through their coverage, for the claim that the Republican Party as a whole embraces this (or any other) conspiracy theory, then we would follow suit and relay that this has been an observation made about the party. We might do it with scrupulously attributed statements, but we would mention it, if there was enough WEIGHT, because our role as editors here is not to ascertain to the "truth" through our own individual lenses and faculties, but to relay what has been observed by reliable sources (WP:NPOV/WP:OR).

Now, do I think there is enough WP:WEIGHT to justify a blanket statement about the GOP as an institution embraces this particular belief system? Well, I'd have to dig much, much deeper into the sourcing to give an absolutely conclusive answer to that, but my initial inclination is to say that a truly huge volume of high quality sources would be necessary to support an un-qualified, un-attributed statement like that in Wikivoice, given the size of the overall corpus of sources and the variety of opinions about the Republican Party--and, again, the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of the claim.

Nevertheless, it bears remembering that any such decision has to be based exclusively upon the weight of the sources, and not our own individual, idiosyncratic views about what makes something a product of the party as a whole (such as a test based on whether or not the party had formally, affirmatively endorsed it through an explicit statement in their platform, or any other measure we as individuals think might make such an observation a "fair" one). That's just not the standard on this project; our role here is not to make sure that the observations we put in our content are rational and reasonable, but rather that they reflect what reliable sources say on the matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussing a "proposed" sentence which describe all of the GOP as GRCT supporters is a pointless hypothetical. Nobody has made such a suggestion, and it has never been in the article. Cortador (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That fact is merely incidental to the point I was stressing for MonMothma (whose perspective I otherwise align with). Regardless of what particular statement is or is not proposed for inclusion, the metrics for inclusion must be based exclusively upon the weight of discussion in reliable sources, not our own feelings as individuals about whether or not ascribing this or that label is reasonable, logical, or fair, based on our own analysis of the facts and how the party in question has behaved. As the old Wikipedia adage goes, it's about WP:WEIGHT, not WP:TRUTH.

As a side note, I think you very much need to drop the ambivalence to the primary piece of advice pretty much every respondent and participant of this discussion so far has given you about your opening prompt. Everyone gets what you are saying when you state that you structured the options as you did because at least one other editor has implied there should be no mention of the 'Great Replacement Theory' whatsoever. Nevertheless, approaching the discussion with that dichotomy, especially on such a high traffic talk page, is still next to useless. Because almost every veteran editor is going to agree that we don't permanently proscribe any subject from any article. Therefor all you are doing by wording the prompt as you have is scoring a philosophical victory by getting a bunch of respondents to agree with you in the broadest of possible terms, at the cost of a lot of wasted volunteer time. But after that point is established, you are still going to have to engage in further discussion to resolve the exact disputed content.

It is therfore infinitely better to first establish a prompt that directly inquires about the actual content that may or may not be appropriate. And refusing the accept that time-saving advice and instead insisting upon having this high level (but essentially functionless) debate about whether mention of the Great Replacement Theory in any capacity would be acceptable under any circumstances, purely on principle, is not going to help you with support on the underlying and more specific issues. Each of us can only afford to respond to so many FRS requests, so make this RfC count for something concrete. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Snow Rise, I hear you, and I stand corrected. If reliable sources say the GOP adheres to the GRCP, that is what the encyclopedia should say--whether or not there is a GOP policy statement on the subject. On a related note, I resonate strongly with your statement that "a truly huge volume of high quality sources would be necessary to support an un-qualified, un-attributed statement like that in Wikivoice". I am concerned that biased sources--including some that might be considered reliable--might carelessly smear the GOP by connecting the GOP to the GRCP without any real justification. MonMothma (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see what the issue is with having a second discussion should the outcome of this RfC be that GRCT should be included in this article. Quite the opposite: the discussion where and what specific wording to include is going to be more productive once blanket refusing is off the table. Cortador (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Since January there hasn't been much discussion on this topic. For clarity I'm copy-editing Cortador's most recent edit from the bottom of the Immigration section to this discussion for easier examination.

• A number of Republicans support the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory based on the idea that immigration is used as a tool by certain groups in power to displace white Americans in favour of racial minorities. It was a largely fringe believe until 2014. According to a 2022 study by AP and NORC, half of Republicans believed in the conspiracy theory, compared to a third of all and 20% of Democrats surveyed. A poll by Yahoo News and YouGov in the same year showed that 61% of Trump voters agreed with the core message of the conspiracy theory. This is a shift from the party's 2013 post-election assessment, which had come to the conclusion that the Republican Party needed to appeal to minorities in order to be successful.

Refs

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this since this cites the repeatedly removed section:

NPR: GRCT has been replaced by Republicans, explicitly and implicitly.

NPR: Republicans politicians, including high-ranking ones, have embraced GRCT.

USA News: The concept of GRCT has been "woven into the campaigns against Democrats".

The Guardian: GRCT is "Republican orthodoxy" and "Republican party mainstream".

PBS: Several Republican 2022 cnadidates promoted GRCT.

WP: The Republican Party has increasingly been embracing GRCT.

ABC News, citing Larry Rosenthal: Expression of GRCT has "assumed rhetorical predominance" in the GOP.

NPR: GRCT "has come to dominate mainstream Republican discourse on immigration, extremism researchers warn". Cortador (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• I moved the central question to the top of the RfC and signed it so that part is copied over to WP:RFCA. Cortador, you may want to substitute your own signature for mine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have any articles about the Republican Party that say it is significant? Also, you need an expert to interpret the polls. While likely most Republicans and many Democrats don't want to see non-white people immigrate, that doesn't necessarily mean they think we're in the beginnings of a genocide against white folks. TFD (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need a source that states that this is signifiant. Significance is established by RS covering the topic. Likewise, we don't need an expert to interpret the poll. The poll isn't directly cited from the polling company, but from a source reporting on it. That is sufficient. Cortador (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually we should have such a source. When dealing with a topic as big as and with as much source material as the GOP we do need some way to help filter what is WP:V but not due for inclusion. RSs that tend to summaries a topic are excellent guides for us to decide what expert/professional editors think is important to include in an article that is meant to summarize a topic. Springee (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, we should not. If a high enough number of quality sources cover this topic, it should be included. Don't try to create artificial requirements here. Cortador (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So how many is enough? If this is really due then why aren't summary sources including it? Springee (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  A number that editors agree is sufficient. "Summary sources" is a requirement you made up. Cortador (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It has been discussed more heavily since the string of attacks ending with Buffalo in 2022.

  1. Greenblatt, Gertz and Miller-Idriss say claims of an orchestrated "immigrant invasion" have gained legitimacy through the endorsement of some elected Republicans, most notably former President Donald Trump. But they note that the messaging has continued after Trump left office. NPR

  2. Cas Mudde In few countries has this process of mainstreaming has been as successful and visible as in the United States, where the main representatives of the mainstream right wing, like Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, are propagating the Great Replacement Theory with great success. Just a few days before the terrorist attack, a poll showed that nearly half of Republicans believe the conspiracy theory...The Grand Old Party has become a far-right party that advances racist arguments in both implicit and explicit form. And many organizations within the broader “conservative” movement have followed suit, from Fox News to Turning Point USA. The Guardian

  3. Joseph Lowndes - "But scholars and journalists have noted that in recent years, right-wing pundits and Republican politicians have also begun using the term “replacement” to assert without evidence that there is a liberal plot to outnumber Republicans with Democrats by opening the borders to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. This political version of replacement is neither an exotic import from European white nationalists, nor is it novel. The contemporary notion of political replacement draws on this longer history of perceived threats posed by non-White populations to White democracy, but it is more immediately rooted in the history of the modern Republican Party." WaPo

  4. Mark Pitcavage Some of the Republican campaigns denied that their statements amounted to replacement theory, but among the experts, there is little question. Five experts on hate speech who reviewed the Republican candidates’ comments confirmed that they promote the baseless racist theory, even though the Republicans don’t mention race directly. Indeed, a mainstream interpretation of replacement theory in the U.S. baselessly suggests Democrats are encouraging immigration from Latin America so more like-minded potential voters replace “traditional” Americans, says Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism. PBS

  5. Kathleen Belew - So I think the very different thing here is that this is no longer a fringe idea. And what we are seeing is the move from sort of a looking away position where, for instance, after the El Paso shooting of Latina and Latino people in the Walmart a number of years back, there was a memo by the GOP directing our attention away from white power activism and towards mental health. So this directing our attention away has now moved to an open embrace by pundits, by people in the party of a overtly white power tenant. NPR DN (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Summary sources" is not a requirement that was made up.

  "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

  "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight."

  The Republican Party is a huge big topic. You need reliable sources to determine what is significant, not what you find to be significant.

  Editors should watch Gangs of New York, which is about New York politics circa 1860. New Irish Catholic immigrants were welcomed by Tammany Hall and sent to fight in the Civil War. Reactionaries set up organizations to protect "true Americans." Nothing has changed. TFD (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Can", "may" - they are not a requirement. Also, as DN has shown above, there's plenty of material. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that it's not typically a word for word recitation of the original replacement theory by Renaud Camus. Reports often use the term "echoes" to describe rhetoric "espousing" or "overlapping" with GRCT. The rhetoric experts commonly associate it with involves mention of an organized plot by Democrats to subvert elections and "invade" the US to undermine and or destroy white American culture, but seems to rarely mention any elite cabal of Jewish people.

  6. The once-fringe immigration proposals pushed by former President Trump are now the backbone of the GOP’s immigration and border security platform. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday launched his official immigration and border security platform titled “Stop the Invasion” — a term civil rights organizations associate with the Great Replacement Theory...“And what do we mean by that? We mean that you have elected officials and public figures like media personalities promoting things like the Great Replacement Theory, or promoting conspiracy theories about all sorts of things...“It’s important to point out that the word invasion has been used for many, many years by various political figures on the right who don’t want undocumented immigrants coming into the country,” said Marilyn Mayo, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that DeSantis is promoting the Great Replacement Theory. It does mean that he has some viewpoints that overlap with that theory,” added Mayo...The Hill

  7. The Global Project Against Hate & Extremism, headed by Heidi Beirich PhD and Wendy Via of the SPLC, have also been tracking GRCT, very closely monitoring statements by politicians.

  8. This conspiracy theory has grown so popular among key GOP figures that the conservative elite can no longer condemn it unreservedly. Instead, some prominent conservatives have chosen to defend it in sanitized form, arguing that the Democratic Party’s support for immigration reform is a plot to, as Representative Elise Stefanik of New York put it in an ad last year, “overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington.” Note the notion that an “electorate” can be “overthrown” by being outvoted, as though Republican electoral defeat is by definition illegitimate—especially if that victory is enabled by the wrong kind of voters. The Atlantic

  9. It is difficult to square this rhetoric with the actions of the Republican National Committee, which insists Latinos are the future of the Republican Party and have held naturalization events for immigrants around the country. The Washington Times reports the Republican National Committee “hosted and planned over 100 events for Hispanic Heritage Month” in swing states that include Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Florida and others. Over 100 Hispanic House candidates are running as Republicans, a new record, according to the RNC. Immigration Legislation: The conflict between “great replacement” rhetoric and GOP outreach to Latinos affects individuals who need Congress to address their legal status. Forbes

  Cheers. DN (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"But they note that the messaging has continued after Trump left office." No surprise there. Who is the current head of state has little impact on what ideas the various parties and political organizations are promoting. Ideas refuse to die, unlike humans. Dimadick (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying that GOP rhetoric overlaps with GRCT is not saying they are the same thing.

It is a fact that the white percentage of the population has declined every census period since 1940 (See White Americans#Demographic information.) The U.S. will probably become a majority minority country in the 2040s (See Majority minority in the United States.) What makes this a conspiracy theory?

TFD (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory makes it a conspiracy theory. Cortador (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says claims that the relative size of the white population in America is declining is a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Calling certain data factual is one thing, but GRCT is not said data. Adherents have used statistics like that in conflation with GRCT, in an attempt to give GRCT legitimacy. Essentially, quoting data is not the same thing as saying that Democrats are "invading" or "flooding" the US with immigrants to replace/destroy white American culture and it's electorate, ie Republicans. The point is that many of these adherents are high profile GOP members, ranking leaders as well as Republican voters, according to RS.

10. "The theory’s first inaccurate assumption is that white Americans will soon become a minority population. But using any nuanced reading of the data, that’s not true. Yes, in 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau published a population projection that by the year 2044, non-Hispanic white Americans would no longer be a numerical majority in the country. But not being the majority is not the same as being a minority: Even in that projection, non-Hispanic white Americans would still make up a plurality of the population compared with any other race. And non-Hispanic white Americans are not the only white Americans."

"Another plot hole in the mainstream replacement narrative is the assumption that immigrants will solely support the Democratic party...Carlson, too, has repeatedly warned of a so-called Democratic plot to “import an entirely new electorate from the Third World and change the demographics of the U.S. so completely they will never lose again.” But even he concedes that this narrative is flawed, pointing out in his show last week that many non-white and immigrant voters are, in fact, Republican. In the 2020 election, roughly 2 in 5 Latino voters cast a ballot for then-President Donald Trump." fivethirtyeight.com

DN (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not my job to dig out sources for you. Sources state that GRCT is in fact a conspiracy theory. If you want a RS for any other claim, feel free to search for one Cortador (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition...

11. "The argument made by Trump in 2016 and by other Republicans at other points is that the Democrats hope to cut this Gordian knot by simply granting immigrants citizenship status. While there have been debates on the left about creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, that is more a function of making such immigrants eligible for citizenship at all which, at this point, they are not. To become a citizen, you must have entered the country legally. Regardless, it’s clear that no such legislation is going to be passed by Congress anytime soon, particularly given the Republican ability to block legislation in the Senate. We can go one step further. Even if there were some magical bestowing of citizenship on newly arrived immigrants, this theory about White voters being “replaced” depends on those immigrants voting. I’m not clear how the conspiracy theory speculates that the cabal of elites will force those newcomers to cast ballots, but I can say, thanks to Census Bureau data, that many naturalized citizens don’t bother voting. In 2020, an estimated 67 percent of native-born Americans voted in the presidential election. Only 61 percent of naturalized citizens did. Among immigrants from Latin America and Mexico, the percentage was lower: 57 percent." WaPo

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The SPLC asked three questions:

(1) As you know, the demographic makeup of America is changing and becoming more diverse, with the U.S. Census estimating white people will be a minority in approximately 25 years. Generally speaking, do you find these changes to be very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or very negative?"

(2) Do you feel the changing demographics of america pose a threat to white Americans and their culture ad values, or not? (IF YES) Do you feel that way strongly, somewhat, or only a little?

(3) Agree or disagree: The recent change in our national demographic makeup is not a natural change but has been motivated by progressives and liberal leaders actively trying to leverage political power by replacing more conservative white voters?"

Elsewhere in the SPLC article it says, "The [GRCT] says there is a systematic, global effort to replace white, European people with nonwhite, foreign populations. The ultimate goal of those responsible — Democrats, leftists, “multiculturalists” and, at times, Jews — is to reduce white political power and, ultimately, to eradicate the white race."

Notice the article does not ask respondents whether they believe in the GRCT, but comes to its conclusions based on three questions. Since a reasonable person might come to another conclusion, you would need to show consensus opimion for their conclusions in reliable sources, i.e., among sociologists and political scientists.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "The [SPLC]'s views...should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article." TFD (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What's your point? Any of the points made about GRCT don't rely exclusively in SPLC. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the conclusions you want to include in th article rely exclusively on the SPLC, it doesn't mean that we should not examine each source you provide.

My point is that you are presenting opinions as facts in order to determine the level of support for the GRCT among Republicans. You are confusing facts used to support their conclusions with their actual conclusions. TFD (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What "opinions"? Cortador (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That most republicans believe in the GRCT. You know, what this discussion thread is about. TFD (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My addition claimed that "[a] number of Republicans support the Great Replacement conspiracy theory" and "[a]ccording to a 2022 study by AP and NORC, half of Republicans believed in the conspiracy theory". None of those are "opinions", they are statements backed up by reliable sources.

"Most republicans believe in the GRCT" is a statement you fabricated. Cortador (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There are studies and polls other than the SPLC's and (12.) AP-NORC, regarding GRCT and it's predominance in Republican party, by different experts and organizations. However the AP-NORC data has been cited repeatedly by experts and academics in discussions about GRCT and the GOP, including...

13. Samuel L. Perry & Philip Gorski "Since 2015, that theory has captured the fringes and some in the mainstream on the right, from angry young men bearing tiki torches in Charlottesville; to pundits like Ann Coulter, Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson; to at least a half-dozen prominent Republican candidates and lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), Reps. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and Scott Perry (Pa.), Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers, and J.D. Vance, Ohio’s GOP nominee for the Senate. WaPo

and...

14. Nicole Hemmer In the case of the great replacement conspiracy theory, the ideas are far older than Mr. Carlson’s show, or even the Fox News Channel, on which it appears. It repackages the mass of reactionary ideas and anxieties that have fed nativism, racism and antisemitism in the United States and Europe for centuries... Stephen Miller, the hard-line nativist who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump throughout his presidency, also favored the book (“The Camp of the Saints”) as a framework for talking about immigration to the United States...Part of the strategy was to present white-power ideas as more palatable. Another was to draw in new recruits attracted, or at least intrigued, by the ideas they heard...All of this has had an effect. In the years since Mr. Carlson began talking about the conspiracy theory, it has spread rapidly on the right, not just in the dark hollows of the violent white-power movement, but (15) also among Republican politicians and voters. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Representative Elise Stefanik, the No. 3 Republican in the current House, have echoed the theory, and a recent Associated Press-NORC poll showed that nearly a third of Fox News viewers believe in the tenets of the great replacement conspiracy theory (for viewers of the far-right cable channels Newsmax and OANN, that number is even higher). NYT

among others...

Outside of the AP-NORC there's this study by Garen Wintemute via United States National Library of Medicine.

16. "This report focuses on one specific group that may be at increased risk for political violence: so-called MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republicans. In speeches on August 25, 2022, in Bethesda and Rockville, Maryland [10, 11], and September 1, 2022, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [12], US President Biden used that term in reference to Republicans who supported Donald Trump and denied the results of the 2020 election. He asserted that MAGA Republicans endorsed political violence, implying that they did so more than others or that others did not. He emphasized his belief that his characterization applied to only a minority of Republicans [13–16]. Critics nonetheless accused him of maligning half the country, apparently referring to persons who had voted for Donald Trump [13, 17–20]. These critics were asserting, in essence, that MAGA Republicans were indistinguishable from other Republicans.

"This study applies a public health approach to political violence. It uses standard methods to investigate variation in self-reported support for and willingness to engage in political violence, which are plausible proximate markers of risk for committing political violence [33]. It also assesses variation in prevalence of extreme beliefs—including the QAnon delusion and great replacement thinking, that have been linked to political violence in specific cases [34–36] and can be considered as potential indicators of risk for political violence. NCBI.NLM.NIH

There's one by the Public Religion Research Institute which Ronald Brownstein has discussed with William H. Frey as an economic argument against Republicans pushing GRCT in a 2021 CNN article.

17. Far right White supremacist groups, conservative media personalities and now (18) Republicans in Congress are trying to inflame nativist feelings among conservative Whites by warning that liberals want immigrants to “replace” native-born Americans in the nation’s culture and electorate...In polling by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, about three-fifths of Republicans in both 2019 and 2020 agreed with the harshly worded statement that “immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background.” Among Whites who described themselves as very favorable toward Trump, more than three-fourths in each year endorsed that idea, according to detailed results provided by the institute."

"Already the Public Religion Research Institute polling shows that Republicans who receive most of their information from Fox News are more likely than others in the GOP to embrace the “invading” argument.

The economic realities facing the nation suggest that the “replacement theory” has the equation almost exactly backward. Carlson, Johnson and other proponents of the theory are telling their audience centered on older and working-class Whites that they should fear being “replaced” by immigrants. But the real threat to those constituencies, as more of them step into retirement, is that they won’t be replaced by immigrants in the workforce and the tax base. Without more immigrants, those culturally anxious Whites face the virtual certainty of more financial pressure on their federal retirement benefits and slower economic growth for American society overall. “You talk about ‘replacement,’ well, they need to be replaced in the workforce – that’s the issue,”

"Frey says. “Growing the younger age groups and particularly the younger workforce age groups is essential for us to not get into a situation of accentuated age dependency.” It’s far from the first time, but in pushing the racist “replacement theory,” the voices of the populist right are stirring cultural anxieties to mobilize their blue-collar and older White constituencies behind economic policies that harm their own interests." CNN

19. The great replacement: Strategic mainstreaming of far-right conspiracy claims In the United States, the idea of replacement has been propagated by Fox News star host Tucker Carlson. Carlson has repeatedly expressed the idea that ‘white Anglo-Saxons’ are being replaced by immigrant populations (Åsard, 2020). Moreover, Republican senators such as Ron Johnson have also tapped into ‘The Great Replacement’ theory when addressing questions on (new) voter cohorts. Johnson claimed that immigration policies are a way for Democrat elected representatives to ensure political support: ‘[T]his administration wants complete open borders. And you have to ask yourself why? Is it really, they want to remake the demographics of America to ensure their – that they stay in power forever? Is that what’s happening here?’ (Benen, 2021) (20.) MSNBC "It wasn't long before a toxic echo reverberated in some Republican circles. The Washington Post (21.) noted, for example, that Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) spoke up at a congressional hearing on Central American migrants, delivering rhetoric that sounded awfully similar to Carlson's..But as important as those relevant details are, it's the degree to which Johnson's suggestion dovetails with Tucker Carlson's "replacement" rhetoric that's especially jarring. The wording obviously wasn't identical, but the similarities in sentiments are hardly subtle, and they reinforce larger concerns about the poison spreading, both on Capitol Hill and in conservative media...".

This (22.) WaPo article has commentary from several academics involved in the above other research papers.

I have more to share, but I am pressed for time at the moment...To be continued.

Cheers. DN (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there should be more mention on how the modern Republican Party has embraced and promoted once fringe far-right conspiracy theories, of which the replacement theory would be one of them. A sentence or two on this topic would be relevant to include on this page, although we don't need to have a whole paragraph just on the replacement theory in my opinion. Rather, it should be linked to so readers can learn more about it if they choose to. BootsED (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

TFD's arguments are similar to ones I made not that long ago. First, TFD is correct in saying we really should be looking to summary sources to decide if this is due in this article. The GOP is a very large topic. When a topic is small it might be reasonable for editors to try to decide what RS information is DUE/BALASP. However, when the topic is as big as this we really need external sources to show us what content is due. I don't think their are any summary sources that emphasize this talking point. TFD is spot on in their analysis of the SPLC's survey and leap from it's answers to "believe in GRCT". The survey is flawed in part because some of the questions are asked in a way where someone might say "yes" because they generally agree even if they don't agree with the specific racial implications with the way the question was asked. Certainly someone could answer yes to the last question based on politics without a concern for race. As was discussed previously, it is widely acknowledged that the immigrant vote favors Democrats. The way the SLPC phrased the questions makes it easy to claim someone who says "yes" believes in "a core principle" of the GRCT. When such claims are reported that distinction is often conflated with "believes in GRCT". While DN has provided many sources how many specifically say "the GOP" vs "some conservatives" or "some on the right" etc. I would also note that in January's discussion it was clear that a sizable number of Democrats also answered Yes to the same survey questions. Either they are also racists who believe in the GRCT or perhaps most of these people thought they were answering a different question. Springee (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course there are racist Democrats, racism doesn't discriminate. XD

Cheers. DN (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The AP-NORC poll asked respondents whether the purpose of non-white immigration to benefit Democrats in elections and whether non-white immigration would lead to white folks "losing economic, political, and cultural influence." It did not test for belief in the GRCT itself. It just noted that these two issues related to core GRCT beliefs.

So like the SLC poll, the conclusions of the AP-NORC pollsters are their opinions.

In order to make your claim as fact, you need a poll that asks Republicans outright whether they believe in the GRCT. TFD (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

We know there are also Democratic racists. But following the SPLC article's methodology, we would have to conclude that 17% to 35% of Democrats believe in the GRCT, with 9% to 19& undecided. Wouldn't you see that as a REDFLAG? TFD (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Making interpretations like that feels like WP:OR. I just look at what the sources say. DN (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR says, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Obviously it takes some critical thinking on our part in order to determine whether the statement made in the SPLC article is one of fact or opinion. Even saying that something sounds like OR is itself OR, unless you can find a reliable secondary source that comments on what another editor has written.

How else would one distinguish between fact and opinion in sources, without using critical thinking? TFD (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not against criticism or evaluation of sources for the purpose of "rewriting source material in our own words while retaining the substance", but at the moment there are so many sources to keep track of, (which I only started doing back in January) I barely have time to keep up with that aspect at the moment, let alone audit other editor's interpretations of methods and statistics. I will try to comment on that at some point later on.

There's the NLM study (16)

The PRRI poll (Immigration-Immigrants as Cultural Threat) (17)

...And others, only to be followed by the multitude of news reports and opinions of by multiple academics and experts in research papers and secondary sources...If any of the citations so far has the potential to be a preferred summary source, by all means, please share those evaluations as well.

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What that means is that you can post opinions and interpretations on talk pages without that content needing the backing of sources like article space does.

You are trying to label sources you don't like as "opinions", or have a fundamental lack of understanding how sourcing on Wikipedia works. Cortador (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

((outdent))Posting onto talk pages facts and opinions in reliable sources without providing references is not original research.Your interpretation of policy is however OR which is true of any interpretation whether good or bad. So is your interpretation of my motives which btw violates policy not because it is OR but because it is a personal attack.

Anyway, How else would one distinguish between fact and opinion in sources, without using critical thinking?

TFD (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Summary sources" is a requirement you fabricated. We have external sources. We also have sources that explicitly state that Republicans agree with GRCT e.g the Washington Post using the wording "Nearly half of Republicans agree with ‘great replacement theory’". Your original research regarding SPLC doesn't change that.

BALASP states: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."

There are a lot of RS on that topic. This is not a on-off event or recent event. Lastly, you repeated "But what about the "Democrats!" whatbaoutism doesn't matter because this isn't the article about the Democratic Party.

What you are doing here is stonewalling by making up requirements for the inclusion of this content in the article because you don't want it included. Cortador (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It would take a lot of space to address your issues point by point, so I will address them generally. Also, please don't make personal attacks such as accusing me of "fabricating" things or of rejecting facts I don't like. It is not persuasive and does nothing to further discussion.

It should be obvious that unless respondents are polled whether they believe that there is an international plot by "Democrats, leftists, “multiculturalists” and, at times, Jews...to eradicate the white race," that concluding they do is a matter of analysis and opinion. Certainly original the title used by the SPLC, "Racist 'Replacement' Theory Believed by Half of Americans" brings up redflag issues.

I frequently come across editors who object to using the SPLC desription of "hate group" in articles about conservative groups. And, as Generally Accepted Reliable Sources requires, I say that it is being presented as an attibuted opinion and is done not because it is the opinion of the SPLC but because reliable sources routinely mention the SPLC's assessment when referring to the group. I don't say it is a fact that should be included without attribution.

BALASPS applies only to facts, not opinions. But if the SPLC opinion were a fact, then BALASPS would require it be routinely used in describing the Republicans. The Republicans is such a huge big topic that countless papers are written about even its most minor aspects. For example, numerous Republican politicians, such as Bob Lafollette and Fiorello La Guardia are not mentioned in the article, although they are subject of countless books and well remembered today. TFD (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

While you accused another editor of "fabricating" "summary sources," please see WP:TERTIARY (refers to sources that "summarize.") Can you explain the difference between sources that summarize and summary sources? These sources, as the policy explains, are useful in determining WP:BALASPS and the relative weight of opinions. Is there any reason you think they are not? TFD (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no requirement for summary sources. The bit you linked to merely states that they "can help" or "may help". Cortador (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the polls (of which there are multiple, not just one by the SPLC) and alleged "red flags" continues to be original research. If you don't like the SPLC as a source in general, you are free challenge it on the reliable sources noticeboard.

"But X isn't included either" is another version of "But what about the "Democrats". Cortador (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Check whether the piece is a news piece or an op-ed/commentary, check whether RS discussions consider the source opinionated, and don't exclude sources because you don't agree with them i.e. doing original research again. Cortador (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

While there is no requirement for summary sources, they "can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." Do you have a better way to provide due weight in this case"

"Original research says, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Obviously it takes some critical thinking on our part in order to determine whether the statement made in the SPLC article is one of fact or opinion. Even saying that something sounds like OR is itself OR, unless you can find a reliable secondary source that comments on what another editor has written.

How else would one distinguish between fact and opinion in sources, without using critical thinking? How else would one know if something is a redflag?

Your original research that I dislike the SPLC as a source is a fabrication. I have always supported its use as a reliable source. I also happen to agree with what Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "The [SPLC]'s views...should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article."

When you say that my mention of the Democrats is whataboutism, you should explain why you think it is wrong to use it. Throwing out random terms without explaining how they apply is not helpful to any discussion. If I ask why Walmart associates earn minimum wage, while the Waltons are among the wealthiest families in the U.S., you could say that is whataboutism.

Maybe our point of disagreement is that you have a different conception of what facts and opinions are. Facts are statements that rational people consider to be true. Opinions are conclusions about what those facts imply. Rational people can disagree over conclusions. In this case, an analyst has taken three answers from a survey and determined that half the U.S. believes in the GRCT. No other expert source has been provided. I am not arguing that she is wrong, just that another rational person could come to a different conclusion, which puts it in the realm of opinion rather than fact.

TFD (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources covering the topic. There's no requirement for a "summary source". I've explained your misreading of OR above already.

We have multiple other sources in addition to the SPLC. Nobody has argued against attributing anything from SPLC, so I'm not sure what you are arguing against here.

This isn't an article about the Democratic Party. If you want to know whether Democrats believing in GRCT should be included in the article on the party, feel free to discuss that on the respective talk page.

I don't care what conclusion you would come to, because it doesn't matter. Wikipedia reflects what RS report on, not how it's editors interpret data from those soyrcy. Cortador (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually you don't have plenty of sources that discuss the GOP and make the GRCT claim. You have many sources that say some right wing or racists etc believe this or this politician said something associated with the the GRCT. Basically most of the sources are oblique rather than direct which is what we would need here. The reason to discuss the SPLC is obvious. It shows how the survey and the reported results don't align. You are wrong to claim Wikipedia "reflects what RS report on". WP:V specifically says that just because something is in a RS doesn't mean it automatically gets included here (see ONUS). How can we decide if something should be included when dealing with such a large topic like this? Well one of the best ways is look to see what summary sources view as important to include about the topic. I'm sure you would agree that we can find many facts/details about the GOP topic that aren't included here (results of various local elections or even various congressional elections). It's clear you want this material included but given the very few sources that directly tie this topic to the GOP the argument to do so is weak. Springee (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing excluding information that is verifiable but doesn't add to the article (which is fine per Wikipedia policy) with excluding information that is verifiable based on disagreement with the source - which in this case isn't even SPLC - it is USA Today. You have attempted slandering SPLC before (like above where you claimed they are "manufacturing controversy to generate donations"), but even Wikipedia's consensus regarding the reliability of changes, there's other RS reporting on the poll. Cortador (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea that the SPLC drums up controversies to generate donations is hardly my OR [16]. What you fail to see is that just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be included in an article. This is why we keep mentioning summary articles, they, more than editor opinions that something has enough coverage, can show that RSs view the topic as an important part of the overall topic, not just tangentially related (as many of the provided sources support). Anyway, it's clear neither side is convincing the other. Perhaps we should let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You are free to bring up whatever accusations you are making again SPLC - which, as I have stated before, is not directly cited - on the sources noticeboard. Until consensus there changes, it remains a generally reliable source.

"Summary sources" aren't a requirement, they are a barrier you are trying to erect to gate off additions to the article. Cortador (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy says that summary sources "can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Of course if policy says something CAN be used it does not mean it MUST be used. But it would be helpful if you could explain WHY you don't want to use them and WHAT you plan to use in order to establish WEIGHT and BALASPS. TFD (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have provided plenty sources above that confirm that GRCT has become mainstream in the GOP. If you think "summary sources" are needed on top of that, the onus is on you to explain why, not on me. Cortador (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:V "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

You have failed to show how major an aspect of the topic it is in reliable sources.

Also, what do you mean by "has become mainstream?" Do you mean that is what most Republicans believe or that the party refuses to condemn extremist organizations that espouse it? Articles are supposed to be clear. TFD (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There's multiple RS reporting on the issue regularly. Steady and reliable coverage is sufficient for inclusion. "Mainstream" - a term used by at least two sources directly - means that it is a common believe within the party. What else would it mean? Cortador (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Actually you don't have plenty of sources that discuss the GOP and make the GRCT claim. You have many sources that say some right wing or racists etc believe this or this politician said something associated with the the GRCT."

You've found them all? I haven't had time going back though articles from when Trump was still president over 4 years ago...How many are there?

Did you find more historians, sociologists and political science professors on top of the half dozen or so I already listed? DN (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No need to reprint what I just wrote. I am not a Democratic Party leader who has difficulty with short term memory.

Your first source at 23:30, 7 March 2024 says, "“Biden’s conduct on our border is by any definition a conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America,” he went on to say in Greensboro, North Carolina. “Biden and his accomplices want to collapse the American system, nullify the will of the actual American voters and establish a new base of power that gives them control for generations.”

"Similar arguments have long been made by people who allege Democrats are promoting illegal immigration to weaken the power of white voters — part of a racist conspiracy [theory]." (AP March 2 2024)

This source does not say Trump or Republicans in general espouses the conspiracy theory. Even if it did, it would not be a reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. Journalists are not experts on sociology or political science but are our best source for what happened today.

Your third source is about Ramaswamy, who got 0.5% of the vote in the Republican primaries.

Instead of deciding what we think should be in the article, looking for sources and posting whatever we think might support our position, we should first determine what is considered important in reliable sources. Just because they do not place the same emphasis on information and opinons that we do does not mean we ar wrong. But it's the only objective test. If we all adhered to that, we could avoid most talk page discussions.TFD (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a NO...So we don't know how many sources say GRCT has been, or is being used by the Republican party, at least in part, although according to RS their current presidential nominee is still using it in his 2024 campaign.

Yet somehow, without knowing how many sources say the GOP (at least in part) uses GRCT, some editors here are surprisingly certain that it's not enough...Or, it's an extremely BOLD assumption that flies in the face of multiple reliable sources and existing expert opinions.

It also sounds like we are placing new specific parameters on this RfC that are not listed in the RfC question. AFAIK, this RfC is not about whether the ENTIRE GOP supports GRCT, just whether it is DUE for inclusion somewhere in some form. However, newer citations seem to be leaning closer to encompassing the party as a whole (see new citations below). If we need clarification, let's get some.

I think the first source I actually posted was from Britannica which says "...key aspects of replacement theory came to be accepted by nearly half of Republicans and by a third of all Americans by 2022. Some Republican politicians endorsed the theory as a way of appealing to far-right members of their party and of demonstrating, to some degree, their continued loyalty to Trump." I forgot to number it though.

Has anyone else included these?...

Most notoriously, Donald Trump has become a fan of “great replacement” talking points. In the last week many of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have called the president a white supremacist. But Trump is far from being alone, and in recent years the idea has caught fire among more and more mainstream Republicans. (Aug 2019)

Donald Trump’s fascistic rhetoric about how immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country, as well as the GOP’s embrace of the “great replacement theory,” are repellent to many Americans. (Feb 2024)

A few years ago, the idea that a rootless, cosmopolitan elite was attempting to replace America’s white majority through lax immigration enforcement was a far-right conspiracy theory. Today, it is something approaching Republican orthodoxy. This rhetoric is incomprehensible unless one posits that by “illegals,” Republicans really mean “recent nonwhite immigrants.” Undocumented immigrants cannot vote by definition. And evidence for widespread voter fraud among such immigrants is nonexistent.

A host also asked the RNC co-chair during her interview about the racist "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, to which she asked if its validity was "even up for debate."

If the far-right, or Trumpist faction, is not at least part of the GOP, that seems like news to me. If there are any dubious claims being made here, the least of which might be that GRCT has been playing some part within the GOP's strategy over the years and therefore might be worthy of some form of inclusion in an article about the Republican party. DN (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be sucking up a lot of oxygen and not getting very far. I'd suggest that everyone interested in this question simply vote in the poll above so we can move forward one way or the other. MonMothma (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@MonMothma You claimed (or rather agreed with) that GRCT is espoused by individual GOP politicians, not by the party. I've provided sources (see list under the collapsed "Refs") that link endorsement of GRCT specifically to the party, not just individual members. Please take that into consideration. Cortador (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

They've already made up their mind because "it is not really a part of the Republican Party so much as a belief among some Republicans, politicians and supporters."....Which has nothing to do with what reliable sources say. DN (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent other editors' arguments which is disruptive. The argument against inclusion is based on weight, which is policy. The article is supposed to provide due weight to each aspect of the topic that it receives in reliable sources on the Republican Party.

As I said, the Republican Party is a huge big topic and there is extensive material about it that does not merit weight. New York Mayors Walker, La Guardia, Lindsay, Guiliiani and Bloomberg for example were national figures but that does not guarantee inclusion.

Note btw that Cortador provides an EB article about the GRCT to justify inclusion. But the relevant article would be the EB article about the Republican Party which does not mention GRCT at all. Do you think that the editors of EB are part of a massive conspiracy to whitewash the Republican Party? TFD (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

False accusations are also disruptive, and should be relegated to personal talk pages (but probably shouldn't be made at all). DN (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You linked to a post by another editor. If you think that their post that they agree with another editor is a false accusation, you need to take it up with them. Personally, I don't think it is, but leave it to the two of you to sort out. TFD (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting any arguments. MonMothma agreed with the previous commenters, who stated that the GRCT "not really a part of the Republican Party", but about individual GOP politicians - yet we have multiple RS that do, in fact, confirm adoption of GRCT by the party, not just individuals. Additionally, as DN pointed out, the RfC isn't about that specifically - it's about whether GRCT should be mentioned here or not. Your weight argument is no counter to that because that wasn't the argument the commenter made.

I have no idea what "EB article" not mentioning GRCT you are talking about. The articles I listed below Refs all explicitly mention GRCT. Cortador (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont think your sources are really all that strong to be making such a statement of fact. For example, what you cite as Yahoo News here is actually a Rolling Stone article, and WP:RSP says Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politics. The Guardian piece here says in recent years the idea has caught fire among more and more mainstream Republicans. Which yes points to a wider acceptance among Republicans, but doesnt actually say that it is a part of the Republican Party itself. The Reuters piece is specific to Trump, Newsweek is not the best source generally, and the Vox piece says "Today, it is something approaching Republican orthodoxy." referring to the belief espoused by some Republicans that immigration policies are intended to dilute their base's voting power. I dont think that quite supports the idea that the GRCT is Republican orthodoxy, and in fact the examples it give are not that. It says Mike Johnson, the GOP speaker of the House, has espoused a version of “the great replacement” theory, albeit one shorn of explicit racial content, which isnt quite GRCT. All in all, I dont think you actually have sources that demonstrate that this is a part of the Republican Party. And I dont think a collection of news sources really shows much weight for an article on a political party that is the subject of reams of actual scholarship. nableezy - 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy The source I cited (below the Ref bracket) explicitly for the claim that significant parts of the GOP have embraced GRCT are NPR, The Guardian, Washington Post, USA Today, PBS, and ABC News. I cited neither Newsweek, nor The Rolling Stone, nor Reuters. Cortador (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I'm referring to the citations from DN. Going over those articles I am seeing similar issues. The NPR cite says "Replacement" theory began in white supremacist circles, but has since moved more mainstream on the political right in this country and among many Republicans, explicitly or implicitly., that again says that it is something espoused by many Republicans, but not that it is part of the Republican Party. The Hill says that it is common among a majority of Trump voters, which again isnt quite the same as saying that it is part of the party itself. nableezy - 16:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@NableezyThank you for your reply. Those aren't the sources I'm referring to. I'm referring to the ones under the bracketed out Ref section. They confirm that significant elements of the party have embraced GRCT. Cortador (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I must be missing something obvious, can you give a timestamp I can search for to see those sources? nableezy - 22:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy Here you go. 13:36, March 13. Cortador (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That was what I was replying to in my second comment here. I can expand further, the Guardian cite has Republican orthodoxy in its headline, which isnt part of the source we consider, while it does say in its body In recent years the lie has gone from far-right fringe to Republican party mainstream. That is close enough, but is still a news source making an exceptional claim. PBS supports it is used by some Republicans, not that it is a part of the party itself, WaPo supports its usage by some right wing figures of note like Carlson and Gaetz, and that that the party has increasingly been embracing GRCT, but that doesnt really quantify anything for us, if it went from 0 to 3 people then it likewise has been increasingly embraced. I still dont see how these support that this is a tenet of the party itself, but the Guardian comes closest. I think it belongs in the articles on these individuals, but I still dont think it belongs here. nableezy - 23:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an exceptional claim, or at least it doesn't fit what the exceptional claims section lists. Even if it was, guidelines merely states that such a claim would require "multiple high-quality sources". All the sources I used are generally reliable. Even if you believe that these sources only confirm that some Republicans believe in GRCT, I fail to see why that information should be excluded from the article at all. Cortador (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake on the Rolling Stone source by Tim Dickinson. The raw collection I pull from is extensive (30+ citations) and is constantly being reorganized. I'm busy IRL and forgot Yahoo just reposts articles from random sources.

You mentioned articles within the realm of scholarship. Did you read any of the ones listed so far, before you voted? Pitcavage, Cas Mudde, Philip Gorski, Hemmer, Rosenthal etc...? Or look at the polls from PRRI and UMass Amherst Actually, I'm not sure if I linked Amherst yet. Anyway...Cheers. DN (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to ask if you knew of any RS that says "GRCT is not a part of the Republican Party", scholarly or otherwise? DN (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The NPR article quotes the national director of the ADL as saying, "And then you have theoretically mainstream Republican politicians repeating some of this stuff." Some Republicans repeating some of this stuff is not the same as saying significant parts of the party have embraced the GRCT. Significantly none of them say there is an international conspiracy to undermine Western civilization by bringing in non-white immigrants, which is what the GRCT says, according to the SPLC.

Cortador, the ""EB article" not mentioning GRCT" is the Encyclopedia Britannica article about the Republican Party. You in fact brought up EB as a source. Although the EB article about the GRCT mentions the Republican Party, its article on the Republican Party does not mention the GRCT. In order to persuade me to include the material you need to show it has due weight. One way to do this, to which for some reason you object, is to see whether articles about the Republican Party discuss the GRCT. The reality is that they do not. Therefore you need to provide another method of showing weight. Why should we mention this and not for example the election of a Republican dogcatcher in Lackawanna, NY? TFD (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I cited three articles by NPR, and you cherry-picked one quote from one article. I never brought up Encyclopedia Britannica. The only time I mentioned it is in response to Springee bringing it up.

I have brought up several articles that confirm adoption of GRCT by the GOP, and all you have in response is a single quote from one of them that you don't agree with, and critique of another source that I never cited as one. Cortador (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think this information has Wikipedia:Weight for inclusion? TFD (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have done so above. What viewpoint do you think is not represented? What sources cover this viewpoint?

Also, you have yet to explain why you think tertiary sources are needed, why you falsely claimed I cited sources I didn't cite, or what your issue with the sources I actually cited is, cherry-picked single sentence aside. Cortador (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you think this information has Wikipedia:Weight for inclusion? Please reference the section of that policy thta is relevant.

Note that the onus is on editors who want to include text to show why it meets due weight. The onus is not on editors who object to inclusion. TFD (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll cite the first paragraph of the section you linked to here: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

I have not seen evidence that RS have published a viewpoint differing from what I have claimed. The onus is not on me to find hypothetical viewpoints and RS that cover them. If you feel that whatever additions I (or anyone else, rally) propose to be added leave a significant viewpoint, you are free to bring up whatever viewpoint that is, and back it up with RS. So far, I have not seen RS denying that significant elements the GOP endorse GRCT, should that be a viewpoint you feel is being left out here. Cortador (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Note the words "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Why do you believe that any viewpoint about the GRCT is prominent in sources about the Republican Party? TFD (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Because there's sources that talk about GRCT in relation to the GOP. You haven't answered my question: which viewpoint do you think is no represented? That is what that section you linked to is about. Viewpoints on a topic in RS, not whether a topic is covered in RS to begin with. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not explain my understanding of the policy clearly. The policy "requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." But views on the party and the GRCT are not significant to the topic. We know that because very, very few sources about the party discuss it.

Balancing aspects, which you cited, explains it more clearly, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. [Information] related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

So my question is. why do you think the GRCT is a signifcant or major aspect of the topic of the Republican Party?

TFD (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

"Cortador, the ""EB article" not mentioning GRCT" is the Encyclopedia Britannica article about the Republican Party. You in fact brought up EB as a source."

TFD, I was the one that cited Britannica. Please stop making accusations and follow WP:AGF. DN (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an understandable mistake and no reason why anyone would see it as an accusation. Since you brought up the EB article, do you feel any shame or embarrassment in doing so? Then why should Cortador? TFD (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Which viewpoint do you think is not represented? You still haven't answered that question.

Mentioning of GRCT/GOP belong into this article because it has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, the "which viewpoint" question in response to someone citing WEIGHT is a disingenuous argument. You might have thought it was a legitimate argument when you made it on 6 March but my response noting that it is common for Wiki editors to use WEIGHT when BALASP (a part of NPOV that TFD already mentioned) should have put an edit to this line of tendentious argument. Springee (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If an editor names a section, links to it, and cites it (which is what TDF did), I expect them to be talking about that section. I'm not going to playing guessing games about what policy an editor is talking about when they cite an entirely different policy. Cortador (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Asking as you are doing is TEND. If you want to be pedantic about a common editor miscite you should state why and should instead note why you are asking an otherwise pointless question. Springee (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think expecting someone who copy-pasted part of a policy section to actually talk about is "not maintain[ing] an editorially neutral point of view", I can't help you. Or did you not mention WP:TEND but some other policy, and expect me to, again, know which one that would be? Cortador (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned TEND because that fits your line of questioning. Springee (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

TEND is about disruptive editing, not about expecting people to refer to the policy from whose page they are copying. Cortador (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, TEND is about disruptive editing. That's why I mentioned it with respect to what you are doing. Springee (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Republican Party (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Completely Random Guy

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 06:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Completely Random Guy: Since you nominated this, an NPOV tag has been added to the Immigration section. Given that it pertains to an ongoing RfC, this probably makes this a quick-fail under criterion 3. I'd be open to trying to find a way around that, however, if not for a different criterion, #1: It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. One of those criteria is Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. In addition to the NPOV tag addition, I see a 16kB removal from the article yesterday, a failed verification tag addition two days prior, a big change to how factions are handled in the infobox the day before that, edit-warring on the 6th and 7th, and an endless drumbeat of additions of developments about the party.
  I'll be frank, stability here is something beyond your or my control, and I don't think this article will be close to passing that criterion until... well, until either American politics becomes a lot calmer, or until the Republican party ceases to exist. It's a noble effort to get this to GA, but I'm not sure it's in the cards for you. I'm going to leave this open for a little bit in case you have any questions, comments, or concerns, but I do intend to fail this under quickfail criteria 1, 3, and to a lesser extent 4 (edit-warring). But again, thank you for your effort, and sorry to be the bearer of bad news here. Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump era section

The Trump era section suffers from WP:RECENTISM and WP:EXCESSDETAIL. It is seven paragraphs long, which is overly lengthy in comparison to other sections of the article. Some of the detail that is excessive here might be appropriate for articles on Trump and Trumpism.

I attempted to fix these problems with a WP:BOLD edit (see [17]), which was reverted by Davefelmer. Per WP:BRD, I welcome input from other editors on the question of how much detail should be included in this section. MonMothma (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a fair description of major events in the period. Just because other sections are too short doesn't mean we have to cut down this one. Over time it can be adapted but I don't see anything particularly WP:UNDUE and the body is literally meant for more detail. Davefelmer (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: As a compromise, I've tidied it up further to address length concerns. Kept it to most important info in line with what's discussed on other sections. Five paragraphs and a lot cleaner now. Davefelmer (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the section's length is fine. The Trump era has seen major upheaval of the GOP and American politics in general, and that can be reflected in its length. Cortador (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Davefelmer (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The section is too long. It might help too discuss changes here since the BOLD edit was reverted. I would hope we could find consensus on at least some of the reductions. Springee (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove claim that the party supports laissez-faire economics and deregulation and add citations for other policy claims

The article claims that "the party supports laissez-faire economics, deregulation, and increased military spending while opposing labor unions, universal health care and tuition-free higher education" without citation. I think this is incorrect with regard to laissez-faire economics and deregulation, and requires citations regarding the other policies. I propose removing laissez-faire economics and deregulation first and then looking for citations for the party's support for increased military spending, opposition to labor unions, universal health care and tuition-free higher education. 81.234.111.171 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

81.234.111.171, per MOS:LEADCITE, it is not always necessary to include citations in the lead section of an article. The fact that there is no source listed in the lead for the Republican positions on the various issues you mentioned is not necessarily a problem, so long as the body of the article contains sourced information supporting these statements.

I would discourage you from removing the references to laissez-faire economics and deregulation in the lead. The body of the article does contain a little bit of support for these assertions, although it tends to reference free markets rather than using the term "laissez-faire" term. Also, I believe that the GOP still largely supports these ideas. I will try to find some more sources indicating the GOP's position on these issues.

I have removed the mention of tuition-free higher education, which has no basis anywhere in the article and which I do not believe is a major Republican agenda item.

There is nothing in the article body supporting the claim that the GOP stands for increased military spending. I am not sure whether it's a better idea to find sources for that statement, to remove it, or to change it to say that the GOP supports a strong national defense.

The body of the article does mention GOP opposition to unions and to universal health care, but this information could be better sourced than it is. MonMothma (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I am pulling the information on increased military spending out of the lead. There is no basis in the article body for it and it is included in a sentence about economic issues; I don't think it belongs there. MonMothma (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

81.234.111.171, I take back one piece of what I wrote earlier. I have been looking around for sources for the language about the GOP supporting laissez-faire/free-market economics and deregulation. I'm not finding much (at least not much that is current). I have gone ahead and removed those two statements from the lead, which is what you originally called for. The larger problem I am running into is that there has been, and continues to be, a significant shift in the party's ideology since a certain orange someone came down the escalator; the result is that I'm finding a bunch of sources that say "Republicans used to stand for x, y, and z, but now...", etc. MonMothma (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The GOP perspective on unions seems nuanced. See [18] and [19], for example. I have pulled the statement about union opposition out of the lead. MonMothma (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Republicans have taken a more favorable view of labor unions in recent years, but that hasn’t stopped the party from attacking unionized teachers at the recent GOP presidential debate, with one candidate vowing to “break the back” of the teachers’ unions."

"But several leading GOP presidential candidates — like Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — have criticized union influence, a reflection of the predominant Republican view."

These citations are not evidence the GOP no longer opposes unions. I am reverting back to the longstanding version of the lead until we find consensus with citations that are more conclusive. DN (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I added deregulation to the lead. That is mentioned several times in the lead. Cortador (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Darknipples, as I stated above, the Roll Call source does indicate that the Republican position on unions is nuanced. Also (and more importantly), I see no sources cited anywhere in the article in support of the assertion that the GOP opposes unions. MonMothma (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)