Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Should go to RFC

{{discussion top|reason=See discussion ongoing below. Please do not reopen this, or make a new, edit request on this issue while discussion is ongoing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Edit semi-protected|Republican Party (United States)|answered=yes}}

change Right-wing to Far-right in ideology Spikedog9 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{a note}} All Republican party members are not always Far-Right, and I believe changing it will result in some debates... "Right-wing" implies all right sides. Thanks, Valorrr (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::Nothing you say makes any sense. So you think right wing to far right means majority of people are far right or what? Also what other right wing sides? There are no other than that. Center right and centrism doesn't exist in the Republican Party anymore. There has been given way too much information and clear analysis and facts so far for right wing to far right but none for the others not a single article nothing to support that Republicans are center right anymore. I have given 6 articles for far right and they haven't been taken seriously but apparently center right is takes serious with zero sources. This is just bias at this point from some people here JBlade73 (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Strong support there have been given more arguments so far on here on this topic for "right wing to far right" than any other political spectrum. It is just the natural ideology of the Republicans for sure. JBlade73 (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::@JBlade73 I'm willing to consider adding it, though I would need to see reliable source labelling the party as such before doing so myself. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::At the very least, it should be altered to say "Right-wing to far-right," directly in line with the Trumpism page's political position. There is no one left in the GOP of any significance who opposes Trump or his policies. Spikedog9 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Strong support with Trumpism as the majority position of the party and Trumpism being considered right-wing to far-right, it makes sense to label the party as Right-wing to far-right. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: Wow, Wikipedia is not even pretending to be neutral anymore in political matters.Bjoh249 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

The republican governance group and a part of the republican study committee are clearly labeled as centre-right or even centrist (the first). Also centrism should be re-added as a faction ideology. 2800:810:505:D79:B4E8:DBBC:8EB5:B5BB (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Comment The only person in charge of the federal government these days is Trump. Trump commands congressional Republicans, and they basically let him do whatever he wants. Last week, he enacted tariffs on almost every country and crashed the stock market, and there was no opposition from congressional Republicans. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::But tariff do not define something as left wing or right wing 2800:810:505:D79:15B7:4C:AF9E:607E (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::In Argentina my country tariffs are supported by left wing kirchneristas 2800:810:505:D79:15B7:4C:AF9E:607E (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::You are mixing policies with ideology. The more left wing democrats accepted Biden policies, but they have a different ideology 2800:810:505:D79:15B7:4C:AF9E:607E (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Donald Trump has raised American tariffs to the highest rates in the world, crowned by a 104% tariff rate on China. These rates are so high I made Trump's "reciprocal tariff" chart the lead photo of mercantilism. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Strong oppose , none of the members of the republican governance group are doing anything to oppose the extremist actions taken by Trump. In order to fit the definition of centrist, you should oppose extremism on either side. Joejoe1864 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Comment No Republican from any faction in Congress is doing anything meaningful to oppose Trump's actions. Trump only stopped his "reciprocal tariff" policy because Wall Street, both financial CEOs and the stock & bond markets, opposed Trump's plan since it would have crashed the global economy. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::"No Republican from any faction in Congress is doing anything meaningful" So what? Party members either follow the orders of the party leader, or risk being expelled from the party ranks. Party politics as usual. Dimadick (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Try being neutral. Wikipedia is sorely lacking on that in political matters. Bjoh249 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::That’s an opinion. You’re showing your lack of neutrality here. Bjoh249 (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia editors tend to be on the left. SayWhoD (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::When has the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the Republican Study Committee done something significant to hinder President Trump? It certainly doesn't happen very often. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose: Right-wing politics includes all positions on the right side of the political spectrum, so listing center-right would be redundant. ZergTwo (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::The Democratic Party article says center-left. SayWhoD (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Weak Oppose Caucuses do not necessarily reflect the actions of the party. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is listed as left-wing, but the Democratic Party itself is rather solidly center-left. If you want to stretch, it'd be center-right to far-right (Freedom Caucus and Trumpism). Many voters may be centrist, but the actions of the party clearly reflect conservative values. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose: The Republicans are purely echoing Trump today, and nobody calls him centrist. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Centrism is a core of the Republican Party. it should be placed under ideology like it used to be. Inuyashastan4life (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Centrism isn't an ideology, it's a position in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Once adequate sourcing has been provided for that, we can discuss that. So far, nobody has been able to do that, and we also have a whole bunch of sources that state that the centrist faction is in decline and/no longer a significant faction. Cortador (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::"state that the centrist faction is in decline" There is a centrist faction? Who are these people and why are they affiliated with an extremist party? Dimadick (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It's in the article. Cortador (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong oppose. It may have been a core of the party decades ago, but it certainly is not today. Joejoe1864 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose. The GOP simply isn't centrist. Though conservatives maintain some influence, it's mainly a right-wing political party. Be-Plants (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Since Trump's rise to prominence within the Republican Party in 2016, Trumpism has become the main ideology of members. Rather than a footnote at the bottom of the infobox, Trumpism should be listed with the rest of the party's ideologies. Additionally, albeit of lesser importance, some consideration should be put to including Far Right as at least a factional political position within the party. Trumpism is widely considered a far right ideology (though it is fair to note that consensus is not universal, some consider it right), and as the dominant ideology it should be considered. I would not, however disagree, with arguing that right-wing is encompassing of far-right and center-right. AnonymousPoodle (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Disagree. There are factions of the Republican Party (as stated in the sources) that at various points in the scale of right wing politics. The current version is fine. SKAG123 (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support, Trumpism runs the modern Republican Party and it's silly to pretend otherwise. Joejoe1864 (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Everything done by the Republicans in the past 4 months has been 100% driven by Trumpism. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Trumpism is included under right-wing populism in the ideology section. There was no consensus to include "far-right" in the political position per a recent RfC. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Trumpism is NOT right-wing populism. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support: Everything done in the current Trump administration fits this EarthDude (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. For one, there are no sources provided here. For two, Wikipedia isn't here for people to advocate for their worldview or to try and right great wrongs they see in the world. As others have said, the whole party is not "Trumpism", even if they are supporting his ideas in the short term. Unless and until there are reliable sources to state that there has been a permanent shift in the ideology of the whole party, not just many members of it, then this is an inappropriate change to make. There are GOP congresspeople every day who are fighting against Trump's policies/ideas - many to the point of tanking proposals or nominees. The onus is on the person/people desiring to make this change to provide strong sources (both in number and in their own strength) that this is the best term to describe the party. Failing that, it should remain the general terms that are in place now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Lots of sources used in the article already talk about Trump and his movement having transformed the party, with his faction becoming dominant, and the former conservative establishment losing nearly all influence. This isn't a case of righting great wrongs, it's a case to strive for more accuracy. EarthDude (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::"Transform[ing] the party" doesn't mean they are a major faction within the party. The same reason people oppose far-right as a major ideology - it's not. There are subsets of people who will do whatever Trump says or are far-right, but they are very small, and the majority of them are going along with Trump's proposals because their own non-Trumpism ideology also would support that proposal to begin with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Beyond this, while Trump has stretched the boundaries of executive power, he's only signed five bills with lasting permanence.
• :::We've seen it claimed in the past that figures such as George H.W. Bush (to centrism), George W. Bush (to neoconservatism), and Rand Paul/Ron Paul/Paul Ryan/Tea Party (to libertarian conservatism) were going to fundamentally change the party.
• :::Briefly, these figures did. Now? Can anyone say that neoconservatism is the ideology of the GOP? No. That's ridiculous.
• :::Now editors are attempting to add in even more recentism in the article. After wasting 2-3 hours of my life reading the details and nuances of the rules that people keep citing... they don't claim or imply the edits that they seem to be making. If anything the opposite. UnashamedPapist (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::"to fundamentally change the party" In perspective, this relatively minor party has about 170 years of history and has shifted in ideology and in political alliances many times during this period. Under the Radical Republicans of the mid-19th century, it was the self-appointed champion of Radicalism and the protection of civil liberties, while also supporting abolitionism, free labor, nativism, anti-Catholicism, and the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Under the Stalwarts of the late 19th century, the party supported traditional machine politics, the spoils system, protectionism, black suffrage, and waving the bloody shirt in an apparent attempt to win the vote of aging veterans of the American Civil War. A couple of decades later, the party was openly imperialist and supporting the dollar diplomacy of William Howard Taft in an attempt to gain both political and economic influence over Latin America and East Asia. And so on over the decades. Assuming the party survives for a couple more decades, the ideology may shift again once Donald Trump is out of the picture. Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: I completely agree with you. That's what makes the recent edits so problematic. UnashamedPapist (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::But just because a change in the party may not last multiple decades, that does not mean that it should not be added in the present. For example, if today were to be 2004, then I would argue we represent the reality of the time and include neoconservatism as a majority ideology of the party and have the political position state center to center right. In 2004, that would not be recentism. Same with adding Trumpism as a majority ideology of the party and adding far right in the political position section. Again, this is not recentism. It is simply acknowledging what's the ground reality. Recentism would be minimizing the past which is not what would be happening if this rfc is to succeed EarthDude (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support If you're proposing that we add "Trumpism" to the "Factions:" section of the infobox, I would support that. The sources for "Trumpism" are in Factions in the Republican Party (United States) (and per that article: {{tq|Trumpists are the dominant faction in the Republican Party as of 2024}}, which makes it more DUE to include in this article's infobox than the other factions listed in that article). Some1 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Status quo - Trumpism should remain a footnote next to right-wing populism in the infobox. Far-right should not be mentioned per the RfC previously mentioned. BootsED (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Question for clarification are you seeking a change to an infobox, to the lede, to the POV balance of body text or to some combination of these things? My opposition or support would hinge upon this clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@AnonymousPoodle still seeking that clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support wholeheartedly referring to the Republican Party as far-right and populist. Jaydenwithay (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez. UnashamedPapist (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Trumpism is a form of populism, which is already included. We don't need it in the infobox, which is not intended for nuance. Instead it should be spelt out in the body of the article (as it is). Oppose far-right being in the inboxbox per berchanhimez and because it's undue. — Czello ^(music) 14:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If this is about the infobox or the lede I would also oppose for the time-being. These sorts of changes need to flow upward from the body as we get to increasing levels of summarization. If the OP is looking to add new material to the body to reflect this then I would support that pending review of sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Trumpism is deeply right populist but it also incorporates a lot more. Its fairly broad EarthDude (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• I also oppose. Article has horrible left-wing bias. SayWhoD (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=1289155103&oldid=1289154926 recently reverted the changes] made by JohnAdams1800 over the past few months. It has already been mentioned, but many of his edits misrepresent the sources that they're citing, and seem intentionally written to portray the Republican Party as fundamentally extremist/radical. Let me know if anyone has questions. UnashamedPapist (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Does your user name refer to your religious affiliation or your political beliefs? Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Were you the one who changed the ideology from Right wing to Center right? That is incorrect, because you did not get consensus in the chat to change it to center right. I'll change it back to right wing unless you can get consensus for center right. Joejoe1864 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's been reverted back now (was not me who reverted it, nor do I intend to stake my position in this debate,) but something important is that there are now citations for the party being center-right being used for it saying right-wing. Again, I don't intend to state my stance here, but something should be done about that. GrandDuchyConti (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::: {{re|GrandDuchyConti|Joejoe1864}} I've fixed it. Someone made a change without consensus. I reverted to what was the post-consensus version for that specific slider. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::JohnAdams1800 and his sockpuppets rigged the RFC... which ended up with no consensus regardless. It was then changed.

::::You can easily see that "center-right" was the original version. The onus would be on changing it. UnashamedPapist (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe that consensus was reached earlier this year for the only political position to be listed in the infobox being "right-wing." The sources for center-right were also strongly disputed as being less relevant, and some were eventually removed. We also had consensus against a note in the infobox. Why were the sources for right-wing removed, and why is there a note mentioning "center-right" as how the party is described? This is both not true and not representative of the consensus that was reached on this talk page. Please provide any clarification, otherwise I will feel free to reinstate the prior version. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

: This discussion shows general consensus. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Changes have been made according to the previous consensuses. If anyone wants to make a change that is different than what is currently on the article, they will need to find new consensus. That's a warning. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There was no conclusion given in that discussion. Editors gave various opinions with no agreement. This is not a consensus. It's an exceptional claim to state that the Republicans are far-right. A reminder that same-sex marriage is not legal, abortion is generally far more restricted, transgender identity is not recognized, and religion is far more influential (either institutionally or culturally) in a large majority of the world. Most aren't liberal democracies either. A center-right party is "right-wing". The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties identifies the Republicans as center-right in 2023. It's cherrypicking to select a 2021 opinion article from Politico. UnashamedPapist (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I don't understand how what you said is relevant. We just go by sourcing. See WP:OR. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The highest-quality sourcing indicates that the party is center-right. There's been so much written about the Republican and Democratic parties that you can find mainstream sources calling them almost anything.

:::::The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties is both the most recent source and the highest quality source. The 2023 version refers to the Republican Party as a big tent, center-right party that has leading figures that range from politically centrist to far-right. That ends the debate under the rules you just cited.

:::::Trump will be gone soon and it's not an exaggeration to state that every Republican from Romney, to Trump, to Bush, to Reagan has been described by sections of the press as "far-right" or "extremist" in varying degrees. (Remember when [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2012/09/05/romney-ally-to-dems-stop-trivializing-nazism/ Romney was a Nazi] and [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/08/12/liberal-group-throws-granny-off-cliff-again/ Paul Ryan wanted to push old people off cliffs]?)

:::::None of these claims are new or specific to Trump.

:::::There was no "request for comments consensus" and the previous version had the party as center-right. UnashamedPapist (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I'm pretty confident that that discussion found consensus. Like you said, you can find different sources saying different things, but the discussion found that right-wing was the most accurate and common descriptor. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Never mind that you talk about "cherry picking" and you proceed to cherry pick the Routledge Handbook. Come on. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There was no closing consensus. (Meaning that the status quo should be preserved.)

::::::::From the guidelines on citations that have been quoted on here, higher-quality sources should always be quoted over lower-quality sources, and even as late as 2023 and 2024 is described as center-right in political science textbooks. A Politico article that called the Republican Party "alt-right" — which is now a euphemism that refers to online members of the white supremacist and white nationalist communities — is clearly inferior to these sources.

::::::::The American party system lacks strong party discipline. Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all had profound differences in their ideologies, dispositions, or relations, and most sources either describe the party as a big tent or center-right (with a footnote attached). The evidence could justify removing a political spectrum in the infobox all together, putting big tent, or simply calling it a center-right or footnote. All options are okay.

::::::::I've taken about two hours to look through the rules and I'm with the others here: JohnAdam1800's edits (including those that relate to the party's position on the global political spectrum) are misleading and a case of recentism. UnashamedPapist (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Now this is how I know you're not being objective. A few things.
1. There definitely was a consensus. You don't need to "close" a talk page discussion for consensus to have evidently been reached.
2. The Politico article categorically DOES NOT call the Republican Party "alt-right." This is a straight up lie, I'm sorry. Go back and check out the article.
3. Nor is it "inferior"— it was written by a history professor. It's a well-regarded magazine and respected reliable source. Obviously academic sources are preferred but the article is also high-quality.
4. That is your interpretation. You would have to provide very strong evidence in its favor to overturn the current consensus.
5. I believe you're ignoring the sources that call the GOP "right-wing," which are quite prominent. Take a look at the ones in the article.
6. Not too sure how JohnAdam1800 is relevant here. They've been banned. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::1.) bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, me, and others all opposed changing it from the status quo. There was no "majority" in either numbers or in the quality of arguments as far as I can tell.

::::::::::2.) The Politico article states that: "The larger ideology that the president-elect represents is a post-Iraq War, post-crash, post-Barack Obama update of what used to be called paleoconservatism: On race and immigration, where the alt-right affinities are most pronounced, its populist ideas are carrying an already right-wing party even further right". It calls Trumpism a form of alt-right politics. That's misleading and not a majority position of political scientists.

::::::::::3.) A more recent political science textbook is more reliable than a Politico article. It's a well-regarded magazine but that does not mean that it should singularly dictate the party's political spectrum. Opinion articles, from what I can tell, are also not regarded as informative as a normal web page article.

::::::::::4.) Again, there was no consensus, and the sources for "center-right" describe the Republican Party as a big tent party that lacks party party discipline. The exceptional claim would be describing the party as uniquely radical when a majority of the world is more socially conservative than the party. More conservative than Western & Northern Europe in terms of LGBT rights, abortion, feminism, and related matters? Of course.

::::::::::But those proportions of the world are tiny in population numbers from a global perspective.

::::::::::5.) I'm not ignoring the sources that call the GOP "right-wing" but all are used in a general sense. I wouldn't say that an article that talks about the "left-wing Democrats" means that they shouldn't be described as a center-left party overall. The same applies for the Republicans. They don't contradict that the party is. UnashamedPapist (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I oppose removing Right-wing and adding back Center-right

:::::::::::1) 'Big tent, center-right party' is much more described within the Liberal Party of Australia , Conservative Party of Canada, and Conservative Party (UK) than even the GOP but the consensus for all of those three parties is to use the broad term Centre-right to Right-wing based on various sources that they have been described (some Centre-right, some Right-wing) and the factions. The Liberal Party of Australia for example have politicians and leaders that likes to call themselves Big Tent under the term Broad church [https://www.smh.com.au/national/divergent-views-vital-to-howards-broad-church-20050322-gdkz67.html][https://theconversation.com/can-the-liberal-party-hold-its-broad-church-of-liberals-and-conservatives-together-93575] [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/26/peter-dutton-pledges-to-make-liberal-party-a-broad-church-as-he-confirms-leadership-tilt]. This already means they have to have at a very minimum Right-wing mentioned in the info box given even the given sources compared it to those parties.

:::::::::::2) There are even parties that are started off as a mainstream centre-right party but labelled Right-Wing to Far-right later on such as the now defunct Liberty Korea Party (while their successor party People Power Party is labelled Right-wing although there was contentious debate whether to include centre-right because there were a few sources) and Fidesz in Hungary.

EDIT

:::::::::::3) There have been parties globally that changed positions because the leaders coming in and changing the party, example is Liberal Party (Brazil) which like Republicans was described as big-tent center-right party but this party changed to far-right because of Jair Bolsonaro who is considered far-right (please see Bolsonarism). Mhaot (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::1.)

::::::::::::I agree that all of those parties should be referred to as only center-right in their inboxes. We never described the British Labour Party as centrist under Starmer or left-wing under Corbyn. If anything, they have more effective control over their party than Donald Trump ever did, due to the nature of the British parliamentary system and a far more robust system of party discipline.

::::::::::::An issue on some articles do not mean that the problem should be further compounded.

::::::::::::2.)

::::::::::::Sure.

::::::::::::3.)

::::::::::::There is not have a general or academic consensus about this.

::::::::::::While the party may be taking actions that could be described as more illiberal, they also generally agree that the party is more left-wing regarding social conservatism and economic policy. UnashamedPapist (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:To help potentially clarify consensus, I strongly oppose both the removal of the "right-wing" label and the addition of the center-right label. Consensus was reached in the previous discussion in favour of solely "right-wing" and sources support "right-wing". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I think that it's pretty clear that the previous discussion established consensus. We shouldn't dive back into this topic for the rest of the year at least. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, Moxy, SayWhoD, Cutlass, myself, and 3/4 others have all disputed the edits that were reverted by me to JohnAdams1800.

:::The political spectrum discussion talk is more complicated but I would not say that there was a consensus on that change either. UnashamedPapist (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::At the very least: The less controversial aspects of the edits should be reinstated.

::::I'd be okay with the political spectrum being temporarily kept as "right-wing" and discussed. Does that work for you? UnashamedPapist (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: If you want to discuss JohnAdams1800 edits, please do so in a separate section, as this is not the focus of this particular discussion. As for further discussion about the political position, no, that doesn't work for me. Consensus established the use of "right-wing," and we need not open the discussion again for several months. The topic can be re-opened later. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure who did it, but somebody got the totals mixed up for the Senate & House, in the infobox. The GOP have 53 (not 51) seats in the US Senate & 220 (not 2018) in the US House. I've corrected the info. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that several edits seeking to revert edits by JohnAdams1800 have also removed content that JohnAdam1800 did not add or work on, particularly a majority of information in the right-wing populist section. Sources describing the Republican Party as right-wing populist, or that right-wing populism is the dominant faction of the party right now, along with most mentions of Trumpism, have also been removed. I'm likely missing additional content that was removed due to the large volume of recent edits and removals. BootsED (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Has this been fixed? I'll be honest but I wasn't paying the most attention to this page the last little while - but using one editor's misconduct to lampshade a POV push is a bit alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: The changes are visible [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=1290616406&oldid=1290589005 here]. JohnAdams1800 fabricated quotes claiming that the Republican Party uniformly prefers tariffs on "all countries" at the "highest rates" in the world. That's complete nonsense. It also included original research and cherrypicked quotes to quite deliberately craft a narrative. UnashamedPapist (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The issue in this discussion isn't to do with JohnAdams's edits, it's about the removal of much more content that JohnAdams had little or nothing to do with. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's pretty clear that the person who reverted JohnAdams1800's edits is a bad actor trying to make the article more favorable to the Republican Party. Joejoe1864 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:: My opinions are shared (at least in terms of reverting it for now) by bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, Moxy, and others. There's clearly an asymmetry in coverage that was introduced by JohnAdam1800's edits. Now, after having WP: NPOV cited to me, this seems difficult to justify even in light of coverage. It's additionally a blatant violation of WP: RECENTISM. Criticism of a political party is not something Wikipedia does and despite the dumb shit Trump does it's not enough to justify completely revising the history of a political party that is 171 years old. As a long time reader I remember when Jeremy Corbyn was going to fundamentally change the Labour Party. It was briefly listed as "left-wing" because of that... until Prime Minister Starmer came on the scene.

:: We should not massively revise the article because of one party leader. The GOP's dominant faction has gone from Reaganism, to H.W. Bush's moderate/one-nation conservatism, to George W. Bush's neoconservatism and compassionate conservatism, to Romney's synthesis of Reaganism and the two Bush eras, to the libertarian Tea Party, to now. I'm shocked that people are citing WP: RECENTISM and WP: NPOV here because from what I can tell... it's all reasons to revert back to something close to the original. I don't see a good argument by keep JohnAdam1800's changes. Yes, Trump is an idiot. No, every little thing he does isn't warranted to include in the article, despite the temptation to do so. It's inconsistent, recentish, and biased.

:: The page is going to be awfully outdated otherwise. UnashamedPapist (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This page is clearly written with an axe to grind against the party. Could someone revise it to be more neutral? It's left-wing biased. SayWhoD (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:This claim would need some pretty concrete evidence to be taken seriously, as it currently stands, the contents of the article are supported by reliable sources. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:: From your talk page, SayWhoD: {{tq|"As a Republican, it's beyond obvious that the article is written by people who hate the party."}} No further questions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sympathetic to your argument, but Wikipedia follows what "reliable sources" say and if "reliable sources" have a left-wing bias, then the articles would naturally reflect a left-wing bias. It is what it is. Some1 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|SayWhoD}} Generic comments like this don't help anything. Nobody is going to take a nuke it and start over approach because of hand-waving comments about bias. You not liking what the article says, which is all sourced to reliable sources, by the way (or should be - please point out any exceptions) does not mean it is "biased". If you have identified specific sentences, portions, sections, etc. that you feel are "written with an axe to grind", please point them out here - you can either copy and paste the text (using the {{tlg|tq|(put the quoted text here)}} code to quote it {{tq|like this}} to show differently if you want) here, or refer to it in another way such as by the section it appears in, as an example.{{pb}}If you can't identify specific portions that you think need improved, then making comments like this is not helpful to anyone. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::SayWhoD - It's probably worth pointing out that Wikipedia is a global project, and most of he rest of the English speaking world is politically way to the left of the way things are in the USA. This means that many writers will be, by your standards, left wing. This doesn't mean that they ARE left wing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::And it definitely doesn't mean that the articles are left-wing! That's the benefit of a collaborative project, where people who aren't of the same political views can potentially point out improper bias that has been inadvertently introduced into articles! That only works if people actually point out specific problems, rather than just hand-waving like this. {{small|I know you know this HiLo48 but I'm thinking maybe SayWhoD will return and provide more information eventually}}. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Berchanhimez}}{{ping|HiLo48}}.

::::This is somewhat off topic, but not sure where to discuss this:

::::I definitely wouldn't put it in the way that SayWhoD has, but I agree with them that there's widespread systematic bias regarding the political spectrum and treatment of parties, and vastly uneven treatment of parties if they are located within the Western World.

::::* Australia: The Labor party is classified as center-left; the Coalition is classified as center-right to right-wing.

::::* Canada: The Liberals is classified as centre-left to centre**; Conservative Party is classified as center-right to right-wing.

::::* New Zealand: The Labour Party is center-left; the National Party is usually classified as center-right to right-wing.*

::::* United Kingdom: The Labour Party is classified as centre-left; the Conservative Party is classified as centre-right to right-wing.

::::* United States: The Democrats are described as centrist to center-left; Republicans are right-wing.*

::::*Both the NZ Nationals and the two major American parties have descriptions that are either new/frequently changing.

::::** This is somewhat more fair. The New Democratic Party is considered to be Canada's left-wing/center-left party. However, the Liberals are generally regarded as closer to the NDP than the Conservatives, despite the relatively centrist Blue Grit faction.

::::Saying that the political spectrum for pages is based upon the opinions of English speaking writers, as HiLo48 applies, is a textbook example of what systematic bias is (and we're not supposed to do that!) and an extremely arbitrary method of judgement. High-quality studies have repeatedly shown that it is Western values [https://www.economist.com/interactive/international/2023/08/03/western-values-are-steadily-diverging-from-the-rest-of-the-world that are steadily diverging from the rest of the world]. The world's majority does not recognize same-sex marriage, support abortion rights outside of exceptional circumstances, or themselves secular.

::::I'm not saying that's right. I'm not saying that it's wrong. I'm just saying that is the current state of affairs.

::::His other claim is erroneous. The majority of the Anglosphere is in the United States!

::::The most recent censuses show ≈ 332,718,707 Americans.

::::* ≈ 67,081,234 in the United Kingdom.

::::* ≈ 38,708,793 in Canada.

::::* ≈ 26,009,249 in Australia.

::::* ≈ 5,130,623 in New Zealand.

::::67,081,234 + 38,708,793 + 26,009,249 + 5,130,623 ≈ 136,929,899

::::332,718,707 Americans > 136,929,899 non-United States citizens of the Anglosphere (and vastly so!)

::::This introduces another issue of systematic bias for many reasons:

::::* Why should we use "most of the [more culturally liberal] English speaking world" v. taking a global perspective on it?

::::* Why should those 136,929,899 be weighted more than the 332,718,707 in the United States?

::::* The fact that we're only basing it on other countries within the English-speaking world is never noted to readers outside of talk.

::::* You could similarly portray the Republicans as "center-left" or "left-wing" on liberalism under other arbitrary standards. For instance, the Republican Party is more anti-monarchical than other Anglosphere parties, it is far less religiously influenced and far less culturally conservative than even liberal parties in the Middle East, and it is probably less from a global perspective too.

::::Most of the world's population doesn't live in a liberal democracy, even under the loosest definitions of the term. SayWhoD is wrong to imply that it's a conspiracy or something similar, but I do think that this is what happens when a userbase that is disproportionately a part of demographics likely to disfavor right-leaning parties, and one does need wrong intent to have it subconsciously influence how they're writing the articles. It's not an extraordinary claim. We have a whole page on systematic bias that goes over all of this! It isn't wrong for editors to have bias (I do and everyone else here does!) but it's a problem when it starts systematically and widely influencing articles. It leaves a misleading impression to readers that the world is far more culturally liberal than it is. Happy to hear your thoughts; it seems obvious to me and others that we need to revert. UnashamedPapist (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Please stop. {{stop}} See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: It's [https://www.economist.com/interactive/international/2023/08/03/western-values-are-steadily-diverging-from-the-rest-of-the-world not original research] and the conversation was entirely in line with HiLo48's response. UnashamedPapist (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You expressly admitted to this comment being {{tq|somewhat off topic}} at the beginning of said comment. That's a blatant WP:NOTFORUM issue. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As other editors have warned, this is essentially a forum post. We don't make edits based off of your reasoning alone, we make them based on a NPOV interpretation of the preponderance of reliable sources. Do you have sources to back your claim of systemic bias? isa.p (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: The claim was to HiLo48's argument that we should base the political party's designation in the infobox upon English-speaking readers in areas of the Anglosphere that are not the United States. Wikipedia's position is to take a global perspective on political issues rather than confining them to the Anglosphere or Western World. The claim about the Western World's opinions on cultural, social, and ethical issues diverging from the rest of the world [https://www.economist.com/interactive/international/2023/08/03/western-values-are-steadily-diverging-from-the-rest-of-the-world can be found in this article] by The Economist. Reliable sources are clearly not unanimous on the matter or have anywhere near a consensus.

:::::: Would you agree with my arguments above?

:::::: Trying to find a solution that would make everyone happy. UnashamedPapist (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Please read WP:ECREE, a single news article does not qualify as evidence of systemic bias. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Is it an exceptional source to claim that Western Europe, Canada, and Oceania are more culturally liberal than the rest of the world? The justification by HiLo48 is that we're basing the political spectrum designation on "other English speaking" countries (maybe the Western World more broadly). If we're going to list it than it should be compared to the entire world. Otherwise it would seem to be a case of systematic bias to me. (Correct me if that's wrong.) There's many sources that state that the Western World is more individualist, liberal, and unique. The WEIRD bias is uncontroversial in the the fields of psychology, political science, history, and economics. It's well-known that the Western World has diverged from the rest on politics/psychology. UnashamedPapist (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Cool. And? Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: Because HiLo is saying we should base it on other English-speaking countries and GlowstoneUnknown seemed skeptical that the West was psychologically unique and more culturally liberal than the global median. My response was to both. UnashamedPapist (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::: That doesn't answer my question. What is the point of all of this? What are you trying to achieve? This is precisely the issue with NOTFORUM violations. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::To revert a majority of JA1800's edits. UnashamedPapist (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It doesn't matter if I agree with your arguments or not, because you're engaging in original research. Sure, "western values" may be diverging from the rest of the world's - but you cannot use that to say that the political position designations of other reliable sources is now dubious. You are reaching a conclusion that, afaict, is not stated by the source you posted.

:::::::I did not ask you to use an unrelated source to reach your conclusion, I asked for a reliable source that alleges the same thing you do. Are there any? isa.p (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, there are many sources that label the GOP a center-right and/or big-tent party. UnashamedPapist (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::And then we get onto Paul Vaurie's point. There was already an RfC where consensus was established to exclude "center-right" from the infobox and it's too soon to attempt to change that consensus. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Yeah, this matter is closed. We came to a consensus. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Too be fair, if UP has good sources that weren't previously identified then the matter can be looked at again. The finality of RfCs typically presumes no new facts. As an example, a current, academically published summary of the GOP written by esteemed historians and political scientists would probably be sufficient to revisit the question. RfCs are always subject to review if new information becomes available. Springee (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnAdams1800

"Part I of rollback. Immediately recognized that the article was biased, then realized that JohnAdams1800, over the past few months, has used multiple accounts to portray a false consensus that the party is radical."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1289153771

@UnashamedPapist claims that @JohnAdams1800 used multiple accounts but he created a single account after being banned for OR for 30 days, for which he was permabanned. This has been confirmed by checkuser evidence by by admins @PhilKnight and @jpgordon .

@UnashamedPapist is seemingly trying to mislead here. This is serious disruption and should be looked into by experienced editors of this page. I myself raised issues about John Adams and his problematic OR in his talk page but this editor seems to using it as a convenient excuse to massively remove content as per WP:I don't like it.

His sock doesn't even have more than 25 edits and hasn't edited the main page ever.

His sock: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EdwardColes1822

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohnAdams1800

Theofunny (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is not serious disruption. To summarize: Those particular edits were made by him on his main; through editing behavior and writing style, it was easy for me to find that he had other obvious sockpuppets than the one caught. I will be submitting a sockpuppet investigation about that soon.

:Additionally, the edits themselves are problematic and their deletion is not contingent on the behavior of JohnAdam1800 or his sockpuppets. UnashamedPapist (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Firstly, it's a serious matter to accuse editors of being sockpuppets without evidence, especially since JohnAdams had his sockpuppet discovered through CheckUser, which (to my understanding) should have shown more socks were there any. Secondly, if the mass reversion/s had better reasoning than unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry, the edit summaries should have reflected that, in your case, the vast majority of the reversions seemed to not adequately provide any other valid reasoning for why the edits were problematic. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's why I didn't list the sockpuppets until I file an investigation. VPN's, different devices, and more all exist. I judged it through behavioral evidence and writing style. It'll be very obvious once the report is submitted. Regardless, the edit is not contingent on it, and it's similar to the principles of G5. (Although this is a matter of editor discretion in this case rather than a hard and fast rule.) The edits by JohnAdam1800's misrepresent the material that they're citing ("the party uniformly supports the highest tariffs of any country in the world on all countries" is found absolutely no where), they're a violation of many WP rules (WP: RECENTISM, WP: NPOV, WP: RGW, WP: FUTURE, WP: TRIVIA) and selectively quote from individuals rather than representing all significant viewpoints. JohnAdams1800 himself has described his edits as WP: RGW and attempting to influence viewers to see the Republican Party as a danger to the United States. This isn't mentioning the deterioration in prose, trivia thrown in about Elon Musk and others, and culling of sources. The edits are a disaster and risk being cemented into the article for years. UnashamedPapist (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's not how it works. "There are secret sockpuppets that I noticed but haven't reported yet but I don't wanna say who they are until I submit the report but I'm still going to revert their edits." If you suspect sockpuppetry, the first thing you do is report it, you've had over 2 days since your initial reversion to report the users who you suspect of being sockpuppets, but instead you seem to be only interested in justifying your challenged bols edits on this talk page and calling for a new consensus barely a few months after the previous one was established. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::At most, the only consensus established was regarding the party on the political spectrum (although a clear look at the talk page/reality there was never a RFC conclusion contradicts this), there was never a consensus on edits by JohnAdams1800.

:::::Would you accept a reversion that keeps the political spectrum position while keeping the rest?

:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=1289274398&oldid=1289273938 Moxy], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=1289249214&oldid=1289187761 Cutlass], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=1290657093&oldid=1290653493 SayWhoD], myself, and others all specifically objected to the changes. UnashamedPapist (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::RfC closures are not required for consensus to be established, and no, the article as it currently stands is consensual. Don't continue to make alterations to it such as the ones you already attempted to make. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: How is it consensual if five+ independent users have reverted it and the edits are recent? UnashamedPapist (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::SayWhoD has a conflict of interest in editing this article as a self-admitted Republican, Cutlass' and Moxy's reversions were based solely on JohnAdams' edits (which, as established, do not make up the totality of the reversions), and that just leaves yourself. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: By that logic no Republican or right-leaning individual could edit the page. Is that what you're implying? Many people who have edited the article list their personal political positions on their userpages. That doesn't mean they can't make good edits or that they're opinions should be systematically discarded. UnashamedPapist (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No, simply pointing out that the user's conflict of interest as a Republican (note: not just any right-leaning individual) makes their claims of article bias hold less weight. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Whatever the outcome of this discussion, please refrain from tagging for the time being. You're giving the appearance of trying to bypass discussion, which is not a good way to operate. isa.p (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: I'm tagging them so that they see the individual edit. UnashamedPapist (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That is not how we typically operate. Please do not do that. Leave the page alone, and suggest further edits here. Yes, there are likely some problems with JA1800s previous edits, but the way you are approaching it is incredibly nonconstructive. Your talk page has several warnings on it about this page. You are speeding towards getting tied up in an ANI. Please take that as a sign to cool down a little. isa.p (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::WP:BLOCKEVADE only covers edits made while they were blocked; you're removing more than that. Additionally, and more importantly, BLOCKEVADE only covers the initial removal. Once someone restores it, they have taken responsibility for those edits and you must make the case to remove them just like any other dispute. You say that these edits are bad on their own merits but once someone has restored them, you have to make that case on talk without focusing on the person who originally made them. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::My read is this wasn't a car of reverting an EVADE edit. Rather it was reverting a series of bad edits. However, you are correct that an editor can restore an EVADE edit and take ownership themselves. Springee (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I assume everyone else noticed the edits to this talk page by 98.228.56.157 explaining how to contact JA1800? I assume this is him trying to avoid his block. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::If it is JA, it should go to sock puppet investigations. Otherwise we need to AGF. Springee (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There was another IP sock that was probably JA - I have already created a report for that one. Socking happens. Make your report and move on. But the second a non-socking editor says "no actually this edit was good" then it's no longer a matter of just G5ing the sock's material and it becomes a normal content discussion. If you don't want to submit a sockpuppet investigation then that's what you gotta do. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099127039/liz-cheney-republicans-white-nationalism

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4091794-tubervilles-white-nationalism-comments-trigger-gop-uproar/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/14/the-gop-is-americas-party-of-white-nationalism/

https://americasvoice.org/blog/cpac-to-display-the-conspiratorial-white-nationalism-rotting-the-gop-from-the-inside-out/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/politics/tommy-tuberville-white-nationalist-military-comments

https://www.salon.com/2023/07/13/why-are-trying-to-rebrand-nationalism-right-now/

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-denounce-white-supremacy-letter-raskin-1786300

All of these articles as well as a significant amount of the electorate and discussion about "White replacement theory" and "White Genocide" in South Africa, and Trump and others pushing that, this discussion should be had as to whether the white nationalist element should be included. A significant amount of republicans believe that the Democrats are trying to "replace them" when nonwhite immigrants, and this is a central theme with "Build a Wall", "Deport" and talks of JD Vance and his speech in the EU on Immigrants "destroying Europe", or there being a supposed genocide of White people in South Africa. There is a reasonable case for White Nationalism being listed under factions atleast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism#2016_Trump_presidential_campaign

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism#Statistics

Midgetman433 (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Where do any of these sources say that there is a white nationalist faction of the party or that it is an ideology? TFD (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Please review WP:OR. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

PajamaHop removed references to scholars [https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist near-unanimously labeling the party as an authoritarian populist party that opposes liberal democracy]. This is a significant omission [https://brightlinewatch.org/threats-to-democracy-and-academic-freedom-after-trumps-second-first-100-days/ as the majority of scholars do not consider the United States to be a liberal democracy anymore] due to the actions of Republicans. The U.S. is now considered to be much closer to Mexico, Brazil, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines, South Korea, and Argentina than Canada or most of Europe. The Vice President of the United States openly cites and is influenced by Curtis Yarvin, who has previously stated that "some groups are more suited to slavery" and favors autocratic rule, yet we're treating the party as similar to normal conservative parties in other countries.

If Europeans could vote in American elections, even ones that were exclusively a member of "far-right" ones such as Reform UK or Front National, Kamala Harris would have won the election... I don't think many Americans realize how unusual and radical the Republican Party is when compared to other normal partiee in democracy. It's a disservice to readers and a disservice to accuracy if we exclude the consensus of scholars to coddle certain people's perspectives. I'm restoring it unless a good reason is given or others disagree with me. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:That are issues with Wikipedia:Redflag, Wikipedia:Due and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. NPR is not a good source for political science. You need an expert source that can evaluate the credibility of the study, what its actual findings are, how it should be interpreted, and its influence on expert opinion. TFD (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Incidentally, for decades polls have shown that people in other countries favor the Democrats. That's most likely because Republican rhetoric about America is the greatest country in the world and does not have to listen to anyone doesn't sell well beyond its borders. It doesn't mean they don't want someone like Trump running their own country. TFD (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Many do. And many others argue that's because of the authoritarian populist policies of people like Trump. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Perhaps. But Canadians favored Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama over their Republican rivals by 85% to 15%. Trump is no less popular than previous Republican candidates. TFD (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And many argue that's because of his authoritarian populist policies. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am trying to understand you. 85% of Canadians preferred Obama over McCain or Romney and 85% of Canadians preferred Hillary Clinton, Biden and Harris over Trump. Are you saying that they disliked Trump because he was a populist but disliked McCain and Romney for entirely different reasons? I would be interested to know what they were. TFD (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The topic here is he Republican Party, not Trump, McCain et al. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes. Bright Line Watch has already identified democratic backsliding in the United States as consensus. The modern Republican Party is much closer to Hungary's Fidesz and India's BJP than mainstream center-right parties. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Considering the overwhelming prominence of neo-nationalist ideas in the Republican Party, particularly in recent years, I think it would make sense to add it here as a primary ideological component. What do you all think? Blooming.Lilith (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do any sources tie the party to neo-nationalism? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Muboshgu, are you trolling or are you seriously reclusive? Besides about a decade of news coverage on the rise of the neo-nationalist movement of Trumpism, the main article on neo-nationalism includes the following text:

• "Donald Trump's rise to the Republican candidacy in 2016 was widely described as a sign of growing new nationalism in the United States. A Chicago Sun-Times editorial on the day of the inauguration of Donald Trump called him "our new nationalist president".{{cite news|title=Editorial: Our new nationalist president|url=http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/editorial-our-new-nationalist-president/|work=Chicago Sun-Times|date=20 January 2017}} The appointment of Steve Bannon, the executive of Breitbart News (later cofounding The Movement), as White House Chief Strategist, was described by one analyst as arousal of a "new world order, driven by patriotism and a fierce urge to look after your own, a neo-nationalism that endlessly smears Muslims and strives to turn back the clock on free trade and globalization, a world where military might counts for far more than diplomacy and compromise".{{cite news|last1=Law|first1=Bill|title=First we take the White House: The rise and rise of Steve Bannon|url=http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/first-we-take-white-house-rise-and-rise-steve-bannon-979554802|agency=Middle East Eye|date=18 November 2016}}"
• "In the wake of Trump's election, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has called for the Republican Party to embrace a "new nationalism" to oppose "economic elitism that has replaced a commitment to the dignity of work with a blind faith in financial markets and that views America simply as an economy instead of a nation."{{cite news|work=The Weekly Standard|title=Rubio Goes Nationalist|date=10 August 2018|url=https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/rubio-goes-nationalist|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810111244/https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/rubio-goes-nationalist|url-status=dead|archive-date=10 August 2018}}" Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :None of these sources call the Republican Party nationalist as a whole, only individual members of it. Therefore, it will be WP:OR to cite them for this ideology... WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The Trump administration is announcing a policy of forced "remigration" and denaturalization of "non-Western" legal immigrants. Republican politicians and activists were reportedly in contact with the British Homeland Party (often considered neo fascist) and Alternative for Germany (universally considered far-right). Can we add this and far-right in the infobox and body of tbe article now?

https://newrepublic.com/post/195907/trump-remigration-office

The definition on Wikipedia states what it involves: "Remigration is a far-right European concept of ethnic cleansing[1] via the mass deportation or promoted voluntary return of non-white immigrants and their descendants, usually including those born in Europe, to their place of racial ancestry, often with no regard for their citizenship or legal status". This policy was specifically the reason that France's far-right National Rally cut off ties with Germany's AfD yet the Republican article makes no mention of "far-right" or remigration at all?

Comes across as whitewashing. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Your source doesn't seem to mention AfD or the Homeland Party at all, so i dont know where you got that information from. Plus, how can a few Republican politicians who allegedly have relationship with far-right parties make the entire Republican Party far-right? Using the same logic, Trump's meeting with Keir Starmer (who is a leader of the Labor Party) on [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgee7rl24ro February 27] makes the Republican party centre-left social democrats. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Center-right to right wing would be much more accurate. Don’t let Donald Trump mark the whole Party’s history.

Ronald Reagan was definitely centre-right and not right wing, and George H.W Bush was even somewhat of a centrist. דולב חולב (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Though Republicans like G. H.W. Bush were much more center-right, the "Ideology" classification is meant to state the current ideology of the party. Which is of course right-wing populism/far-right under Trump. Be-Plants (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ok… I think the page should represent the Party’s history too but fine. דולב חולב (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The page does represent the party's history, briefly under the #History section and more in-depth in its own article. In the lead and under the political positions sections and basically everywhere outside of the section dedicated to the party's history should contain up-to-date information about the party as it currently stands. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)