Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Objection to removal of Whig party from the info box

See edit...

I'm unclear in regard to the particulars of the objection in the edit summary "A direct lineage from the Whig Party singled out is not accurate, at least without the other parties mentioned." To my knowledge the Whig party was the dominant opposition to the Democrat party at the the time and is commonly referred to as a kind of "predecessor" to the Republican party, for lack of a better term.

To quote a Professor of American History, Michael F. Holt... "Republicans carried eleven of sixteen free states in 1856, thereby establishing themselves as the successor to the Whigs" Northern Illinois University

If you are unfamiliar with Holt, there are other sources, but I haven't bothered to count them all.

Daniel Walker Howe "Republican spokesmen were concerned to define their cause as the party of the victorious Union, not merely as the successor to the Whigs" University of Michigan

As it stands, the article mentions the Whig party several times, with no correlation to the info box. Perhaps we can come to a consensus on a way to revise it without reverting?

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My objection is less to including the Whigs and more to only including them and not others, like the Free Soil Party, where essentially everyone shifted to the GOP. If that's changed, I'm fine re-adding it. Toa Nidhiki05 05:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

They are already listed in the info-box under the pretense of Merger of, which is not incorrect as far as I can tell. It would help if you had some sources to bolster your objection, and help us find consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So, do we have any quality sources that dispute this successorship from the Whig party as historians call it, or include these other parties as primary predecessors? DN (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your own sources don't even display a clear successorship, which is why it had to have "de facto" as a disclaimer. As for the Free Soil Party - here's a few:

• [1]
• [2] (also notes that Whigs split off into the two parties based on slavery, and the GOP had absorbed most of the Know-Nothings as well)
• [3]

Basically, there's a much clearer tie between GOP and Free Soilers than GOP and Whigs. Toa Nidhiki05 22:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There were also Democrats and independents (including elected politicians) who joined the new party. The origins of the party are too complex to distill into a brief entry in the info-box. Bear in mind that unlike other countries, the two major parties in the U.S. never had underlying ideologies, but were shifting coalitions based on the issues of the day. TFD (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Your own sources don't even display a clear successorship"

You mean, aside from the explicit quotes I provided? DN (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Your objection closely resembles the Alternative History Wiki. Alternate history (also referred to as alternative history, allohistory, althist, or simply AH) is a subgenre of speculative fiction in which one or more historical events have occurred but are resolved differently than in actual history. Here's historian Steven Mintz... "As late as 1850, the two-party system seemed healthy. Democrats and Whigs drew strength in all parts of the country. Then, in the early 1850s, the two-party system began to disintegrate in response to massive foreign immigration. By 1856 the Whig party had collapsed and been replaced by a new sectional party, the Republicans." DN (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I gave sources, and your response is to call it "alt history". What? That's not even a response worth glorifying.

Regardless, your source said replaced, but it does not say it was a successor party - which is what you are claiming. Take the first source you mentioned - you chopped out the bit of the quote after where it also noted that the party had no support in the South (where the Whigs had, in fact, existed); effectively, the Republicans began as a regional party, not a national one like the Whigs had been. I think "successor" is very clearly referring, as it was framed at the start of the section on the party, to the place the Whigs had in the system - not to the Whig Party itself. The second source is more straightforward, but the bit about being a successor is literally a passing mention. Whereas the sources I provided say outright that the Free Soil Party membership did, in fact, all move over to the Republicans. That is a clearer claim to succession. Toa Nidhiki05 05:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Since you are commenting on my actions, I also "chopped out" this bit from my first source, under the section aptly titled, The Republican Party...You may have missed it.

• "The Republican party was one of two new parties to emerge between 1854 and 1856 to challenge Whigs for their role as primary opponent of Democrats." - historian Matt F. Holt

None of your sources seem to say "there's a much clearer tie between GOP and Free Soilers than GOP and Whigs.", or dispute that the Whigs was one of the primary parties at the beginning of America's two-party system. Now the discussion has turned into a semantic argument in search of some meaningful difference between the terms replacement and successorship, and into a hunt for red herrings about regional and geographical political support structures.

Perhaps I shouldn't assume that the argument now also seems to be that we can dismiss explicit quotes by three historians that don't all work for the same privately funded institute that's part of the State Policy Network, yet still all essentially say the same thing.

I'll have to give it some thought. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the biographies of leadership of the new GOP all emphasize the central role of many years of Whig activity--as compared to a matter of months for the other short-lived parties. Lincoln is the best example. Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of Lincoln as a prime example as well, but you beat me to it. DN (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Darknipples, again, what in the bit you just cited says the Whigs were the predecessor party? You can take over a party's position without taking over the party. You have not responded to my point about the Whigs yet either - Southern Whigs, in the national party, did not become Republicans, whereas Republicans did absorb the Free Soil Party's membership - and most of the Know-Nothings, too. Even after the Whigs died, the Republicans were not a national party because they only absorbed northern Whigs into the fold; southern Whigs went their own way, forming an opposition to Jefferson Davis, but did not become Republicans and ultimately became Democrats. The Constitutional Union Party is also regarded as a claimant to much of the Whig legacy (xEgerton (2010), pp. 99–100)

Rather than dismissing what I'm saying out of hand and just generally being rude about it, I would prefer if you'd actually make substantive responses to it. I am not arguing the Whigs did not have some role in the GOP. What I am arguing is that they did not absorb the Whig Party (which is true), and that they absorbed the greater part of several other parties. Toa Nidhiki05 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me of being rude seems a bit off topic. DN (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems the issue is getting conflated by which party "absorbed" the other, or which party had more "in common" with the other, rather than focusing on what RS explicitly tells us. As you mentioned earlier, the term "de-facto" was used in the description, which I think is still a fitting way of conveying what seems to be your point. You have yet to offer a better option, and it's utter removal does not seem like an improvement. DN (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't read the source that says the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the same way. There was a two party system that drew support from all parts of the country. Slavery became the major issue and the party system "disintegrated." Of the two new sides, one regrouped in the Democratic Party, the others regrouped in the new Republican Party.

In the UK, the liberal-conservative dichotomy collapsed and the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties. I wouldn't consider them the successor party, not only because the Liberals continued as a minor party, but because there was a realignment as the Tories became the party of big business and Labour the party of the workers. In a sense most Liberals regrouped to both parties. TFD (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a really good example. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats are the successors to the Liberal Party, because the party merged into the Liberal Democrats. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Support restoring the GOP was a Whig Party successor. There's enough high-quality sources supporting just that. Cortador (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, both the Whig & Republican parties, co-existed for two years. Each had their own candidates in the 1856 US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. The Republicans therefore succeeded the Whigs as one of two major parties, just as Labour succeeded the UK Liberals. That's actually clear in the sources presented. But I believe that the box is for a name change or resurrection. TFD (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to a change other than total omission of relevant and factual info. DN (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the total omission of relevant and factual info. However, that does not mean that I think all relevant and factual info about the Republican Party should be in the info-box.

I am particularly opposed to including information that is ambiguous, misleading or nuanced. Obviously, if we need a footnote explaining why the Whig party belongs there, it defeats that purpose.

In this case, the Whig Party was not the "predecessor" party of the Republicans, since it continued to exist after the Republican Party was founded. In the aforementioned 1856 election for example it got 21.5% of the vote, while the Republicans got 33.1%.

By predecessor, most readers would assume that the two parties did not exist at the same time and that Whigs had joined the Republicans en masse. In fact there was a realignment with one group moving to the Democrats and the others joining a new party.

The Republican Party was a new party based on opposition of slavery in the western territories. The issue had been ignored by the main parties until then. It definitely was not the official position of the Whig Party, but had crossed party lines.

Indeed, the Republicans replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties of an essentially two party system. But I think it's better explained in the article. TFD (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, I'm not suggesting that all relevant and factual info should be in the info box.

This longstanding edit is the type of context that is consistently located in the info box for most articles such as this.

Speaking of letting the article explain it, as it currently stands, the Free Soilers and Anti-Nebraska movement are still in the info-box. If historians generally agree that those groups are more central to the party's overview than the Whigs, and therefore worthy of mention in the box, while the Whigs are not, where does this article make that point?

Conversely, no one here, including the editor responsible for this change, has suggested anything other than just intentionally leaving it blank, which readers might also find confusing, ambiguous, misleading or nuanced.

For example, Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig Party leader, was the Republican party's first president, but there's not even a mention of this connection, and up to this point I wouldn't have considered it remotely necessary.

In the history section it says...

• They (Republicans) denounced the expansion of slavery as a great evil, but did not call for ending it in the Southern states. While opposition to the expansion of slavery was the most consequential founding principle of the party, like the Whig Party it replaced, Republicans also called for economic and social modernization. (George H. Mayer, The Republican Party, 1854-1964 (1965) pp. 23–30.)

The terms replacement and successor are consistently used by historians and RS in describing the relationship between the Whigs and the GOP.

If this edit stands as is, are Wikipedia readers to assume it is unnecessary or inaccurate context at the History of the Republican Party (United States), and all other articles that mention that connection?

Since historians and most RS do place emphasis on the successorship or replacement of the Whigs by the GOP, how are we improving this Wikipedia article by removing it in this singular instance, and nothing else? DN (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by the statement that the GOP replaced the Whigs? Do you mean merely that the U.S. transitioned from the two party system dominated by Democrats and Whigs to one dominated to Democrats and Republicans? If so, is that what you think the average reader would conclude from the info-box? If not, is there any reason the article should leave the readers with false views? TFD (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be the general consensus stated by historians, including ones already cited in the article, not I. I've already expressed my concerns about what readers will gather from the sudden omission of this longstanding edit that used to be consistent with every other article referring to this topic on Wikipedia. The onus is on the editor that made the change. DN (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I have not explained myself clearly so I shall try again. Let me break my argument down:

Premise 1: There is consensus that the Republicans replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties.

Premise 2: There is consensus that there is no direct lineage from Whigs to Republicans.

Premise 3: Calling the Whigs the predecessor of the Republicans falsely implies that there is a direct lineage, unless we explain that there is no direct lineage.

Premise 4: Info-boxes should not contain false or misleading information.

Premise 5: Info-boxes should not contain information that requires clarification.

Conclusion: The info-box should not say the Whig Party was the predecessor of the Republican Party.

Do you (a) disagree with any of my premises or (b) disagree that the conclusion is supported by the premises.

Please do not say that you have sources because I have already agreed to that in Premise 1. TFD (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I would likely disagree with (a-2&3), as there appears to be some direct lineage, with Lincoln being a prime example, as Rjensen mentioned earlier.

For the sake of clarity, I'm adding what Toa removed from the info box, here.

• The Republican Party was formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery, drawing from the antislavery wing of the Whig Party ("Conscience Whigs") and combining Free Soil, Liberty Party, and antislavery Democratic Party members.

DN (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the sources you provided say there is a direct lineage. Also, I don't see how there can be a direct predecessor/successor relationship between two organizations that overlapped in existence. TFD (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

In March 2009 you said that "the predecessors were the Federalists (1792-1816), National Republicans (1825-1833) and Whigs (1833-1856), (all dates approximate)", and recently told GoodDay (above) that "The Republicans therefore succeeded the Whigs as one of two major parties". How do you reconcile what you are now telling me, that because two organizations overlap in existence, they cannot have a predecessor/successor relationship? DN (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

See: CONTEXT: "the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect." Example: "You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context." (Dictionary.com)

In this case you misinterpreted my remarks and created a strawman argument. As I said above, the Republicans were the successors to the Whigs in some contexts. In other contexts they weren't. As I observed in my posting of 15 years ago, which for some reason you looked up, the Whigs "ultimately failed because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened."

See also "Fact check: Clip of Biden taken out of context to portray him as plotting a voter fraud scheme."[https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN27E2U7] (Reuters Oct. 29 2020) Taking sources out of context is misleading,the opposite of what articles are supposed to do. TFD (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I was asking you to clarify your statements, not attacking them. Let's at least try to clarify what you are arguing. Creating a strawman wasn't my intention, but we still need some clarification here.

Would you agree at this point that your argument consists of at least these two points?

(a) That two organizations that overlap in existence, cannot have a predecessor/successor relationship.

(b) The sources provided don't say there is a direct lineage

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

How does the "failure because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened." disqualify the Whigs as the Republican party's predecessor, as reliable sources put it?

predecessor: "something succeeded or replaced by something else." Dictionary.com DN (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln is indeed a Whig that became a Republican. However, he did so two years after the Republican Party was founded. I don't consider this convincing. Toa Nidhiki05 23:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, the onus isn't on me. The onus is on you, and TFD as well now, I suppose. DN (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain your two year deadline for lineage, theory. DN (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's actually any time. Most people view events sequentially, so that successive organizations follow preceding ones in time. They don't coexist on the same timeline. TFD (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• "It's actually any time. Most people view events sequentially, so that successive organizations follow preceding ones in time. They don't coexist on the same timeline."

Toa Nidhiki05, do you agree with the above explanation by TFD? DN (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That a party can't succeed another that still exists as a major party? Yes. Morover, as I said before, the northern Whigs generally fractured into the Republicans, but southern Whigs did not. Toa Nidhiki05 12:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources seem to ascertain that the Whigs were no longer a major party because they either joined the Republicans or the Know Nothings etc... So I'm not clear on what the point of this argument is. Perhaps we can clarify this by asking...

• Which RS says that because the southern Whigs did not join the Republicans, it had no relation to them, or, that it disqualified them in some way as predecessors.
• Is your point that RS states it was a merger? If so, please point out the RS.

DN (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you think the expression "Preceded by" means? TFD (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not the issue here. This issue is there's no RS backing up your argument. Let's not make this personal...again. DN (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It is the issue because you want to put "Preceded by: Whigs" in the info-box. It may be that you have a different understanding of what the term means. What do you think the expression "Preceded by" means? TFD (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't make it any clearer.

The ONUS is not on me.

The ONUS on YOU and TOA to keep this change.

I'm following what RS says, not what I "want", or what I "think". DN (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Try explaining how the "failure because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened." disqualify the Whigs as the Republican party's predecessor, before you move on to your next question. DN (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Restoring a previous version

I have added to the Whig party back to the merger of section because leaving them out seems likely to be an NPOV issue.

The arguments thus far appear to be...

A. The Republican party only absorbed northern Whigs, therefore the Whig party is not the predecessor to the Republican party. B. Because both parties existed at the same time, the Whig party is not the predecessor to the Republican party. C. There is no direct lineage of Whigs into the Republican party.

Of the sources Toa provided...

1. BRI "The failure of the Wilmot Proviso was a landmark moment because it convinced some members of the Liberty Party, the Barnburner Democrats, and the Conscience Whigs to create a new political organization. In the summer of 1848, they came together in conventions in Buffalo, New York, and formed the Free Soil Party, nominating Martin Van Buren as their candidate for president"..."The new party also lost the support of many antislavery Whigs when it nominated Van Buren, the former Democratic president who had been one of the leading organizers of the party of Andrew Jackson – the very party they thought had done so much to expand the power of slavery." 2. PBS "The Republican Party absorbed anti-slavery Whigs and most Know-Nothings." 3. Britannica "Disappointed by the ambivalent position of the Whig Party toward slavery, “Conscience” Whigs held a convention in August 1848 at Buffalo, New York. There they were joined by delegates from 17 states drawn from the Liberty Party and the antislavery faction of the New York Democrats, known as “Barnburners.” The Free-Soilers’ historic slogan calling for “free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men” attracted small farmers, debtors, village merchants, and household and mill workers, who resented the prospect of black-labour competition—whether slave or free—in the territories."

I have not found any context in sources 1, 2 or 3, that supports these claims. If I missed something, please point it out, preferably with explicit quotes and not personal "interpretations".

The RS I have quoted, as well as pre-existing sources in the Republican party article, explicitly use the terms successor and replacement. D.Michael F. Holt E.Daniel Walker Howe F.Steven Mintz

The above RS contradicts claims A, B, C (some example quotes are provided near the top of this section).

Regardless of whether there is a logical explanation or evidence that proves a predecessor and successor cannot "coexist" at the same time in various contexts, unless it specifically applies in the context of a reliable source on the subject of the relationship between the Whig and Republican parties, the point is moot. This evidence has not been provided.

In the same vein, a theory that the split within the Whig party over slavery somehow disqualifies their connection does not reconcile this edit without existing RS.

Lincoln is only one example of a former Whig that not only joined the Republican party, but helped shape it. William H. Seward, another former Whig turned Republican, may also be considered instrumental in helping to shape the Republican Party’s ideology and policies.

The original edit summary, "A direct lineage from the Whig Party singled out is not accurate, at least without the other parties mentioned.", incorrectly claims that the other parties were not mentioned. They were, in fact, mentioned and included an additional citation confirming the lineage from the Whig party to the Republican party. Most sources, including ones provided above by Toa, state that the Republican party absorbed northern Whig members.

See edit...

• The Republican Party was formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery, drawing from the antislavery wing of the Whig Party ("Conscience Whigs") and combining Free Soil, Liberty Party, and antislavery Democratic Party members.

Previous edits over the last 15 years have all included the Whigs in the info-box in some form. In early March 2024 they were condensed from the original format before Toa removed it, which included multiple parties as either "a merger of" or "predecessor(s)", presumably to save space in the info box. The original editor also meant to differentiate the Whig party, as predecessor, in their edit summary.

Leaving out the Whig party from the info-box gives the other arguably less notable parties UNDUE WEIGHT and perceivably over-represents, at best a minority view that has yet to be backed up by sources, that implies Whigs either didn't become part of the Republican party, or that they were not the generally accepted previous main counterpart to the Democrats, i.e. the predecessor.

As a result, this likely put's Toa's edit in the realm of violating NPOV. Any claims that the Whig party connection to the Republican party is somehow misinformation must be proven with explicit sources, not just personal opinions, theories and or correlations.

If an editor interprets sources differently than others, as to give weight to a seemingly minority view, it still does not negate the common mainstream interpretation of RS, especially without explicit sources to back it up.

If anyone still takes issue with this, it will go to NPOVN. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

While the facts you present have not been disputed, it is misleading to describe the relationship as the Republicans were preceded by the Whigs. Could you please explain what you mean by preceded by? TFD (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Cortador Rjensen GoodDay

Toa, you and TFD are the only editors here that seem strongly in favor of the previous edit out of six editors including myself. You removed it for the issue of being under predecessor, and now your agenda seems to be to keep the Whigs out of the info-box entirely, with no sources...Your revert will be noted in my forthcoming post at NPOVN. This has gone on for about 2 weeks with no explicit sources provided by you or TFD. Go ahead and enjoy the rest of your holiday. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand you clearly seem very passionate about this. However, I think you're extremely misguided here. Your edit now claims the party was founded by a merger of the Whigs and two other parties - which is demonstrably untrue, as the Republican Party and the Whig Party existed at the same time and contested elections, including the 1854–55 United States House of Representatives elections. I would be fine with removing this part of the inbox altogether, but I am not fine with incorrectly claiming the Whigs as the predecessor party - or, even more incorrectly, as having merged - with the Republican Party. This is misleading because not only did this not happen, southern Whigs - as I cited in sources - did not join the Republican Party. Unlike the other two movements - who did, in fact, broadly collapse entirely into the Republican fold - the Whigs did not.

To reiterate: I am fine with any solution that does not claim the Whigs were a predecessor party (which is untrue, as they existed at the same time) or merged into the GOP (which is untrue, as southern Whigs did not join the GOP, and the Constitutional Union Party also had a credible claim to Whig succession). Toa Nidhiki05 22:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where this fits, but I'll point it out again. The Whig & Republican parties co-existed for a few years. Thus the question - Was the Whig Party merely re-named the Republican Party. There were members of the Whig, Free Soil & (Northern) Democratic Party, which joined the Republican Party. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe the term "predecessor" is defined as "re-naming" something. I've always understood the qualifier to be defined as a "replacement".

It seems fairly common for predecessors and successors to exist at the same time. When using the term to refer to an office or position, or a person, there is no requirement that states they may not exist concurrently, that I'm aware of. DN (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't need sources to exclude material, we need sources to include them. So far you have not provided persuasive sources that the Republicans were preceded by the Whigs. It's not even clear what you mean by preceded by, and it would be helpful if you provided your definition. TFD (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The onus isn't on me. DN (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the onus is absolutely on you given this is content to be included in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 19:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It was already in the article. You removed it.

Your edit summary explains why you removed it claiming "A direct lineage from the Whig Party singled out is not accurate, at least without the other parties mentioned.", which was false.

The infobox said "The Republican Party was formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery, drawing from the antislavery wing of the Whig Party ("Conscience Whigs") and combining Free Soil, Liberty Party, and antislavery Democratic Party members." DN (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

References

The strong majority of Republicans, especially local state and national leaders, had been immersed in Whig Party for years--it was far more experience than anything else. I think Whiggery shaped the policies, rhetoric, newspapers, campaign styles and local organizational structure. When a Republican candidate gave a speech (or editor wrote a story) they relied on all their experience before hundreds of Whig audiences and tailored their words & policies accordingly. -By far the weakest impact came from the Know Nothing element. Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

But were the Whigs uniformly joing the Republican Party? No. The two parties existed at the same time for several years. Southern Whigs - this was a national party, after all - did not join the Republican Party. As it is currently, the page misleadingly suggests to readers that the Whig Party merged into the Republican Party, when this is demonstrably untrue. Toa Nidhiki05 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

What sources say/prove it's demonstrably untrue? DN (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I cited them earlier in the discussion, but since you didn't notice, here's a few + more:

• [4]
• Britannica - "Formed in 1859 by former Whigs and members of the Know-Nothing Party, the party nominated John Bell for president and Edward Everett for vice president."
• [5] - "In May 1860 a group of former Whigs, whose national party had collapsed during the previous decade, organized the Constitutional Union Party."
• PBS - "The Republican Party absorbed anti-slavery Whigs and most Know-Nothings... The Constitutional Union Party was the anti-extremist party, absorbing Southern Whigs who didn't want to vote Democratic and Northern Whigs who felt the Republicans were too radical. They united in order to block a Republican victory."
• Encyclopedia Virginia - "The Whigs were too hopelessly split and, as a result, disappeared. Into that void, at least in the North, stepped the new Republican Party, which, in 1860, nominated for U.S. president Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig."
• University of Michigan - "Northern and Southern Whigs promptly parted company and fled either to the Democrats or to new fusion parties like the Republicans"
• Green, Don (Summer 2007). "Constitutional Unionists: The Party that Tried to Stop Lincoln and Save the Union"

There is also a wealth of sources on both the Whig and Constitutional Union party pages that recount how the Whigs fractured. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Identifying the term, "uniformly", as your additional qualifier, shines a better light on the perceived issue.

The longstanding edit did reference the Northern anti-slavery Whigs as "Conscience Whigs".

These quotes and sources don't seem to claim the Republican party wasn't also successor to the Whig party, or that the Constitutional Union Party, which quickly dissolved after a year, disqualified the Whig party as the predecessor to the Republican party.

The University of Michigan source says "The onset of the Kansas-Nebraska controversy in 1854 was the death knell of the Whigs, but not necessarily because (as is commonly assumed) Northern and Southern Whigs promptly parted company and fled either to the Democrats or to new fusion parties like the Republicans. (Actually, Southern Whigs were ready to join with Northern Whigs in denouncing Kansas-Nebraska as reckless expansionism until the famous Appeal of the Independent Democrats cast Kansas-Nebraska as a litmus-test issue on one's loyalty as a Southerner to slavery)"

Britannica says the Constitutional Union Party was a by-product of the same ideological and sectional antipathies that had led to the formation of the Republican Party in 1856.

However, with or without the qualifier, "uniformly", I don't see the quote or claim in this RS that "Republicans did not replace the Northern and Southern Whigs as the successor to the national stage, due to either the Whig party fracture, existing at the same time as the Whigs, because of the Constitutional Union Party, a lack of Whig party lineage, or as a result of the party split between North and South.

There may be consensus for qualifiers such as Northern, Conscience, or perhaps anti-slavery Whigs. DN (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Support mentioning the Whigs in the "Merger of" part of the infobox. Sufficient sources have been provided to support the Whig Party as a predecessor to the GOP. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• What does "predecessor" mean here? Toa Nidhiki05 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is a dictionary definition. If someone disagrees with it, Wikipedia should still refer to the dictionary. DN (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  What is the dictionary definition? TFD (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  A dictionary is a listing of lexemes from the lexicon of one or more specific languages, often arranged alphabetically (or by consonantal root for Semitic languages or radical and stroke for logographic languages), which may include information on definitions, usage, etymologies, pronunciations, translation, etc. It is a lexicographical reference that shows inter-relationships among the data. IOW the opposite of a fictionary. DN (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  What is the dictionary definition of predecessor? TFD (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  In simple terms, something that precedes and is replaced. DN (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's a tautological definition. Obviously a predecessor is something the precedes, just as a writer is someone who writes, or a singer is someone who sings. But what does "to precede" mean? TFD (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why? DN (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  There's a proposition below, to proceed past this issue. DN (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, did you mean to revert to the original version with predecessor listed? Your edit changed it back to my recent edit, not the longstanding one. DN (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples My bad. It should be restored to the long-standing version until the matter is resolved. Cortador (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutral - I'll leave it up to the rest of yas (include/exclude), to decide. That being said, I recommend ya'll split the difference & use "Northern Whigs", as a predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with this. As long as it's clear it wasn't the entire Whig Party. Toa Nidhiki05 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I agree if we have a consensus. Which sources do we want? Four seems a bit much. Cheers.

  DN (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Poll: Should the article include a political position for the Republican Party in the infobox?

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.

---

Issue: We've had a number of discussion about whether or not to include a political position in the infobox - at least four this year alone (1, 2, 3, 4). The position was recently removed again. Before having a formal RfC, let's have a poll on whether to include a position instead of a bunch more discussion with no clear consensus. A lesser question is what position that should be. The article previously stated that the position was right-wing, with parts of the party being centre-right or far-right (see here). I didn't see many (if any) objections to that specific position, only objections to including a position in general, regardless of what that position is, so I'll go with that for now. If someone objects to that, we can modify the poll, or just state in your reply what you prefer.

Tagging editors involved in the previous discussions: @Monito rapido @The Four Deuces @2600:8801:1187:7F00:355E:943C:4E4A:C550 @JohnAdams1800 @Darknipples @Dimadick @Springee @Loytra @HiLo48 @Completely Random Guy @Toa Nidhiki05 @Aficionado538 @Credmaster 20 @Khajidha @Ray522 @174.89.12.70 @Straykat99 @Carlp941 @GoodDay @Aquillion @Moxy

Question: Should the article infobox state that the GOP's political position is right-wing, with parts of the party being centre-right or far-right?

Poll and discussion:

Cortador (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see why the political position is excluded, and the infobox is not that useful in simply listing names of party officials. Dimadick (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• If you're going to make a proposal, can you at least do so in American English, per ENGVAR? For what it's worth - I object to both the addition, as well as framing the far edge of the party as the "centre-right" (sic) when the far edge is, in fact, centrism, per reliable sources. At that point, you're saying the party stretches from the center to the far right, which is... also true of essentially every right-of-center party. Toa Nidhiki05 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support because the Republican Party is now much more ideologically right-wing than many other conservative political parties worldwide--i.e. compare it to the Conservative Party (UK), the CDU/CSU in Germany, etc. It is similar to parties like Law and Justice in Poland, Fidesz in Hungary, or maybe the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) (a big-tent of the right). The comparison isn't exact, because most countries use multi-party systems, but many mainstream Republican positions cannot be described simply as center-right. Side-note: This is not about my personal political views, but how reliable sources describe the party.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support adding something for the ideology of this party. I feel right wing is the most fitting, but am happy to add positions for the factions as well.

I am not persuaded by arguments of American political uniqueness - it doesn't stop reliable sources from describing the party's position, and I do not think it should stop us. I would need to see many reliable, academic sources that explicitly say something like "America's political system is so unique that their political parties defy any political positioning on the left-right axis, and no serious scholar would do so."

I am not persuaded by the argument that the GOP is a big tent party - we have labelled plenty of big tent parties in other countrues and it is widely known that the GOP is a sort of big tent of the right wing.

I am not persuaded by the idea that political positioning is highly contextual - that hasn't stopped us from labeling the political position of parties in countries we don't live in. Carlp941 (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So if one reliable source refers to Churchill as right-wing and another refers to Hitler as right-wing, do you think they are using the terms in the same way? Ditto with sources referring to Stalin as left-wing and others referring to FDR as left-wing, TFD (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"right wing politics" covers a broad set of ideologies, i don't see how "being a different kind of right wing" means this page should abandon the label of right wing. i hope it's clear that i'm not proposing roping in the GOP with the Nazi Party. they're both right wing, but obviously different kinds of right wing.

Carlp941 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the info-box is to convey information to readers and we should not expect them to know anything about the Republican Party before accessing the article. What information does saying they are right-wing, without context, convey to the reader? They could be neo-Nazis, fascists, neo-conservatives, One Nation Tories, Klansmen, liberals or even social democrats. Thanks Wikipedia for narrowing that down! At least we know they are not revolutionary socialists or communists! TFD (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. The ideologies would be listed close by, it would be quite clear what kind of right wingers the GOP is. No one is advocating removing the ideologies and replacing it with the spectrum position.

This argument makes your objection less clear to me. Is your position that political parties should not have their position on the left-right spectrum in their infobox? You'd have to make a stronger argument to convince me of that. Carlp941 (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If by right-wing, you mean position in a bipolar spectrum where all parties are either left or right of the mean,then it is right-wing. If by center-right, you mean the mainstream of parties to the right of the mean, it is center-right.

If by far right, you mean groups that have been historically to the right of mainstream parties to the right of the mean, then parts are far right. If by far right, you mean the furthest right of the political spectrum, such as neo-Nazis, the no parts are far right.

However, the term "parts" can mean two or more people who voted in a primary, in which case any ideology could be considered part of the party. Per WEASEL, we shouldn't be using terms like this unless they can be quantified.

Also, are you talking about the federal party or the fifty plus state parties that send delegates to the federal party?

Whatever your answer, it requires too much nuance to be reduced to a couple of words in an into-box.

TFD (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You will be pleased to hear that we won't include a position based on what I think, but what reliable sources think (which the last addition of a political position that was recently removed did include). Cortador (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Since reliable sources differ, you will have to base the decision on which reliable sources you agree with, which is the same thing. TFD (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

that is plainly not the same thing, and you're making an argument against the basic foundations of wikipedia. Carlp941 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The same level of nuance applies to any other political party in the world. Why should United States political parties be the only ones that are exempted from having their infobox show a position in the political spectrum? BTW, to assert that there are no parts of the Republican Party that are at the furthest right of the political spectrum is simply incorrect. Given that some Republican candidates literally are neo-Nazis. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And some Democratic candidates are literally communists. Neither party actually has any control over who they nominate! Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Because the two parties AFAIK are the only two parties that have no members and no control over who runs under their banner, except for the president and VP. Ever wonder why the U.S., which has more consumer choice than any other country, has only two parties? Because both parties allow candidates across the political spectrum, from actual fascists to actual communists. TFD (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

At one point, lunatics from the LaRouche movement managed to claim the Dem nominations for key offices in Illinois. Would we say that the LaRouchers was the party's ideology? Of course not. Toa Nidhiki05 00:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support political position for the party-at-large as simply "Right-wing", oppose labelling specific parts of the party (centre-right, far-right, etc), also oppose labelling factions within the party. I think the party being on the "the right" is indisputable. Quibbling over anything more specific I think will result in endless debates, is likely to result in WP:UNDUE labels, and could be subject to WP:RECENTISM, so a broad stroke is best. — Czello ^(music) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for "right-wing" in the infobox, because by any fact-based standard that's exactly what the party's position is, and there is no lack of reliable sources saying so. There should be no difficulty in having United States political parties be treated the same way as parties in the rest of the world are. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador Strongly in Favour I think it is really important that any party irrespective of the country that they should specify their political position, and the Republicans are not exempt from that. stating one's political position helps the people to understand more about the ideologies of a certain party, Be it the Republicans or the Democrats. Thank you for having a poll on this matter. Credmaster 20 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Should be the same setup at both GOP and Democrat page I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Those who oppose are making sound arguments. In context of the US two party system the Republicans are on average to the right of the Democrats and often they are labeled by sources as the right while the Democrats are labeled the left. Note I don't think it is valid to say "compared to the world" as that isn't a realistic measure in a two party system. However, the argument that they often swap sides is also valid. 50 years ago the Democrats were the free speech party. Now the reverse is true. Those arguing against are correct in saying the issue is complex (per NPR [6]). If there is a consensus to make this happen to both articles at the same time I would weakly support it. If the idea is only do it here then maybe someone else can argue about it at the Democrat page, then I would oppose it. The two party pages should have a large degree of common structure and information. Springee (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't it ambiguous if the reader doesn't know whether the party is being compared with the other major U.S. party or with other parties? Wouldn't it be better to state what you have said in the text of the article? TFD (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador Support There seems to be majority support, and for reasons previously stated. DN (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be best to wait a few days before deciding. It would also be better if all views agree a consensus had been reached. Springee (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I will note, it does look like a consensus to include will form. Springee (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Conditional - Only if the Democratic Party includes one at its own infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Including a position is useful, and no sources have been brought up that sufficiently support that the GOP's position can't be defined. Tying the position to the Democratic Party's position is pointless; we should go by what sources say about the GOP, regardless what they say about other parties. Cortador (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, we should keep the two articles aligned. I would also note that the NPR source I linked above does show cross over between GOP and Dem groups even as it shows the majority of people who lean towards either party are mostly on the side NPR views as left vs right. This again supports the idea that it's both complex and something that should be part of either both or neither article. Springee (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. The articles should be aligned, and symmetrical. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Cortador here (I know, first time for everything). Every article should have its own censensus (unless overidden by policy or a Wikiproject), and I think adding a position to this article being conditional on the Dem article having the same is effectively WP:FALSEBALANCE. If the community decides the Dem article should have a position, fine – but it shouldn't affect this article. It also creates an arbitrary barrier to decision-making: we shouldn't need to seek consensus at a different article first in order to make a change to this article, and if the same condition is applied there then we're stuck in a loop. (FWIW, I think the Democratic article should also have a position listed.) — Czello ^(music) 07:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point about the barrier. This condition would make the barrier unreasonably high, as it would require a consensus on both article talk pages to go with this method of inclusion, and on top of that consensus on both positions to actually include. Also, if sources don't agree on the position of either party, this would gate off information in the other article for basically no gain. Cortador (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Since political position is a relative concept, logically if one of the two parties can be placed on the spectrum, the other should as well. And even though historically there was ideological overlap, to the extent that there were communist Republicans and fascist Democrats, the Republicans were always to the right of the Democrats. TFD (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Potential support as per what @GoodDay said, I would only support adding a position to the Republican Party if we do the same for the Democratic Party, it's only fair. Though I understand @Czello's point. It should be taken on a case by case basis. However, giving one party a position and not also trying to establish a consensus on the other's may come off as biased, I can foresee potential debates and edit wars coming out of that that. Given the current political climate, and the fact that it's an election year, we should try to establish consensus for both pages. Completely Random Guy (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support for adding 'right-wing' as a majority position and 'center-right to far-right' as factional ones. I support this regardless of whether or not the Democratic Party page lists a position, per Cortador's comments. Not adding a position to this page because a consensus hasn't been decided for the other one is purely unhelpful. It'd be withholding vital information from the reader for essentially no reason. If reliable sources state the GOP is right-wing but can't seem to agree on a position for the Democrats, who are we to intentionally hide the former information from the reader?

I've seen arguments that the two articles would have to be aligned because the party's political positions are relative to each other, but I simply don't agree. The party's political positions indicate their allegiance to certain ideologies. The GOP's main ideological current is conservatism and it espouses inherently right-wing policies. This is the case no matter what policies the Democrats are in favour of.

In Australia, the two major parties are the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. Relative to each other, one is left-wing and the other is right-wing. But Wikipedia, instead, correctly identifies them as 'centre-left' and 'centre-right', respectively. This is because both parties espouse support for a capitalist, market based economy — positions that are nearly objectively centrist in the realm of political science. Under Nazi Germany, the Nazi Party was the only existing political party. As there was no other party to compare it to, did this make it a centrist party? Did it not hold a political position at all? Of course not, it was still an objectively fascist, far-right party, and reliable sources accurately describe it as such.

Ultimately, the Republicans are right-wing, no matter what position we list for the Democrats.

Loytra (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sourcing to back your claims up? And of course, more specifically, you can't compare the "political spectrum" in a dictatorship to one in a democracy, so I feel like what you're saying simply doesn't make sense. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do I have a reliable source to back what claims up, exactly? Numerous, numerous sources have been provided to show that the GOP is a right-wing party (around 10 were included in the edit that added a position to the infobox in the first place).

Additionally, I'm not really sure why a dictatorship vs a democracy matters in this case. The specific argument I was referencing makes a point that a party's political position can only be ascertained if there's another party to compare it to. Under a single-party state there are simply no other parties to make such a comparison. Therefore, you shouldn't be able to figure out a position.

Of course, if you'd be comparing it to other political movements in general, that's a different story (and also shows that you don't have to directly compare parties to figure out one's position; hence we can include the GOP's without including the Democrats'). Loytra (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what your definition of right-wing is. If you mean right of center, then both the Reps and Libs are right-wing. If by center right, you mean somewhere between social liberalism and fascism, then both are center-right. If by centrist, you use Schlesinger's definition as being between communism and fascism, then both are centrist. And there are rs for all these descriptions,

What is your definition of right-wing? TFD (talk) 14:05, 19 May 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.

Libertarianism and neoconservatism as factions

Can these really be considered factions at this point? The article cited is about voters, not politicians, but there's not really any organized, large grouping of libertarian elected officials in the party. As far as I can tell, the Liberty Caucus has, at most, eight members, almost all of which overlap with the Freedom Caucus. There are certainly libertarian Republicans (Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, most notably), but I'm not sure this really qualifies as a faction - just like the Democratic Party infobox doesn't include mention of the similarly-sized Blue Dogs.

The same applies to neoconservatism. That has always been a nebulous term, mostly used in the Bush era to refer to a specific type of national security-focused Republican. This barely qualified as a faction then, and it certainly doesn't now.

I'd strongly consider removing both of them - or at least trying to clarify what we mean by "faction". Toa Nidhiki05 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources describing GOP libertarians as a faction: 1 2 3 4

Sources describing GOP neoconservatives as a faction: 1 2 3 4

Both factions have probably shrunken in favour of Trumpists/far-right Republicans in the last decade, but they have been described as factions over the last 20+ years. Cortador (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Going to review these sources piece by piece:

• The Week piece is seemingly an op ed that uses the word "libertarian" once, broadly claiming Ron Paul and Rand Paul were gaining momentum, while referring to non-elected Tea Party organizers.
• The Washington Examiner piece is an opinion piece from a paper we don't tend to use as an authoritative source of facts. The "faction" it refers to refers to is, even in the article itself, called "small and enduring" - and it notes less than a half-dozen elected members - Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and Denver Riggleman - as well as a few who lost either primaries or generals - Mark Sanford, Eric Brakey, and Dave Brat. Is this really a faction?
• US News and World Report (1) is an opinion piece. It does indeed refer to a "libertarian faction". This sole member of the faction this article mentions is Rand Paul. The actual Christie quote mentioned is not about libertarians, but Republicans skeptical of expansive national defense measures.
• Fortune appears to be an opinion piece from 2016. It does indeed refer to a "reemerging neoconservative faction containing both Lindsay Graham and Jeb Bush". Graham dropped out before the primary, and Jeb! received 0.2% of the vote in the 2016 primary.
• The Atlantic article is an opinion piece from 2012. It does refer to a "neoconservative faction is willing to expand budget deficits without apparent limit if it means they can insert the American military in Syria or Iran or whatever is next on their list." No members of this faction are named, aside from Rubio.
• The Center for the National Interest piece is actually a foundation originally founded in the name of Richard Nixon that advocates a "realist foreign policy" and has strong partisan ties to the GOP.
• The Nation piece is an opinion piece from a left-wing outlet written by a Bernie Sanders advisor. It does indeed refer to a "neoconservative faction" and the pejorative "neocon" - a lot - but it uses them broadly to refer to any Republicans who support military intervention. This source is unusable.

So basically, we have six op-eds here that don't actually back up either as being real factions. I'm not convinced. Toa Nidhiki05 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that these are all opinion pieces. Cortador (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Because they are. And you've not dealt with any of the substantive concerns, either. Toa Nidhiki05 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw that was a huge removal. Were you copyediting any of it? Which of the sources Cortador provided are ones used in the article? There seems to be quite a few in the article. DN (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've provided sources that state that these factions are indeed factions. Claiming that all sources are "opinion pieces" doesn't change that. Cortador (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It actually does matter. Opinion pieces aren’t really reliable sources for statements of fact - they’re just that, opinions. If the author is a subject matter expert, that changes things. But as I’ve explained - your sources here are utterly insufficient. Toa Nidhiki05 23:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of those, there seemed to be an awful lot of non-opinion pieces in that edit. Some of the citations needlessly overlap. The Rolling Stone citation probably isn't necessary. DN (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And how many of those refer to a “faction” or actually back up the claims given? Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

They don't become "opinion pieces" because you say so. Cortador (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the absolute low point of rhetorical debate - they’re not opinion pieces because I say so, they’re opinion pieces because they’re opinion pieces. Find a better argument because this is a waste of my time. Toa Nidhiki05 04:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Which of the articles are labelled as "opinion piece" or "commentary"? Cortador (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be charitable and assume maybe you haven't actually read the.m. However, the fact you're hyperfocused on them not being opinion pieces (they are) rather than responding to a single of the additional substantive complaints and issues I mentioned is unfortunate.

• The Week - Listed as a "feature". You're welcome to take a look at other Features on the website.
• Washington Examiner - The url literally tags this as "opinion" piece. If you actually read it, the tone is also clearly opinion as well.
• US News and World Report - Literally tagged in URL as "opinion". If you actually read it, the tone is also clearly opinion as well.
• Fortune - Style is short and clearly author opinion.
• The Atlantic - Typical long-form opinion piece; the headline ("Marco Rubio's Imaginary Republican Party Is Fiscally Conservative") and writing style (use of "I", clear examples of personal political views ["the notion that Romney will govern as a limited government constitutionalist is laughable fantasy", "the sooner Tea Partiers learn to mistrust him the less likely they are to feel hurt and surprised when he betrays them", "He's the kind of "constitutionalist" that doesn't give a damn about the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, so long as there's a religious extremist somewhere who wants to do us harm"] and are clearly that of author opinion.
• The Nation - Clearly written as author opinion. Frequent use of negative, perjorative political labels ("neocon", use of "I", etc.)

I'm not going to debate the obvious fact of what these sources are. You haven't responded to a single one of my points, and if that continues, I will no longer be engaging with you on this, as doing so would be a waste of my time.Toa Nidhiki05 14:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless these six pieces (which you originally stated were all opinion pieces before moved on to some being in the "style" of op-eds) are actually labelled as such (which is not the case for the majority of them), declaring them "opinion pieces" based on them e.g. using words like "neocon" is original research. Cortador (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you... believe a piece can only be an "opinion" piece if it's explicitly labeled as such, and otherwise it's obviously news? Are you actually serious right now?

We're done here. You're obviously unwilling to actually engage on my substantive complaints, so I'll be starting an RfC shortly on removing both of these "factions" from the lede. Toa Nidhiki05 15:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There are enough libertarian or at least libertarian adjacent Republican voters and politicians that it would make since to describe it as a faction. I strongly suggest adding it back. 14 percent of Republican voters describe themselves as libertarian-conservatives. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/17/upshot/six-kinds-of-republican-voters.html) CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

They didn’t describe themselves as such. The NYT did a survey of voters and then split them into different camps based off an algorithm. Toa Nidhiki05 16:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me (I'll actually go and correct what it says in Libertarian Republican) however, the point still remains that while a relatively small faction, it is still worth noting. There are certainly more libertarian leaning Republicans than there are libertarian leaning Democrats. CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

14% isn't a lot, and that's with a generous grouping at that. Realistically, libertarians have very little impact in either party. They do have some organizations within the GOP, but those ones are tiny and tend to overlap with other movement conservative groups - a "libertarian-leaning" conservative might be anything from someone who loves Russia to someone who is okay with gay marriage to someone who likes weed. There's not really any full-spectrum libertarians. Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not they specifically encompass a whole spectrum or just part of it seems like an additional qualifier relative to RS that is unfamiliar to me. DN (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't need "full-spectrum libertarians". We we need is sufficient sourcing that states that the GOP has a libertarian faction. Cortador (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No, because something can be a "faction" and yet so small that mentioning them is WP:UNDUE. We need sources saying libertarians - not libertarian-leaners - are a faction, and that said faction plays a major role in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Neoconservatism is absolutely a faction of the Republican Party. TheXuitts (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of academic sources

@KlayCax You removed a few sources from the article because you considered them "poor". These are peer-reviewed academic sources. What is your issue with these sources? Cortador (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Using a single article that was published in World Affairs (with 3 citations + opinionated: read the article) to unilaterally delete neoconservatism and libertarianism from the infobox is nowhere near enough in terms of quality. The source also doesn't call the Republican Party a "right-wing" party. It calls it a radical right party: which implies that it is on the far-right. If anything, that means that "right-wing to "far-right" should be placed in the infobox. (This is despite other sources saying that many Republicans are "center-right" to "center-left".) The only possible position that makes sense in the infobox is big tent. Since the United States has a unique party system that can't discipline "rogue" party members.

Neoconservatism dominated under George W. Bush. Right-wing populist views became revitalized within the party during the presidency of Donald Trump. Who knows what will come next? This is all WP: RECENTISM.

It's particularly ludicrous to remove libertarianism, considering the deep influence that Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and others had on the party for decades. Right now: they're not even mentioned. KlayCax (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also dozens of articles in the past five years indicating that libertarians are a substantial faction of the party. KlayCax (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax I'm talking about this removal. That source was there to confirm that the GOP is a right-wing party, and has nothing to do with the neoconservative/libertarian discussion. Cortador (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There's not a consensus in the literature, @Cortador:. If we're going to base it off of that particular article, then it should say far-right, as it compares the party to Alternative for Germany.

Note that the article is titled: The Republican Voter: A Populist Radical Right Voter Like Any Other? KlayCax (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not based on a particular article. It is based on these sources: 1 2 3 4 5

BootED removed a few of them accidentally yesterday (see here), and Toa Nidhiki05 removed another one despite admitting they did not actually read it (see here). "Right-wing" is a broad term. A party that is a radical right-wing party is still a right-wing party. The other sources also describe it as such. Cortador (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's indisputable that the Republican Party is right-wing. The problem is that, due to WP: PRECEDENT, people see that as: 1.) "Left of far-right" 2.) Implying that there isn't centrist/center-right factions.

If we're forced to add a "position" in the infobox: it should be "big tent". KlayCax (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that several of the sources Cortador has added to try and prove the party is right-wing actually define the right-wing as either a minority in the party, or only define the Republicans broadly as the "party of the right" - while defining Democrats as the opposite. There's clear disagreement in the academic world over how to define the party, which means we shouldn't be trying to singularly define it either. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting this specific article also doesn't actually go into great detail on the party itself. It's mostly trying to compare AfD and Trump voters - most of the claims it makes about the Republican Party are pure opinion, it frequently misspells Republican candidate names ("Keri Lake" and "Doug Mastrianois"), defines conservative Republicans Jeff Flake and Adam Kinzinger as "moderates" solely due to opposing Trump, and it ends in an explicit call to action to reject Republican candidates in the future. I'm with KlayCax here - this shouldn't be used. It's subpar.

Also, I will ask again Cortador - cite specific page numbers. It is not acceptable to cite an entire dozen(s) page paper for a single claim. You have been editing long enough that you should know this. Toa Nidhiki05 14:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't need detail. It needs to be 1) reliable and 2) verify the content in the article.

I've already given you the page number above. You could have added that instead of removing the source, and you are using this as a distraction from the fact that you removed the source without reading it. You still haven't explained why you thought that was acceptable. Cortador (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

We should be providing sources that lead our readers to academic debates. These non-expert opinions of our editors don't help our readers at all. Moxy🍁 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)