Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 32

Out of the eight sources cited in this section, the use of the term "Christian Right" - or even labeling this as a faction - seems unfounded"

• Divided We Fall - Uses the term, but website seems borderline unreliable.
• Western Illinois Historical Review - Uses "Christian Right" to refer to Falwell-era politics. Paper itself may be unreliable; it "showcases the best student work produced in History classes at WIU each academic year"
• The Atlantic - Uses the term once to refer to a specific movement that popped up in the 1970s]
• Make America Christian Again: Christian Nationalism and Voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election - Does not make any reference to a "Christian Right" faction, or even talk about much at all beyond voting patterns.
• AP- Does not refer to the "Christian Right" or a "faction". Article is nebulous about "Christian nationalism", and notes that under some definitions, Joe Biden could fall into that category. Very insufficient for claims a substantial chunk of Republicans support "Christian nationalist" policies.
• POLITICO - Polls of voters on whether the United States is a Christian nation (it isn't, but that's besides the point). Does not use "Christian Right", does not refer to a "faction".
• Mediations of Social Life in the 21st Century - Refers to "social conservatism", not "Christian Right". No mention of a faction.
• NBC News - Uses "Christian Right" and "white evangelicals" interchangeably. Does refer to "white evangelicals" as a "faction"

In short - this section is really problematic at the moment. Not only is the framing of the section itself off - most sources don't actually refer to a "faction", those that do refer to a specific time period in the 70s and 80s, and sources for claims that Republicans want to "to declare the U.S. a Christian nation, enforce Christian values, and overturn the separation of church and state" are based on opinion polling of voters. Only one of these sources is an academic resource, and that one seems to be homework from a History class. This lack of usage of "Christian Right" falls into my understanding, where the term really isn't commonly used today, with "social conservatism" being more common - and said politicians broadly being part of a conservative wing, rather than a separate faction of their own.

Frankly, the entire "factions" section likely needs an overhaul. I'm convinced similar issues and errors exist in the other sections, too, and I might start a review of those soon. Toa Nidhiki05 13:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I recall a consensus among sources that the Republican party was more controlled by Christian right than other voting blocs aka factions, in the late 80s. The Reagan years. I haven't read the context of that section recently, but I'll take a look.

Here are some sources to consider.

1. Harvard Political Review 2021

2. Wapo 2021 via Steven M. Gillon

3. Vox 2019

4. Bill Moyers.com 2012 Timeline: The Religious Right and the Republican Platform

5. Kimberly H. Conger The Christian Right in U.S. Politics 2019

Cheers. DN (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

But would you describe them as factions? Trans activists have influence on the Democratic party, but I wouldn't describe them as a faction.

Who are the leaders of the Christian Right faction, what do they call their organization, what is its address, how many members does it have, which presidential candidate did they put forward? TFD (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It was the Moral Majority, which stopped being a relevant political force in the 1980s. Think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Anita Bryant, etc. The closest thing you'd probably get today is the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is a legal advocacy group that doesn't have any formal ties to the GOP or endorse/field candidates. Toa Nidhiki05 04:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That's how RS seem to describe them, in addition to a spectrum of fringe to moderate leaders and groups. Trans people are still fewer than 1% of the world's population. Sources may refer to voting blocs, wings, coalitions, caucuses and movements also in lieu of the term faction. After conservative evangelicals left Carter's Dem party, some eventually went to Reagan, both had noted religious movements backing them.

1.Axios 2024

2.NPR 2024

3.Time 2024

4.CNN 2024

Current House speaker Johnson and Trumps support among evangelical republicans are likely considered notable candidates/endorsements. I didn't grab any citations for Mike, cheers. DN (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The only source here that uses the term Christian right is the Time piece, which refers to a "Christian right circuit". Toa Nidhiki05 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• OAH mentions it several times. The sources I listed earlier can go at length, in particular Kimberly H. Conger seems to be an expert that wrote a book on CR, along with Marty Cohen, who wrote "Moral Victories in the Battle for Congress".

DN (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't get too hung up on the term "Christian right" specifically e.g. a number of sources also describe the faction as evangelical (1 2 3 4 5) or Christian conservative (1 2 3 4). Cortador (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

we absolutely should be caught up on it, because it's the term used on this page. I suggested "social conservatism" as an alternative, which broadly incorporates the same movement without using language that is heavily tied to a movement from the 1980s. Christian right, religious right, social conservatives - it's all referring to the same thing, so why use the most antiquated language for it? We don't call fiscal conservatism "Reaganomics" on this page, for example, even though the two really are part of the same movement. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Social conservatism is not necessarily religious in nature. Some of the ideologies under this umbrella support variations of nationalism, or are in opposition to various social changes which they perceive as having negative effects. I think there is some overlap with declinism, in their glorification of the past. They envision a return to their perceived glory days. Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In the United States, it absolutely is. I mean, I can't say they don't exist, but I've never run into an... agnostic social conservative politician here. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

DN, only one of the sources you provided describe the Christian Right as a faction of the GOP. Nor do any of your sources describe the Christian Right as what most people would consider to be a political faction, i.e., and organized group that fights for power. Notice that it is rare for an incumbent president in either party to have a major challenger. Even when that happens, their following doesn't last beyond their candidacies. TFD (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Is that including the five I listed earlier? DN (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"Article is nebulous about "Christian nationalism", and notes that under some definitions, Joe Biden could fall into that category." That is a much different topic. Christian nationalism typically refers to people or factions in support of the political influence of Christianity, in topics such as legislation. "A study which was conducted in May 2022 showed that the strongest base of support for Christian nationalism comes from Republicans who identify as Evangelical or born again Christians.^[1][2] Of this demographic group, 78% are in favor of formally declaring that the United States should be a Christian nation, versus only 48% of Republicans overall. Age is also a factor, with over 70% of Republicans from the Baby Boomer and Silent Generations supporting the United States officially becoming a Christian nation. According to Politico, the polling also found that sentiments of white grievance are highly correlated with Christian nationalism: "White respondents who say that members of their race have faced more discrimination than others are most likely to embrace a Christian America. Roughly 59% of all Americans who say white people have been discriminated against ... favor declaring the U.S. a Christian nation, compared to 38% of all Americans."^[1][3] Dimadick (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a different topic. It the definition is so broad that Joe Biden could qualify, it's hardly a useful one. And if you read the article - "Evangelical or born-again Christians — a category that crossed denominational lines, said Telhami — were most likely to support the idea of the U.S. becoming an officially Christian nation. Among Republicans, more than three-fourths (78%) of those who identified as evangelical or born again favored declaring the United States officially Christian. Among Democrats, 52% of those who identify as evangelical or born again agreed." Does this mean Democrats have a faction of Christian nationalists? Of course not.

More to the point: what "Christian nationalist" faction - distinct from any other - exists in the House? Honestly this doesn't even make a ton of sense. Toa Nidhiki05 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Do reliable sources describe Biden as a Christian nationalist? Unless that's the cause, this is a pointless comparison. Cortador (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

From the AP article: "Six in 10 U.S. adults said the founders intended America to be a Christian nation, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey. About 45% said the U.S. should be a Christian nation. Four in five white evangelical Protestants agreed with each assertion. By some measures, Democratic President Joe Biden might be seen in that category, citing the importance of his Catholic faith and calling for God’s blessings on America and its troops". And like I mentioned, the source above notes that a majority of Democratic evangelical/born again Christians agree with declaring the United States a Christian nation. Of course, the reasonable solution here is not to say Democrats have a "Christian nationalist" faction, but to simply acknowledge that surveys of voters are weird, and maybe we shouldn't be declaring party factions off of them. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

So no source actually describes Joe Biden as a Christin nationalist then, and this comparison is indeed pointless. Cortador (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The source actually does. And it mentions evangelicals in the Democratic Party having a majority viewpoint on this too. Again - the rational response here is not to say Democrats have a christian nationalist wing, it's to question the wisdom of relying on opinion polls to determine partisan factions. Toa Nidhiki05 19:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not. All it does state that Biden "might" be seen as someone advocating the US to be a Christian nation. Cortador (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If it's an opinion worth noting, it can simply be attributed. DN (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Religous nationalism is a term that can mean different things according to context. It's most common meaning is applied to countries where ethnicity is identified with religion, such as in Northern Ireland or Lebanon. The person doesn't have to be particularly religious. The best example in the U.S. was nativism, where Protestants saw themselves as the only true Americans. For anyone who watched Gangs of New York, Bill the Butcher (who was a Republican) was a prime example. TFD (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen Gangs of New York, but the New York-based Democratic organization Tammany Hall consisted primarily of Irish Catholics. The Democratic Party has a centuries-old connection to Catholicism in this region. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

My point is that the U.S. has a long history of religious ethnic nationalism including nativists, Know Nothings and Klansmen. Basically they were mostly descended from older immigration waves and resented never immigrants from Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe. But they expressed these ethnic identities in terms of religion: Protestant and Catholic. Their nation IOW was white, Anglo-Saxon (and Scottish) Protestant America. Anyone else wasn't an American. But they didn't have a religious agenda, any more than Tamany Hall did. TFD (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not in those days, but following the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, the Republican platform called for “a position on abortion that values human life.” It also asserts that “Our great American Republic was founded on the principle: One nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.”

1980. A year after Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, the Republican platform contains only one reference to God, but an entire section on abortion.

1988. This was the year that right-wing televangelist Pat Robertson was a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

1992 The year of Pat Buchanan’s infamous “culture wars” convention speech, the party unveils a platform with four references to God and seven references to “family values.” This is the first Republican party platform to address sexual preference, opposing the inclusion of sexual preference as a protected minority, rejecting any legislation which legally recognizes same-sex marriage and supporting the continued exclusion of homosexuals from the military.

1996 This platform goes a step further, endorsing the Defense of Marriage Act.

In 2007, the year Time Magazine declared “The Religious Right’s Era Is Over,” the Republican party platform contains two references to God and reaffirms its past positions on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and gays in the military but does not expand on them.

2016. Trump returned the White House to the Republican party along with a wave of Christian nationalism and the end of Roe V. Wade. DN (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Roe V. Wade wasn't repealed until 2022, not 2016. Unless I am misunderstanding the context and your meaning is that Trump and the Republican Party rose among a wave of Christian nationalism with the "intention" to repeal it. Completely Random Guy (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have specified, "eventual" end of Roe. DN (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

How is opposition to legal abortion religious nationalism? As I pointed out, religious nationalism is ethnic nationalism where the group defines itself in terms of religion. So for example, Protestant Americans with Northern European ancestry distinguished themselves from Catholic Americans with Eastern and Southern European ancestry. The religious right doesn't do that. TFD (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Support changing Christian Right to social conservatism, as yes the Republican Party is very strong in the Bible Belt (the South), the Mormon Corridor (Utah and neighboring areas), and the less religious and more diverse Great Plains & Mountain States. The Republican Party does strongly among Whites without college degrees, who tend to be more socially conservative and live in rural areas.

But Republicans also support the secular issue of gun rights, which is part of social conservatism. The Republican Party could be described as socially conservative on say abortion and LGBT issues, but its social conservatism also extends to areas like illicit drug laws (i.e. marijuana) and gun rights. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little lost as to why gun rights, secular or not, are of substance. CR seems relegated to a time period in the party's history, see my comment earlier roughly '80-07. DN (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Christian right was chosen as it was a broad term that described the presence of right-wing Christian groups within the party with a variety of views, including social conservatism and Christian nationalism. It is also a historical term and is also used on the separate Factions in the Republican Party#Christian right page. Each faction we discuss in this section has multiple ideologies under them. They are not uniform. The current grouping of the factions section represents the best approximation of the factional groupings in the Republican Party for organizational purposes as is widely reported by RS. RS are not uniform in how they name the Christian right, and often simply describe the ideologies that fall under this category. BootsED (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Christian nationalism is not actually a faction, and can barely even be qualified as a thing. What Christian nationalist organizations exist within the Republican Party? Is there a Christian nationalist caucus in the House? Toa Nidhiki05 17:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I never said Christian nationalism was a faction. It is an ideology within the Christian right faction, just as social conservatism is an ideology, not a faction. See my talk post below titled "Clarification regarding factions, ideologies, and the infobox" on this. BootsED (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed that the majority of discussion on this page revolves around the ideology in the infobox and what is/is not a "faction" of the modern Republican Party. By my count, 16 of the 24 discussions on this talk page relate in some way to disagreements about the political positions in the infobox and what constitutes a faction (Ironically, this makes sense, as the page specifically states that the modern GOP suffers from intense factionalism).

However, the talk page for the relevant page Factions in the Republican Party (United States) has next to no discussion on what the current factions are. I believe that this discussion should move over to the appropriate page to avoid overwhelming this high-level page about the Republican Party with minutiae about a specific section of it.

I would also propose removing the list of current, 21st century factions from the page and simply keeping the existing "Civil War and Reconstruction era", "20th century" and "21st century" sections. These provide a good high-level overview of the factions within the party. The specific list of 21st century factions should be removed and linked to the separate page. Most of the text on this page is simply copied over from the other page in the first place. BootsED (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This might not be a bad approach. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removing in-depth content and talk page discussions of the factions in this article, and instead just having them in the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) article. We should just include information on the historical factions--before say 2016--which are subject to much fewer editing disputes and have the benefit of hindsight.

This talk page can't agree on how to define the factions except for the centrist, conservative, and Trumpist factions. We've had disputes over whether to call a faction the "Christian right" or "social conservatives," how big of factions libertarians and neoconservatives are, and what position(s) the Republican Party is on the ideological left-right spectrum.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Per discussion, "right-wing" has been added. However, this consensus is pending reliable sources. I have removed the sources just added by Cortador for the following reasons:

• Dictionary.com - Does not back up claim; it says Republicans are associated with the "right" and Democrats with the "left", but also that "politics is always far more complicated than the labels we give to it—and each other".
• Pew Research - Survey of voters, not a discussion of the party. Does not use the word "right-wing" once.
• New York Times - Source does not back up claim, as it says that "right-wing Republicans" are a minority in their party, not the majority.
• Crikey - Does not even refer to the Republican Party as "right-wing"
• NBC News - Refers to both "center-right", "hard right", and "far-right" factions; does not use "right-wing" once or refer to the party as such.
• Democracy Journal - Opinion piece. Source does not refer to the Republican Party as "right-wing", and is in fact an advocacy piece for proportional representation.
• NBC News - Source does not refer to Republicans as "right-wing", but does refer to a "right-flank that is more than willing to play hardball to bend the rest of the conference to its will". This implies the right is a minority, not a majority. It also mentions a centrist faction.
• Vox - An opinion piece from Zack Beauchamp, a writer most known for believing there is a bridge between Gaza and the West Bank. Vox itself is likely not a sufficient source for a major claim, but Beachamp certainly is no subject-matter expert.

None of these sources back up the claim, so I've removed them. In fact, many seem to suggest the "right-wing" is a minority - this needs to be considered in the future. At this point, we have a talk page consensus in search of sources, which is never a good thing. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes need academic sources that go into detail and explain things... and not connected to the United States directly..like...Arhin, Kofi; Stockemer, Daniel; Normandin, Marie‐Soleil (2023). "THE REPUBLICAN TRUMP VOTER: A Populist Radical Right Voter Like Any Other?". World Affairs. 186 (3): 572–602. doi:10.1177/00438200231176818. ISSN 0043-8200. Moxy🍁 04:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do they need to be not connected to the United States? That's silly, and I'm fairly certain we don't apply a smilar standard to Europe. And I'd also question the idea of trying to pin any American party based on voters - that's an extremely Eurocentric view of how political parties function. Toa Nidhiki05 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just better to get internatinal experrts that study this on a world level. There are many more but I suspect it will never fly anyways as there is an odd disconect in US politcal articles here on Wikipedia. Moxy🍁 13:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There's not really a “global spectrum”, though, and both US parties evolved out of liberal movements, not the socialism or conservatism of Europe. Not saying international sources don’t matter, but they don’t have a special perspective to offer or anything - judging either party by, say, German standards makes as little since as judging French political parties by American standards. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I would expect in reading info-boxes that the words for ideology and political position would mean the same thing, regardless of country. It's odd to say that because both U.S. parties are liberal and centrist, that we should use different terminology in order to distinguish them, even if the terms we use are not comparable to politics in the rest of the world. TFD (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

These are the sources the article had when it last included a position. If you believe that sourcing wasn't strong enough, the time to bring that up as the now-closed discussion above. Cortador (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can and does change, and I reject these specific sources being a consensus. But more importantly, no amount of consensus can demand sources be used if they don’t back up the cited claim. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was established less than three days ago. You have not demonstrated that it has changed. Cortador (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

As several have mentioned (and the closer has confirmed), the consensus you keep pointing to does not rule that that these refs support the text.The WP:V policy is not over-rideable by local consensus. The WP:BURDEN on anyone wishing to include content is to have sources that support the content, not just that many people would like the content included. There is a legitimate dispute about sourcing. Go find sources. DMacks (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was based on a previous addition of the position to the article, which did include sources. If someone thought the sourcing was insufficient, they could have brought it up. Cortador (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Support right-wing, with center-right (i.e. Republican Governance Group, Problem Solvers Caucus) and far-right (i.e. Freedom Caucus). Also the Republican Party is affiliated with the European Conservatives and Reformists Party, which is also described--on its article--as right-wing with center-right and far-right factions.

https://ecrparty.eu/about/#parties JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The Republican Governance Group is centrist. So really what you’re arguing for is “center to far right. What sources do you have to back up your position, as well?

Also, it’s worth noting ECR is an “affiliate” and the ECR is itself tied to the center-right IDU. So not really compelling. Toa Nidhiki05 06:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the political position with two academic and one news source. I am not going to get into debates about what right-wing means, our specific context, or any other needling about details. It is exhausting and not productive. The consensus is to add right wing as a political position with reliable sources backing that up. We should do that as soon as possible.

I agree that the initial sourcing was thin. I have added better sources, quoted and bolded the relevant texts that I believe call the Republican Party right wing in some form. You are welcome to disagree, but I ask that you leave the political position up if you do. I do not think we should not ignore consensus to quibble over specifics. Carlp941 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Carlp941Thanks for the addition with the excerpt - even though it has already been removed again. Here's a few more academic sources that is also mentioned below: 1 2 3 4

I think those (or even a selection) is sufficient to support the position. Cortador (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Policy Studies sources: I suggest to cite this excerpt: "From a political sociological perspective, Robert Horwitz posits how the anti-establishment right-wing is now the driving force behind Republican conservatism and the GOP." Cortador (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus was to add it, if there are reliable sources. There’s substantial debate as to sourcing. This is the problem with getting a bunch of editors to agree to something without actually having the sources in the first place. Other editors have noted something similar, and it’s clear no stability has come from the consensus.

As for Policy Studies - that doesn’t say “the Republican Party is right-wing”, which is what we need - and in the cited case, it’s one guy’s opinion. It might be useful in conjunction with other sources or for the populist faction, however. Toa Nidhiki05 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added an academic source and a reliable news source that unambiguously call the Republican Party a right wing party. That meets what the consensus asks for. David McKay is a scholar in government at the University of Essex and politico is considered a reliable source. Can we please move on? Carlp941 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ll have to review them, but at first glance your first source actually refers to them as far-right, which is certainly a claim. Toa Nidhiki05 20:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You asked for a reliable source that says "the Republican Party is right wing." The academic source says the GOP is unambiguously right wing. The politico source says that Rebublican party is a right wing party drifting rightward. Both sources are written by academics who specialize in politics and political history. The articles are about the Republican party's political ideology specifically. And again, they plainly state what the GOP's political position is. What more could you possibly want here? Carlp941 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I am getting slightly sick of having to do this, but @Cortador: has once again added bad sources and is now violating BRD in order to force his changes onto the article.

He's added three sources:

• "The Republican Voter: A Populist Radical Right Voter Like Any Other?" - Source in World Affairs. This seems like a credible outlet, although I don't know how reputable it is.
• "Framing Identity Politics: Right-Wing Women as Strategic Party Actors in the UK and US" in Journal of Women & Public Policy - The problem here is the source does not appear to actually say the Republican Party is right-wing. While this is is mentioned - in passing - in the abstract (along with the UK Conservatives, who are generally not regarded as right-wing), the article is specifically about right-wing women in the Republican Party - which is not quite the same thing. A passing reference in an abstract is not sufficient to back up a claim.
• An article from Salon - Per WP:RSPSS, "Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed."

I removed the last two sources, as they are questionable. I did not remove the first one. Cortador has reverted this. I am once again urging Cortador to stop edit-warring, stop forcing their changes, and actually discuss things with editors here. Toa Nidhiki05 13:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

World affairs is a peer-reviewed academic journal. The Journal of Women & Public Policy is also a peer-reviewed academic journal, and refers to the Republican Party as a "major" US right-wing party (on page 5 of the article). The article also refers to the Tories as a major UK right-wing party (and so does their Wikipedia article here, backed up by a plethora of sources, many of them academic). Since you missed all of that, I don't believe you actually read the article properly. Salon being biased doesn't make it unreliable, especially not if the statement is also backed by academic sources.

Don't accuse me of edit warring if you are removing sources that are peer-reviewed academic articles supporting an inclusion that has explicit talk page consensus. Cortador (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am absolutely going to accuse you of edit-warring if you decide to break WP:BRD on a page with a 1RR. Your continual IDHT behavior of "there's a talk page consensus" to justify whatever changes you make has been commented on by numerous editors across multiple pages at this point. I would strongly suggest you actually engage with editors in discussion here - and more discussion than "there's a talk page consensus". Back up your claims.

Even if I take your word on the other piece (the way you describe it, does indeed seem like a passing mention) - Salon is absolutely not an academic source, and it is ludicrous to use it as one. There is a reason this source is listed under perennial sources as needing direct attribution for any claims made. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I never claimed Salon was academic. I have specifically backed up my claims.

Why do you have to "take my word" on that article? I gave you a specific page number. Did you not actually read the article? Cortador (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a paywalled academic journal article. Can you cite the relevant passage, or at least include it in the citation? Because you cited the entire article (pages 91-118) when you added it. It's generally common practice to include a page number for the specific claim cited - or even better, a direct quotation from the source. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove a source from the article and claimed it didn't support the statement it is supposed to support if you didn't actually read the source? Cortador (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I read what I could of it - the abstract. Why would you add a source, but not list the page the claim you cited is from? Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Because that's not required for articles, as the page you linked to states - listing sections is sufficient.

Why did you label that source as "bad" and removed it without reading it? Cortador (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You didn't list a section. You cited the page numbers that encompass the entire article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is part of an issue. That is the section.

Why did you label that source as "bad" and removed it without reading it? Cortador (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You cited the entire article. Next time, cite the specific page(s) the claim is supported by. Toa Nidhiki05 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Article don't need page numbers.

Why did you claim the source didn't support what I was supposed to if you didn't read it? Cortador (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a 20+ page journal piece. Please keep this in mind for the future. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You need to actually read a source before you call it "bad". Please keep this in mind for the future. Cortador (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am getting exhausted by your disruptive editing and discussion style. Read sources before you discredit them, this is a basic tenet of good faith. Carlp941 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

UTC)

I’m sorry you feel that way. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry - I got too heated there. My comment about fully reading sources stands, but I am striking my personal attack. Carlp941 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion regarding the ideologies and factions section of the infobox. When I edited this page a few months ago, I made sure that the ideology simply listed "Conservatism" while the factions were linked to the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page. Over time (I have not been looking at this page for a while now), it appears that some factions have been removed and now link to ideologies rather than the factions page itself.

I think a big confusion on this and other pages is that the specific section of the infobox we are debating is itself called "Ideologies," however, there exists a sub-section within "Ideologies" called "Factions." Ideologies that the Party follows should be listed above the line that lists "Factions." As of the time of this post, only conservatism is, and the rest are not. I am also seeing confusion in other comments over the exact definition of what factions are within the Party (which is reasonable), but also some confusion regarding terminology and using the terms faction and ideology interchangeably which complicates the debate.

For a refresher, there are multiple factions of the Republican Party, of which each faction has a multitude of ideologies within it. For example, the Christian right (a faction) ranges from social conservatism to christian nationalism (ideologies). However, as listing all ideologies followed by each faction in the infobox would be overkill, it was my intention to simply list the major ideology of the Party, that is, conservatism, while the factions would all link to the established factions listed on the factions page, where more granular detail about the range of ideologies within these factions could be discussed. BootsED (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree the articles need more consistency. DN (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There was a poll on this last year. The result was implemented as basically having the factions listed in the article listed below "Conservatism" in the infobox. At this point, we should consider simply listing "Conservatism" as the majority ideology in the infobox an leave it at that, provided consensus for that is established.

That said, as suggested, I think the way forward is to permanently link the factions in this article to the ones in Factions in the Republican Party (United States). Since that is the main article about the factions, this article should always include a brief version of the factions listed there for internal consistency. However, this will likely require a cross-article consensus established via RfC to avoid chaos. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Multiple users have been attempting to have a civil discussion with you. Can you show any evidence for consensus in your action? I believe you have acted largely unilaterally and would suggest ceasing all such arguments until a common ground can be reached. The Sea Lion King (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point it is an IDHT problem. Toa Nidhiki05 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. DN (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Everyone in the party today can be considered a conservative almost by definition. But there is no consensus on what if any factions the party has. TFD (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Trying to decentralize discussion again. It is exceptionally clear at this point that the "factions" label under the Infobox is causing a substantial amount of dialogue, including frequent edits. Clearly, it's no longer stable. Do we need to just temporarily remove this section while everyone discusses what should belong there - or at the very least, remove the contentious parts? There doesn't seem to be any debate over Centrism as a faction, at minimum, and there seems to be broad agreement about some form of social conservatism and populism being there.

I would personally strongly consider moving "social conservatism" out of factions and into the main ideology. Place it under "Conservatism", perhaps alongside fiscal conservatism or something. It's clearly a core part of party ideology, imo. Toa Nidhiki05 17:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removing all the factions except conservatism--fiscal and social--, Trumpism (Trump has been the nominee in 2016, 2020, and 2024 with plenty of sources for the faction), and centrism in the infobox, and instead just add a link to the factions page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I would reject the fiscal conservatism ideology being out in the infobox. Fiscal conservatism is a branch of conservatism, it is not a faction in and of itself. Republicans have not been fiscally conservative for a very long time. The source that is used to back up the claim of fiscal conservatism does not back up the claim of the party being fiscally conservative, but actually states it has moved away from attempts to restrict spending. Likewise, the source that is being used to support the idea of social conservatism actually says the opposite, and how Christian nationalism is taking over the GOP. Currently, the page looks as it did in 2023 when a previous talk page post (now archived) discussed needing to change the list as they were no longer up to date. BootsED (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Christian nationalism is not, in fact, taking over the GOP. What Christian nationalist organizations have power in the party? Are there Christian nationalist caucuses in Congress? Fiscal conservatism, in comparison, is considered to be one of the parts of the "three-legged stool" of conservatism, along with social conservatism. I frankly don't even think social conservatives are a "separate faction", or at least that there's evidence they are separate from the rest of the conservative movement. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are parts of conservatism. What gives them any more right to be included in the infobox as a faction than national conservatism or any other sub-ideology? There are too many to list. That's why the factions section should list broad, overarching factions of the party, not individual ideologies. Fiscal conservatism belongs as a mention that within the conservative faction that some members are fiscal conservatives. The Republican Party writ large is not fiscally conservative. That assertion is simply false. BootsED (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

So the question would be, what's the difference between factions and ideologies? Should we just list the ideologies of "Conservatism" and/or "Centrism" (not "Trumpism", as there's nothing really ideological about loyalty to a figure), link the congressional caucuses (Republican Governance Group/Republican Main Street Partnership, Freedom Caucus, Republican Study Committee) under "factions", and call it a day? Toa Nidhiki05 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The fiscal and social conservative factions are different, though most Republican politicians are both socially and fiscally conservative.

The fiscally conservative faction comes mainly from support by the upper class (i.e. richest top 1%), business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and organizations like the Club for Growth. These individuals and organizations mainly focus on fiscal issues. Business advocacy groups generally don't take stances on social issues.

The socially conservative faction includes the Christian right (i.e. anti-LGBT rights and anti-abortion), gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, opposition to immigration, etc. This can be explained by geographic cleavages such as the urban-rural political divide and Bible Belt.^[1] JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Something like this could maybe work, although it does not include social conservatism. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow! That's a very cool way to organize the page! However, I agree that not including social conservatism would be problematic as it is a big part of the Republican identity. This brings us back to the problem of wanting to include all factions/ideologies in the infobox, which would simply be too much. Maybe we need to consider what RS state the largest factions are? Again, this will be problematic as neoconservatism and right-libertarianism are parts of the Republican Party as well. Would they fall under conservatism or not? Questions. BootsED (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, incorporating the other parts of the party may be challenging. That's the downside with this organizational structure - parts of the party that aren't clearly organized into factional groups, or whose membership is split across groups (libertarian Rs broadly exist in all three groups, for example, neoconservatives institutionally present in both centrist and conservative groups, social cons that are in the conservative and populist wings, etc), won't be as visible. Maybe there's a way to get around that?

There's also a potential concern of overweighting the House in particular - however, the Senate does not really have factions, and each state party is itself a broad, diverse entity with varying factions. So since this is about the federal party, the House is probably our best vehicle to get at this factional divide. Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don's see these various groups as "factions." They are not competing for control of the party and not competing with each other. Many congressmen for example get both anti-tax and pro-religious PACs supporting them.

It is worth noting that from the beginning the party has had Wall St and Main St wings. While most of their congress people have been Main St., the presidential candidate has always been Wall St., except for Goldwater and Trump. But it's too nuanced to put into an info-box.

All parties have left and right wings. But they are not really factions unless they organize and compete and there is a clear division between them. TFD (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because this just shows various U.S. House caucuses below the three main factions--centrists, conservatives (fiscal and social), and Trumpists/right-wing populists. I would just stick to splitting conservatism into fiscal and social, along with centrist and right-wing populism/Trumpism. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the House factions are the closest to "factions" you can actually get in this party, really. Toa Nidhiki05 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is an extra "</ref>" in the education section. It should be removed.

Education

See also: educational attainment in the United States

The Republican Party has steadily increased the percentage of votes it receives from white voters without college degrees since the 1970s, even as the educational attainment of the United States has steadily increased.^[1]</ref> 134.215.117.33 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed thanks soibangla (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

1. [a]

   Attributed to multiple sources.^{[10][11][12][13][14][19]}

1. [1]

   Grossmann, Matt; Hopkins, David A. "Polarized by Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved May 23, 2024.