Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 38

Discussion (RfC: Should "Far-right" be mentioned as a minor ideology in the infobox)

• Third option The freedom caucus isn't so much the issue. However there should be mention of far-right as a Republican ideology because there is significant reliable sourcing of it. Examples:

1. Donald Trump's Impact on the Republican Party by Michael Espinoza, Policy Studies, 01442872, Sep-Nov 2021, Vol. 42, Issue 5/6, Donald Trump has cast a lasting shadow on the Republican Party. His impact has been very influential on the party; and has triggered an overreliance on dishonesty as a means of debate (via paranoia and rage), which increased the socio-cultural appeal of embracing right-wing tendencies and has caused the party to become more openly hostile towards democracy as a way to gain/retain political power.
   The party has a choice to make. Will the post-Trump era be a time to refocus and move the GOP and Republican conservatism back towards a more inclusive approach like George W. Bush tried with compassionate conservatism – one that could appeal to Hispanics to a larger degree? Or, will the GOP double down and attempt to forge onward with an increasingly hostile and white minority driven approach that can work for them given the current framework of America democracy?
2. The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism by Theda Skocpol and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Perspectives on Politics Vol 14 Issue 3 Mann and Ornstein pointed out that even though the two parties did move symmetrically apart from the 1960s to the 1980s, since then continuing U.S. partisan polarization has mainly been driven by the unremitting rightward movement of the GOP. Tellingly, this far-right lunge has not slowed in the 2000s, not even during the presidency of self-declared “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush nor after Democrats won major electoral victories in 2006, 2008, and 2012.
3. An International Far-Right Alliance? A Comparative Analysis of the Linkages Between the Republican Party and European Far-Right Parties by Guillem Colom, Social Science Research Network, Throughout the 2000s, political scholars evalauted the linkages between the Republican Party and European far-right parties regarding their ideological similarities. However, little has been examined on how the Republican Party and European far-right parties directly cooperate through political gatherings that enable them to establish common political agendas. To investigate far-right cooperation over time, I measured attendance of Republican and European far-right speakers at two prominent conservative gatherings, which were the Conservative Political Action Conference from 2013 to 2023 and National Conservatism Conference from 2016 to 2023.
4. The Far-Right Threat in the United States: A European Perspective by Cas Mudde, American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Volume 699, Issue 1 The article ends with some suggestions of how democrats (not just Democrats) should address the far-right Republican challenge to U.S. democracy.
5. Only Yesterday: The Strange Odyssey of the Republican Party by Steve Fraser and Joshua B Freeman, New Labour Forum, Issue 22, Volume 1, Pages 94-97 This year's presidential election confirmed how strong a grip the far right has achieved over the Republican Party

There are many more such sources - Google Scholar returns 53,000 results for the search string republican party far-right and, from the first page, the majority are not false hits. Frankly the Freedom Caucus is irrelevant. It isn't so much a faction as it is a way of describing Republicans who want to "reveal their power level" so to speak. However the academic consensus appears to pretty strongly support that the Republican Party, at least as it was under Trump although some say this is pre-existing, is a far-right party. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Why did you make this, @Simonm223:? - We already have all comments and #votes below. This will confuse readers into thinking this is the first post here. Toa Nidhiki05 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because Nemov asked to separate out survey from discussion and it is standard format. If consensus is to proceed as we've carried on feel free to revert. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 there's no policy or guideline which states that survey and polling needs to be separated. TarnishedPath^talk 04:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• The Freedom Caucus is a significant faction in the Republican Party. The Freedom Caucus is typically considered far-right. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6. Should "Far right" be listed as a minor ideology of the Republican Party on the article's infobox? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'd like to return to the suggested compromise. Using the footnotes section of the infobox as a method of improving the infobox's display of factions/caucuses and using that to display each of the factions'/caucuses' positions. i.e.

  footnotes = {{cnote|A|

  The Republican Governance Group is a faction described as fiscally conservative and centrist to center-right

  The Republican Main Street Partnership is considered to be a group of pragmatic conservatives and its political position is rarely defined

  The Republican Study Committee is the largest faction of the party, described as conservative and center-right to right-wing

  The Freedom Caucus is the faction formed most recently and is regarded as a right-wing populist and national conservative group on the right-wing to far-right of the political spectrum

  }}

  Goes without saying there would be sources to back up these claims and the wording is easily changeable if people prefer. I just believe it might be a good compromise, since we're not putting it in the position section, so there's no WP:DUE issue, but it still includes far-right.

  What do people think? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I presume this would reduce the infobox display size? If so I'm on board. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  In my mind, it could replace the Caucuses section and would just appear at the bottom of the infobox – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is still an issue with essentially burying what is a significant detail of the contemporary Republican Party. The issue is that a huge number of the individuals and an entire caucus are unambiguously described as far right in the literature and on Wikipedia. The problem with any compromise that buries a mention of the far right is that is itself a massive WP:DUEWEIGHT issue, relegating a significant far-right portion of a major political party in a major global player to a single footnote and no mentions in the article isn't WP:NPOV, it's whitewashing. Given the abundance of sources describing individuals, factions, and caucuses within the modern Republican Party as far-right, relegating it to a footnote is absolutely getting deep into self-censoring territory, especially considering how loathe a lot of people here seem to be for any kind of mention, Wikipedia's standards for inclusion on factual claims be damned. Even if we relegate it to the footnote, we probably need to include it somewhere more prominently than that, at the very least in the Political positions entry. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not everything needs to go into the infobox. So far I have been supporting putting far-right under the factions section for completeness and because RS supports it. Given the option of reducing the infobox I will support that. TarnishedPath^talk 12:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with reworking the infobox, but not simply memory-hole-ing any mention of the far-right in the article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  GlowstoneUnknown's proposal is to make _ALL_ of the faction ideologies a footnote, not just far-right. TarnishedPath^talk 23:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  If it needs to be a footnote then it shouldn't be in the info box. Springee (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Given that the freedom caucus is far right, they should replace right wing with far right Zman19964 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Given they are far right"? Far right of the GOP or next door to neo Nazis? Certainly they are the far right of the GOP but that doesn't mean they are next door to neo Nazis as our far right article would suggest. It would be far better to neutrally explain their policies etc rather than fixating on applying LABELS. Springee (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm definitely on-board with this—it shortens the infobox and avoids WP:DUE issues, since describing the Freedom Caucus specifically as having a meaningful far-right faction is correct. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support: As per reliable sources. But instead of being in the ideology section, it should be in the political position section EarthDude (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: There seemed to be a misunderstanding that there is a local consensus in the above RFC. Reading the threads currently on this page and some of the archive doesn't show a local consensus as much as arguments that it's discussed to death (which is true). Unless I'm missing an old discussion in the archive there is not a substantive and adjudicated reason why "far right" shouldn't be included in the article per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose; RfC unnecessary - Please see the above threads. Only one active discussion-engaged user has expressed interest in adding this, while all others have rejected the idea, or called for a moratorium on changes. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  The above threads do not clearly articulate why it should be excluded. There are, however, a lot of threads of users saying “see the above threads” and the user being active in this thread isn’t really relevant, the reason we see so many users asking about this change is its inclusion is almost certainly WP:BLUESKY at this point. I've asked you, several times, to articulate what the substantive and specific points against the inclusion of “far right” are and you’ve only ever gone as far as to cast some shade at the authors for potential bias due to the organizations they work for or try to point at prior threads which didn’t contain discussions or conclusions, only blanket statements.

  as I said above:

  it's exclusion is frankly odd. In the above discussions it was never once articulated why it shouldn't be included. I think other editors are feeling that way too, or we wouldn't have this conversation coming up frequently from experienced editors, in contrast to the usual IP drive-by asking why some atomically controversial statement isn't included in the article. I think that what we're seeing with this editing pattern plus the calls for a moratorium feels like a WP:NPOV issue, even if unintentional.

  Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Its exclusion is not odd, as academic sources do not widely or generally or even often refer to the party as far-right, which is typically associated with literal fascism or Nazism. Believe it or not, this has been discussed dozens of times - including several in the last few months - and editors have reached a consensus that academic sources broadly refer to the party as center-right or right-wing. Additional sources establish that centrists Republicans comprise a far larger share than the Freedom Caucus (which is, broadly, identified as right-wing or far-right, with the far-right faction being the minority) The fact that multiple editors have told you this at this point - and directed you to look at previous discussions on the matter - should give you a clear indication of our general exhaustion and frustration with repeatedly dealing with this debate. If you'd like, I can tag literally everyone involved in previous discussions on the material and they'll probably say the same thing.

  If you can't be bothered to look back yourself, here's recent archives with relevant discussions. here and here and here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Except the RfC isn’t about labelling the party far right, it’s about naming it as a minor ideology, which you here acknowledge? I’m quite confused. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Which is labeling the party as it. I'm not sure what you're talking about here, frankly. We already include the Freedom Caucus in a list of caucuses in the infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 16:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Which is labeling the party as it

  Er, no? It’s labelling a faction of the party with that. Accuracy doesn’t need to be sacrificed to protect the article from what editors may possibly think if they skip context? This isn’t reasonable. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Should "far-right" be included as a faction ideology in the sidebar?"

  You may want to reword this, as it implies two separate and distinct characterizations...A faction is not necessarily an ideology. I agree with others here that the appropriate categorization for "far-right" is as an ideology per Far-right politics. The MAGA movement is mentioned by sources as a faction that has shown far-right characteristics. DN (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is this your original research that the far right is a minority in the freedom caucus since their elected leader, Andy Harris is himself described as far-right by various reliable sources? Theofunny (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Any WP:OR argument against inclusion rings hollow given that there are reliable sources, some of which are academic, which assign "far-right" as an ideology of the Freedom Caucus. TarnishedPath^talk 11:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes per the reliable sources given above by Warrenmck. The ideology of other factions of the party are already in the infobox and so it is reasonable that the ideology of the Freedom Caucus be listed also. That said I do have some concern that the infobox is too long and there should be discussion of ways to reduce its length. TarnishedPath^talk 09:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Notice how all of the current sources in the info box are academic? None of the ones proposed here are. The sources presented are comparatively low-quality, only barely going into detail or using “far-right” as a generic term (see also: using “far left” to describe progressive Democrats). The Freedom Caucus is already covered by “right-wing populism”.Toa Nidhiki05 11:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Warrenmck do you have any academic sources from subject matter experts which support Far-right? TarnishedPath^talk 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I just provided one, but WP:RS doesn't require them and inventing new standards around sourcing should be done through the Village Pump rather than a talk page for a random article, no? Especially when those standards cause Wikipedia to be less accurate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Academic sources are better than news media" has long been understood in Wikipedia (see e.g. WP:TIERS). More importantly, though, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need to go through a rigamarole of magical incantations at the Village Pump just to realize we should trust peer-reviewed scientific journals over the media when the two disagree. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Except they agree. There’s a standard being set here for far-right that isn’t being held for other details included in the article. The arguments against are mostly disparate and disjointed calls for either a new specific standard or WP:OR, which tells me that the arguments against including it aren’t necessarily all coming from Wikipedia’s own policies and norms. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Right-wing populism" and "Far right" are not synonymous. Progressive democrats aren't far left for the most part, except by false equivalency. You yourself made an argument that it's an accurate description of a segment of the Republican party and your explicit reason for its exclusion runs pretty directly counter to how Wikipedia works. We're not going to whitewash this article for fear that readers could accidentally map a minor ideology to the entire party.

  But regardless, if we're inventing new sourcing standards (and to answer @TarnishedPath):

  From The Original Split in America:

  "The Freedom Caucus and the Tea Party anchor the far-right end of the political spectrum along with Fox News."

  Allcorn, Seth; Stein, Howard F.  The Journal of Psychohistory; New York Vol. 49, Iss. 2, (Fall 2021): 82-100.

  Which really shouldn't have been necessary given the abundance of clearly reliable sources above. There isn't a requirement that only academic sources can count here, and in fact WP:SECONDARYSOURCES makes that a bit more challenging to justify as policy here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• It’s not an arbitrary standard. I could find an abundance of medium-quality news sources that refer to “far-left” Democrats, but that doesn’t mean there is a faction of Democrats that are in the political far-left. Terms like this are often used fast and loose to refer to the extreme ends of a party’s internal coalitions - like how a “liberal Republican” or a “conservative Democrat”, in modern terms, is not affiliated with the left or the right. Toa Nidhiki05 13:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's an arbitrary standard because you're unilaterally imposing extra caveats on the rules around sourcing. I could find an abundance of medium-quality news sources that refer to “far-left” Democrats If the same sourcing standards can be met, then it should be included. Tu quoque isn't a valid concern here, because what's being discussed is this article's inclusion of the term. If you think Democratic party should include far left as a factional ideology then by all means, be the change you want to see. I suspect the "medium" in "medium quality" is going to have WP:RS issues, considering there's objectively no far left bloc with power among the Democrats in contrast to the far right with the Republicans. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• It is not arbitrary to preference high-quality, academic sources from subject matter experts. This is normal practice on Wikipedia, and you are fundamentally wrong about this. And your proposal is fundamentally not accurate either - “far right” is a political position, not an ideology.
• I don’t support adding far-left as a faction. However, it’s objectively false to say there arent’t powerful far-left Democrats - see the Squad, which has more members than there were votes to remove McCarthy, the Progressive Caucus, the left-wing, largest Democratic faction. Toa Nidhiki05 13:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  “far right” is a political position, not an ideology.

  "Far-right" is literally a term that refers to a range of ideologies, which is routinely used to describe the Freedom Caucus. That the ideology is not a single, unitary thing, doesn't mean it's not an ideology, just as "conservatism" isn't or indeed practically any ideology. I don't think you'll find many political theorists agreeing with your WP:OR take there.

  it’s objectively false to say there arent’t powerful far-left Democrats - see the Squad

  I'm not sure you're familiar with what "far left" means, respectfully. And we should leave this discussion out of it, it has no baring on the proposed changes to this article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think you're the one who doesn't understand what you're proposing. Newsweek, POLITICO, the New York Times, International Business Times, Northeastern, and CNN have all referred to them as far-left. We don't include "far-left" as a faction there because 1) it's not a faction and 2) academic sources do not regard the Democratic Party as being or having a substantial far-left faction, even if the term is used to identify the furthest-left members of the party. This distinction is extremely relevant here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not going to keep engaging on questions relating to the Democrats. This isn't a political discussion, it's a discussion around the accuracy of information in an article. Reliable, academic sources consider the Freedom Caucus to be far right. Even if we accept the modification of WP:RS to account for that specific standard. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable sources also label them as right-wing. It's unfortunate you're unwilling to engage. Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Given how repeatedly discussions emerge regarding this section, I have looked back on this page and the last two archives and identified users who engaged in discussion. Pinging them here: @JohnAdams1800:, @The Four Deuces:, @Carlp941:, @Springee:, @Bluethricecreamman:, @Czello:, @Firefangledfeathers:, @Cortador:, @BootsED:, @HiLo48:, @Richie1509:, @EvergreenFir:, @DocZach:, @EarthDude:, @HapHaxion:, @Dimadick:, @Mhaot:, @Dhantegge:, @TYMR:, @Darknipples:, @Pincrete:, @HadesTTW:, @Pistongrinder:, @David Tornheim:, @Rja13ww13:, @My very best wishes:, @A Socialist Trans Girl:, @Senorangel:, @Credmaster 20:, @Khajidha:, @Ray552:, @Straykat99:, @Rares Kosa:, @PtolemyXV:, @Sizewell:, @Icantthinkofausernames:, @Paul Vaurie:, @Viriditas:, @Jweiss11:, @GlowstoneUnknown:, @Valjean:, @PackMecEng:, @SmolBrane: Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I oppose the addition of "Far-right" as a faction under the ideology section, but softly support its addition as a faction under the position section. It feels like a sin of omission to exclude at least a mention of far-right in the infobox. I may even have a slight preference (due to WP:RS issues) of using the footnotes section, by saying something to the effect of "some academic and many news sources describe factions of the party as "far-right". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Examples of in a party infobox like how I described can be found in La France Insoumise, Japan Innovation Party, and Five Star Movement. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have a fundamental objection to its inclusion in position over ideology. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, what do you think about my footnote suggestion? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think it reads unintentionally weasel-y. The discussions around the far right are too front-and-centre for that, to my read. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I strongly support that as well. To me, it doesn't really make sense to include "far-right" as an ideology, when it is clearly not that. EarthDude (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I support this option. Seems the most grounded in reality. Carlp941 (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  The reason not to use journalists as sources for social scientific analysis is Wikipedia:NEWSORG. News articles are good sources for what happened yesterday, not for analysis. That's why textbooks are written by people with relevant qualifications.

  It's also inadvisable to google search for a source, because of DUE.

  The one academic source shown btw merely says that the Tea Party etc. are on the far right of the party. That's not the same as saying they are far right. TFD (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's an academic source provided, with a quote, saying they're on the far right of the political spectrum, as opposed to the party, above. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  It says, "The Freedom Caucus and the Tea Party anchor the far-right end of the political spectrum along with Fox News." Since the source is The Original Split in America the assumption is that they are speaking about the U.S. or party spectrum.

  Also, why are you using a passing mention in a journal about psychohistory as a source? See Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable."

  Instead of deciding what you think the article should say and searching for sources, just summarize the main points found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because there’s a plethora of RS passing sources and it takes time to find academic sources? There’s plenty of credible sources that say the Freedom Caucus is far right. The Freedom Caucus article on Wikipedia directly says they’re far right. This academic sources standard certainly isn’t being universally applied in the article, so I think it’s safe to go with the overwhelming abundance of good sources that say it’s far right. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are saying you can't find a reliable source because there are too many of them. There are no policies or guidelines that support that excuse.

  Consider that sources can be valuable for readers. If a claim is made they may want to look up the source and get clarification. What does far right mean? What makes the Freedom Caucus far right? What is there relation to the party? A passing reference in a psychohistory article written by two business administration professors is unlikely to enlighten them.

  Could you explain why of all sources you picked this source? TFD (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Could you explain why of all sources you picked this source?

  Because it's a pain accessing journal articles and I'd already provided over a half dozen RS-passing sources? WP:ONUS is well and truly met, here, except to people who are arguing a very specific standard for inclusion over WP:RS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose adding far-right to an ideology in the infobox, but do support mentioning it in the factions section, such as the Freedom Caucus. We can certainly include right-wing, but far-right by the standards of this country simply doesn't hold water per reliable sources and election statistics. The party has absolutely embraced right-wing populism, but not the far-right except for some outlier politicians.

  Regardless of our own personal political positions or views of Trumpism, the reality is Trump-Vance won the popular vote in 2024, including the best Republican performance with Hispanics since 2004 and possibly ever. Do keep in mind that as educational attainment goes up, support for Trump went down. As Wikipedia editors, we are mostly college graduates, inclining us to support the Democratic Party. See Actor–observer asymmetry. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm a statistician, and these types of biases are rampant. The reality is the majority of American adults don't have college degrees. Almost all Wikipedia Using election statistics, Trump's strongest base is those without college degrees. Wikipedia editors almost all have college degrees--see WP:Users. The trend affects us too, which is why we perceive Trump much more to the right than the median American voter, who has an Associate's degree or attended but didn't graduate from college.

  For reasons that aren't entirely clear, Trump's right-wing populism clearly ideologically appeals to those with less education in a gradient. The less education voters have, the higher the support Trump wins from them.

  • He won 56% of non-college graduates, who comprised 57% of voters. He only won 42% of college graduates, who comprised 43% of voters.

  The only clear outliers to this trend are African Americans and probably LGBT voters (not sure how educated LGBT voters are), who gave Harris 86% support each. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  What are your views on the recently submitted academic sources? Theofunny (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Strong support I find it funny how half of Trump's closest allies are called "far-right" by this wiki and yet for some reason this wikibox still doesn't acknowledge that the GOP at least has a very strong, notable far-right faction. He's the president-elect, much of his allies are all on the extreme right, and this is attested to by reliable sources which recognize how right wing he has become. I will have to say this only makes sense in the position section as "center-right to far-right," though. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Likewise strong support for inclusion as a faction at minimum, or better a position. There's no specific requirement for academic sources, but we have both academic and news sources confirming that the GOP is (at minimum in parts) a far-right party:

  Is the GOP a far right party?

  GOP leaders roll out ‘Commitment to America,’ midterm election agenda, but challenges remain

  McCarthy unveils House GOP’s midterm agenda in Pennsylvania

  The Far-Right Threat in the United States: A European Perspective Cortador (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  The 5 Main Factions Of The House GOP

  ‘What Is Broken in American Politics Is the Republican Party’

  It Didn’t Start with Trump: The Decades-Long Saga of How the GOP Went Crazy

  The Republican Party Has Been Infiltrated by Far-Right Extremists

  When the US far-right sneezes, the European far-right catches a cold. Quasi-experimental evidence of electoral contagion from Spain

  Far-right US Republicans receive millions from new class of debt hardliners

  How Mitt Romney found himself alone in Republican Party

  Far-right US Republican launches bid to oust McCarthy as house speaker

  What a Republican Senate takeover means for Donald Trump

  The Republican Party is destroying itself in its drift to the far right

  Right-wing fringe is becoming the Republican Party establishment

  The GOP’s Faustian bargain with far-right extremism, with David Corn related to American Psychosis Cortador (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly lol EarthDude (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support for "center-right to far-right", as demonstrated in the factions and general positions of the party. DM5Pedia ^(ctr) 02:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Support including the "Far right" characterization within the spectrum of ideologies per the Freedom Caucus faction. The Freedom Caucus is an integral hard line faction of the GOP with a far-right elected leader . With no RS indication that the far right is a minority in the freedom caucus, there seems to be an argument for its inclusion. Theofunny (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding to my !vote above, there has also been additional sources provided by Cortador which support the change. As long as the ideology of other factions is addressed in the infobox, so should be the ideology of that portion of the Republican party which is far-right. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To me at least, the footnote idea is somewhat problematic, if only because I think it's too much explanation. I wouldn't mind using that section to clarify factions though (ie. which caucuses in the House are which ideology.). That would probably be more useful than the current somewhat arbitrary list of "factions". Something like:

Sources identify the Republican Main Street Caucus as centrist,^[1] the Republican Governance Group as center^[2] to center-right,^[3] the Republican Study Committee as center-right^[4] to right-wing,^[5] and the Freedom Caucus as Right-wing^[6] to far-right^[7]

I'd prefer not to use news sources, but individual caucuses are generally not as focused on in academic sources.

Toa Nidhiki05 15:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks viable. DN (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Just as a comment, @Toa Nidhiki05, your use of inline sourcing broke the talk page, you may want to refactor those into links. We have academic sources now for “far-right”, how do you feel about the suggestion above to include it in the position section instead of the ideology one? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I oppose including it in the position section. Toa Nidhiki05 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So we have sources that meet the standards you outlined before. Would you be in favour of adding it to the ideology section then? What is your preferred handling of the whole far-right thing here, since you’ve not been terribly clear what you want, rather than don’t want. The citations are still disabling the “reply” button and burying these replies, by the way.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not in favor of adding it to either; "far-right" is not an ideology, and as previous discussions have agreed to, the majority of academic sources refer to the party as either center-right or right-wing, and so that is what we label the party as. As far as I can tell, there has been no shift in academia within the last 3-6 months towards labeling the party any differently. Toa Nidhiki05 15:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

the majority of academic sources refer to the party as either center-right or right-wing

This is not, and it has never been, what the RFC is about. Nobody at any point here has asked for the party to be labeled far-right. If your explicit concern is that it being included at all, regardless of what sources say, results in labeling the party as it then I'm struggling to see how that fits into Wikipedia's framework and guidelines. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That was a typo above, fwiw.

But yes, I oppose including it at all. It's not the prevailing academic view. Unless you can demonstrate this has changed in the last 3-6 months. Toa Nidhiki05 16:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 Can you keep in mind that Trump's main support is from voters without college degrees, and academic sources are written by people with college degrees. Also as Wikipedia editors, we almost all have college degrees too, and thus perceive Trump and the GOP as further to the right than the median American voter. It's Actor–observer asymmetry, which is a key part of statistics in the first place. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:OR and not particularly helpful here. It's also worth remembering that not everyone in this thread is American or on the political left. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

But is everyone in this thread college-educated? Because if they are, they are statistically less likely to vote for Trump, are more likely to perceive Trump as too far on the right, and are less likely to be appealed to him ideologically because education appears to be the ideological divider now, not income. Sources: Polarized by Degrees by Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins; Can Democrats Win Back the White Working Class?; What Explains Educational Realignment Among White Americans? JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure how attempting to control discussion here is a good idea. Toa Nidhiki05 17:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Because sidebars about electorate educational attainment are unrelated to the discussion here, and the user above already inserted a bunch of WP:OR bar charts into the discussion about something unrelated that broke the formatting of the page. It’s not trying to “control the discussion” to point out that this RfC isn’t the appropriate venue for these analyses of the electorate and conversations around implicit bias. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Far-right isnt an ideology. Its a broad grouping of ideology. Putting it in the ideology section makes absolutely no sense. It should be put in the political position section of the infobox EarthDude (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose We need some more solid, academic sources that describe a far-right faction. Adding a far-right faction to the sidebar would require us to add a far-right faction in the factions section in the body of the article below. The right-wing populist faction already notes that it is "described as the American political variant of the far-right". I don't think we need another far-right faction without some more solid sourcing. BootsED (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  What do we use as a benchmark for far-right politics in the first place? We can certainly do so for individual politicians or say the Freedom Caucus. When judging on the political spectrum, we largely use the standards of the country and RS.

  I've written plenty about the section about right-wing populism, and there are some sources on how some Republican populists are far-right. But I haven't encountered any sources saying that the Republican Party is far-right or that far-right politics is a minor ideology of the party.

  I regularly read books, academic sources, and reputable newspapers--I've added plenty of sources to the article. I just haven't encountered any sources saying the party is far-right as part of its ideology. Regardless of our personal political views, the party's positions are clearly not far-right to the national electorate.

  Note: I voted for Harris, and largely agree with the Democratic Party's views. I'm just using statistics and the sources I've added, not my personal political views. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Freedom Caucus is consistently described as right-wing to far-right. There not much to debate there. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) Having given some thought to this, I'm going to by-pass many questions to answer what I deem the central one in this case, which is "is the infobox the place to characterise (all?) the groups within a political party?". My answer is no. Infoboxes of political parties already end up overburdened with detail and this one seems at present about right to summarise broad trends in the party. If the Freedom Caucus is now a significant distinct faction, its name could be added to, or preferably replace one of the other named factions of the party. The infobox should provide a quick handy 'key facts'. Coverage of the caucus, and how the caucus impacts the whole party can be covered better in text in the normal way and with due weight. btw I'm European, and some of Harris's positions were relatively 'far-right' seen from here.Pincrete (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is some of my thinking. The infobox at present contains ideologies of the factions and I wrote above that the infobox is too long and ways should be explored to shorten it. One of those ways would be to remove the faction ideologies altogether. However given that the infobox does contain faction ideologies, in the absense of discussion about removing them altogether I think I'd have to support listing all faction ideologies. Agree on both major US parties looking fairly hard-right from over in Australia. Both parties are a unity ticket on perpetual war and unrestrained capitalism. The Democrats only fiddle around the edges with individualism which by and large is not a socialist or anarchist concern (actual left-wing politics). TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just as a quick note @Pincrete: - the Freedom Caucus is already listed in the "Caucuses" section of the infobox. So not including "far-right" doesn't mean the Freedom Caucus is not listed - it already is. It is, contrary to popular belief, the smallest of the GOP's major caucuses (the centrist Republican Main Street Caucus and Republican Governance Group have nearly double the members). And political scientists routinely regard the GOP as either center-right or right-wing, even relative to Europe (which doesn't matter here - political positions are a national scale, not an international one, and both parties are the big-tents of either side of the aisle). Toa Nidhiki05 13:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  TN05, thanks for the correction. I only scanned down as far as the 'ideologies' where three primary ideological positions were listed. I didn't see factions. Obviously we should be consistent with regard to the various 'wings' of a party, but IMO, as a general principle, listing ideologies and factions and 'positions on the L-R spectrum' is overburdening the infobox, to a large extent these overlap. Obviously I agree that L-R can only be assessed within a particular country, my remark was simply an 'aside'. Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because left-leaning polities in America have sometimes labeled the party as such, doesn't mean it's true. We must be careful as the party represents the views of millions of Americans and actively participates in our democratic process. Labeling the Republican Party "far-right" would be as preposterous as labeling the Democratic Party "far-left". I might remind everyone here that Wikipedia has a carefully crafted list of "reliable sources" that are selected specifically to reinforce specific viewpoints that to the unaware wikipedia reader give false and/or unreliable information that will be taken at face value. It's sort of an information war. If it is far-right, we must first define far-right, then research and conclude if the party is far right or not, and then find the scholarly sources that support that designation. We must not rely on opinionated legacy media to give us an answer which unfortunately a large portion of Wikipedia does. We must be extremely neutral and unbiased in our labeling, and for that reason I strongly oppose that label. Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  We can ignore all of that and describe the party as sources do. Wikipedia has no obligation to pander to American voters, and should in fact avoid doing so.

  Likewise, suggesting "we must first define far-right, then research and conclude if the party is far right or not" is textbook original research and we should avoid it at all cost. Cortador (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is totally incorrect to say that "labeling the Republican Party "far-right" would be as preposterous as labeling the Democratic Party "far-left"". For one, it is easy to find senior figures and organizations in the Republican Party that are associated with politics that meet the standard definition of far-right; that absolutely does not apply to the Democrats.

  Second, there's a very simple litmus test here. Do people and groups that are unambiguously far-right or far-left support one of the major parties? On the far-right, groups that are explicitly fascist, Nazi, white supremacist, or Christian nationalist pretty much uniformly are supportive of the Republican Party and/or actively engaged with Republican politics. On the far-left, groups that are communist, Marxist, or anarchist, are nearly always outside of the Democratic Party, and critical of centre-left (and sometimes left-wing) social democrats and democratic socialists who might argue for working within the Democratic Party. ChristyMcMorrow (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  This isnt just left leaning politics defining the party as far-right. We have lots and lots of extremely credible and reliable academic and scholarly sources at this point which state the Republican Party to be far-right. None such sources state the Dems to be far-left. You're engaging in false equivalence here EarthDude (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think any of what you said made any sense. I will try to avoid insult but your post has a lot of contempt for core Wikipedia principles.I will respond by block quoting you in italics, with my response in plain text.

  Just because left-leaning polities in America have sometimes labeled the party as such, doesn't mean it's true. We must be careful as the party represents the views of millions of Americans and actively participates in our democratic process.

  Educated analysis often gets smeared as "left leaning," but Wikipedia's job is to convey information as accurately as possible through consensus - not appeal to American voters. If the preponderance of reliable sources find that the GOP is far-right, that's what it is. If we reach consensus for that designation, and millions of Americans are offended by that designation - sorry for my crudeness - tough shit. Wikipedia strives for least offensive - not "never offensive to anyone ever."

  Labeling the Republican Party "far-right" would be as preposterous as labeling the Democratic Party "far-left".

  False equivalence. We don't achieve consensus like this. If there are plenty of academic sources describing the Democratic Party, so be it. If people are offended by a designation that is placed based on the literature - too bad for them. They can raise other objections if they have them.

  I might remind everyone here that Wikipedia has a carefully crafted list of "reliable sources" that are selected specifically to reinforce specific viewpoints that to the unaware wikipedia reader give false and/or unreliable information that will be taken at face value.

  WP:SOAPBOX. Take this smear campaign elsewhere. There's no conspiracy to tilt Wikipedia in a particular direction, and the reliable sources are labeled that way through consensus. I am sorry you feel differently.

  If it is far-right, we must first define far-right, then research and conclude if the party is far right or not, and then find the scholarly sources that support that designation.

  We do not have to do that. Wikipedia is not a community sourced dictionary - we follow reliable sources. Crafting a definition on the fly then finding sources to match is original research. We don't do that.

  We must not rely on opinionated legacy media to give us an answer which unfortunately a large portion of Wikipedia does. We must be extremely neutral and unbiased in our labeling, and for that reason I strongly oppose that label.

  You are soapboxing again. Slandering reliable sources as "opinionated legacy media" is an interesting tack - but not backed by any policy.

  You have a warped understanding of NPOV, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Please take the time to read over them again. You seem to be confusing "a neutral point of view" with "not offending anyone ever, especially Republicans." Carlp941 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• No, adding "far-right" is WP:UNDUE entirely. Should we start an RfC to mention far-left as a minor ideology in the infobox of the Democratic Party (United States)? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you think that the Democratic party article should include far left as a faction and it is backed by reliable sources then by all means, you should try to include it. Theofunny (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose — Per BootsED, who articulated my beliefs concisely. The provided sourcing is acceptable, but in order to include such a grand statement in the infobox, more association between the Republican Party and the far-right is necessary, let alone if the Freedom Caucus' existence can constitute a proper Republican faction with a hold in the internal operation of the party. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Freedom Caucus has 33 elected members of Congress, of course they’re a meaningful faction. It’s not a “grand statement” if the sourcing is acceptable. There’s a reason that there are explicit arguments being made in here by editors concerned with sanitizing the reputation of the Republican Party (this isn’t an accusation, it’s been an explicit argument made in opposing the changes in here so far) and another entire subset of editors can’t help but discuss the article on Democrats: because a subset of editors is openly concerned with “far right” seeming inflammatory regardless of what WP:RS say and are making the mistake of viewing this as a political discussion, and Wikipedia shouldn’t self-censor. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  This exactly. Additionally, a number of editors are proposing that we conduct original research to determine whether or not the GOP has a far-right faction instead of simply assessing whether or not there are sufficient sources that state that they do. Cortador (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you think the sourcing is acceptable but want to omit the information anyway, you are coming to a conclusion that the sources didn't come to i.e. you are conducting original research. Cortador (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:UNDUE and no highly-reliable academic sources are provided, as would be needed for a highly-controversial label like this. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Since Toa Nidhiki05 has repeatedly said that the far-right is a minority in the Freedom Caucus despite their elected leader being a prominent Far-right Congressman, who even called for giving electoral college votes to U.S. President-elect Trump despite whatever the election results would be, I would like to see the reliable sources stating so before Supporting or Opposing the proposal. Also, the editor didn't tag me for this RfC. – Theofunny 10:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Cortador has provided sources above as has the mover. TarnishedPath^talk 12:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, I am specifically asking for the sources which say that the Far right congressmen and women within the Freedom caucus are the minority which the said editor has compared to the situation of the Squad in the Democratic Party. Theofunny (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  No worries. I misunderstood. TarnishedPath^talk 12:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think @Theofunny is basically trying to call attention to the fact that an "Oppose" vote (or, frankly, several) prominently made a claim that the far-right is a faction then dove into some WP:OR to argue against that same evidence. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pew Research: Freedom Caucus likely to play a bigger role in new GOP-led House. So who are they?

  From a Pew Research study in January 23, 2023:

• Typical House Freedom Caucus member or ally is more conservative than other Republicans in the chamber : Graph Separately

  Freedom Caucus' ideological graph compared to other Republicans and Democrats.

  Democrats have a median ideological score of -0.389. Non-Freedom Caucus Republicans +0.455 and Freedom Caucus +0.688.

  Additionally, Pew Research says "Ideologically, Freedom Caucus members and allies are among the most conservative of House Republicans, with several falling on the rightmost end of the spectrum.".

  Can this be added to the evidence @Warrenmck. Theofunny (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support for including the "Far right" characterization within the spectrum of ideologies per the Freedom Caucus faction. RS has defined the faction as an impactful part of the GOP, so the argument for characterization of the GOP as inclusive of their far-right ideologies bears some WEIGHT, and there seems to be some RS to back it up. In 2016-2020 they held high ranking positions in the Trump administration and to this day are described by RS as continuing to hold notable power over the GOP. DN (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose would need a few academic sources over media junk. If this is clearly the case there should be a plethora of academic publications discussing this.Moxy🍁 00:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  There are, they’ve been provided in the discussion several times by a few editors now. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you believe that sources found to be reliable as per RSN are "junk", you have to make a case for that on the noticeboard and have them be downgraded accordingly. Declaring them unreliable here is a non-argument. Cortador (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose , unnecessary the Freedom Caucus is labelled as right wing to far right and not just far right. Shadow4dark (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Original comment moved to survey section above. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We really need sources that show this is a consensus view, not just a view that some argue for. The difficulty with a topic with as much coverage as this one is trying to decide what counts as a consensus view vs a view a source subscribes to or is advocating to be true. An additional problem is that "far-right" is not well defined. In an earlier discussion a source was offered to support something "far-right". When looking at the actual text it was clear that the source was referring to the far-right of the GOP. Thinking of this as a venn diagram, what our far-right article calls far right and those who are the furthest right of the elected GOP members aren't the same. "Far-right" is an inherently vague term so we need to be careful when we imply that sources that use the term to refer to members/parts of the GOP are intending to lump those people in with Neo-Nazis etc. Additionally, if those sources are we should question if their claims are valid. Unfortunately we are going through a partisan political period. We need to be careful that we are really reflecting a NPOV take vs we are listening to the partisan sources trying to make their cases. If nothing else we need true historical hindsight to see what claims really come true. Springee (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean a lot of these articles actually do lump the Republicans in with neo nazis. Or the "alt-right" anyway. And, for those citations I provided, I provided quotes so that you can see precisely how they are calling the republicans far-right. I also provided links to the articles. I'm only one man and have neither the time nor inclination to read fifty-three-thousand journal articles just to justify your arbitrarily high standard for inclusion. These are best sources. Please feel free to demonstrate that these positions are contested. If you cannot do so then I'd say "the republican party is far-right" should go in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Any source that is honestly trying to associate the GOP with neo nazis is going to be a wp:REDFLAG and should be discounted absent some serious support from a wide range of other sources. I appreciate the issue with trying to read, as you said, 53,000 articles. However, that actually is part of the problem. How do we know what represents a consensus among those 53,000 articles (and other sources that could apply here). This is why we really need good summary sources to make such claims. At the same time, thanks to key word searching etc, we have 53,000 sources that will make a huge range of claims, many that will not stand the test of time or will not be widely accepted. How do you know the sources you are picking don't fall into that camp? It's not an easy problem but it does suggest that, as an encyclopedia, one that is supposed to be both neutral and impartial, and not a political journal where scholars need to put forth the next idea that will help them get published (and grant money), that we need to be err on the side of caution with such claims. Springee (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, I am citing peer reviewed sources here. They're right above. Please feel free to review them rather than declaring them unreliable unread just because their findings make you uncomfortable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that they are peer reviewed. As you just said, there are 53,000 articles so how do we know which of the peer reviewed ones are the good ones and the ones that represent a consensus vs the ones just making a new argument. While peer review is a step in the right direction, it's not a talisman that ensures the claims related to politics are true, will never be challenged etc. When we have so much information we should resort to summary sources to help us sort what has staying power from things that don't. Springee (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggesting an editor needs to read 53,000 sources before we can put far-right in an infobox is WP:CPUSH pretty unambiguously. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that. I'm acknowledging the number you provided (presumably a rhetorical number but useful for argument sake). When we have so, so many sources how do we decide which ones to use, not use? I'm arguing that we need to find those that are summary sources, the sources that have a zoomed out view, rather than those that argue things are changing and we need to follow that lead. As I've said in the past, Wikipedia shouldn't present new ideas, views as fact. When we include such ideas we acknowledge they are new or not established. That is the case here. It would be wrong to avoid including the view that the party is now more populist than conservative. It would be wrong to avoid any inclusion of the claim that parts of the party are "far-right". However, we need to treat those as claims put forth rather than as agreed facts. Springee (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There are literally 53000 references to review on Google Scholar regarding the Republican party and its relationship to the far-right. I was not using hyperbole that's literally what my search string returned. I went through the first page, sticking only to peer reviewed media, and there was like... one? false positive on the list. The rest directly addressed the relationship with the far-right. There was some variability. Some said that Trump was pushing the Republicans far-right. Some suggested this was an acceleration of a process that began in the 1980s but that the Rs had been moving farther and farther right over a very extensive and consistent time period. There was some disagreement over whether Bush's "compassionate conservativism" had slowed the roll. Of two mentions one said it had slowed the far-right acceleration the other said it did not. Others pointed to Koch funding as beginning a far-right shift. But the one thing that they all agreed with is that there were ideological connections between the Republican party and the far right. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on what you are saying there are 53000 key word hits that have both phrases (or similar) within the article/source. That isn't the same as saying they are the same. Just for reference, doing a Google scholar search for "Republican far-left" resulted in 29,000 hits. I don't think we would argue that the GOP is far-left. Springee (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes but you are leaving off part of what I said here - which is that I went through the peer reviewed articles on the first page and had only one that was a false hit. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure those (the ones at the top of this string) price what you are hoping to prove. Springee (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Well good thing it's an all you can eat buffet of various academics calling the Republican party politically extreme.

1. Rise of the Reactionaries: The American Far Right and U.S. Foreign Policy By: Rehman, Iskander, Washington Quarterly, 0163660X, Oct2017, Vol. 40, Issue 4 Public opinion polling also appears to show that, by and large, the American populace remains profoundly committed to internationalism and to living within an open democratic society.[80] That said, on closer examination it also reveals some troubling trendlines, particularly among Republican voters. For example, it has become apparent that now close to 32 percent of Republican voters have a positive image of Vladimir Putin, while during the election 62 percent (compared with 47 percent of Democrats) stated that they favored "letting other countries deal with their own problems."[81] An October 2016 poll also indicated that more and more Americans—across the political spectrum—are skeptical of global economic engagement.[82]
   It is around these issues that the future of the Republican Party's foreign policy will be decided. With a man of the far right occupying the highest office in the land, internationalist conservatives will have their work cut out for them. As one historical overview of Republican foreign policy has noted, "Presidents have acted as focal points for their party, and Republican presidents have been given remarkable leeway to redefine not only conservative foreign policies but what it means to be a conservative in the United States."[83] This one is interesting because it's an older one. It establishes that Trump was being called reactionary and far-right from the outset, and that academics saw a Republican party capitulation to Trumpism as being far-right, should it occur. Of course, as a plethora of reliable sources demonstrate, that did, in fact, occur. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
2. The Far Right Today (book) By Cass Mudde, published by Wiley, 2019, Ch. 10: Twelve Theses on the Fourth Wave, Subsection: Populist Radical Right Politics Is No Longer Limited to Populist Radical Right Parties, In the US, (neo)conservatives in the Repubican Party, including Texas senator Ted Cruz, were parroting far-right conspiracy theories about the UN (and the alleged "New World Order") well before President Trump brought them into the White House.
   But Decades of authoritarian and nativist responses to jihadist terrorist attacks, as well as the so-called "refugee crisis" of 2015 have led to a change not just in discourse, but also in policies... while a majority of Republican governors in the US supported a "Muslim ban."
3. How Far-Right Extremism Changed American Body Politic By Nacos, Brigitte and Bloch-Elkon, Yaeli, Political Science Quarterly (Oxford University Press / USA). Fall2024, Vol. 139 Issue 3, p387-406. 20p. Modern-day, violent, far-right extremism existed well before Trump entered the political arena as presidential candidate in mid-2015. But during his first campaign, his first presidency, and after he left office, hate speech and violent extremism of the far-right variety moved from the fringe to the political mainstream, as the glorification of the January 6 insurrectionists by the former and aspiring future U.S. president; elected GOP officials in local, state, and federal bodies; and millions of MAGA loyalists attested to. and Three decades later, Trump stood on what remained of the violent far-right's sacred ground and spoke in the same tongue as McVeigh and contemporary extremists. He depicted himself and his supporters as victims of an America-hating deep state, proclaimed that 2024 would be “the final battle,” and promised to make America free again “if you put me back into the White House.”
   For Jeffrey Toobin, who studied McVeigh and the modern roots of right-wing extremism, “[A]ll trends that McVeigh embodied—the political extremism, the obsession with gun rights, the search for like-minded allies, and above all the embrace of violence—came together under the forty-fifth president [Trump].”8 However, the revival of far-right extremism in the 21st century began actually after the election of the first Black U.S. president, Barack Obama, and intensified after Donald Trump's jump into the political arena. It was fostered by the same radical ideas of white supremacy, neo-Nazism, and white Christian nationalism that incited far-right radicals in the 1980s and 1990s, including McVeigh. and very, very explicitly and overtly To assess whether Trump would be able to act on his repeated threats to jail his political opponent once back in the Oval Office, we consulted and found disconcerting answers in the comprehensive Heritage Foundation's “Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project.”1 The sole focus here is on the aggressive rhetoric and violence of far-right extremism directly associated with the Tea Party and later with a Republican president and his party. Let's repeat for emphasis: The sole focus here is on the aggressive rhetoric and violence of far-right extremism directly associated with the Tea Party and later with a Republican president and his party. The article continues Racial prejudices found a home in the Tea Party, which was established just a few weeks after Obama's inauguration; in the Tea Party's quasi-militant arm, the heavily armed and militarily trained Oath Keepers; and, most of all, in anti-Obama conspiracy theorists.
   I'm going to stop now except for one last pull quote from this very explicit and thorough article, now from the conclusion: It is no a secret that Donald Trump admires strongmen, such as Russia's Vladimir Putin, North Korea's Kim Jong Un, Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan, and Hungary's Viktor Orban; he has praised these men often and publicly. Although Trump said repeatedly that he wanted to be a dictator only on the first day of his second presidency, there was no outcry by the political class, business leaders, or the public at large. Instead, 76 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of Independents, and 13 percent of Democrats told pollsters that a Trumpian 1-day dictatorship was definitely or probably a good idea.66 Even the most extreme threats issued by Trumps, his inner circle, and fanatical followers of his Truth Social posts considered this behavior as normal. The same was true for several Wall Street billionaires, who donated generously to Trump's 2016 campaign, disavowed him after 6 January, and renewed their support in 2024, if only to avoid new taxes on the wealthiest individuals, one of Biden's campaign promises. They and an increasing number of Silicon Valley billionaires followed the example of almost all GOP officials in Washington, DC, and around the country who had been critical of Trump after he incited the breach the U.S. Capitol; they all crawled back into the fold.
   In the epilogue of his book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, Jason Stanley concludes,
   What normalization does is transform the morally extraordinary into the ordinary. It makes us able to tolerate what was once intolerable by making it seem as if this is the way things have always been…Normalization means precisely that encroaching ideologically extreme conditions are not recognized as such because they have come to seem normal.67.
   I'm reaching the limit of how many "the Republican party are far-right" journal articles I can stomach in a day now. I think, from my momentary source confusion earlier today, that it's clear they're kind of starting to blur together with the sheer number I've read in the last two days so I'm going to leave it here for now. But I guess the question is this: when is enough enough? How many peer-reviewed sources calling the republicans far right, extremist, authoritarian, racist, etc. do we need before we can do away with the absurd notion that the Republicans can be treated as a center-right party? Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

   Y'all mind taking this to a discussion section? It took me three times to leave a simple survey comment. If no one object I'm going to collapse this so it's easier to leave a comment. Nemov (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

   No I object strongly. This is the discussion section. No section was established for !votes. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

   So, it's not that it doesn't include center-right, it's that it also includes far-right according to those RS, and whether or not DUE, Neutral etc...

   I've tried to paraphrase most of the recent arguments against inclusion below, to help us keep track. Forgive me if I missed any, or mistakenly misconstrued any context, I'm only trying to help keep things organized.

   By all means feel free to mention any needed corrections or amendments the list...

   1. POV/Claim

   2. Wikipedia shouldn't present new ideas, views as fact

   3. lacking good summary sources

   4. HFC is not just far-right

   5. WP:UNDUE/Needs academic sources

   6. more association (than just the HFC) between the Republican Party and the far-right is necessary

   7. left-leaning polities in America have sometimes labeled the party as such, doesn't mean it's true

   8. Wiki should not rely on opinionated legacy media

   9. The info-box may not be the place to characterize the groups within a political party

   10. political scientists routinely regard the GOP as either center-right or right-wing

   11. The right-wing populist faction already notes that it is "described as the American political variant of the far-right"

   12. the majority of academic sources refer to the party as either center-right or right-wing. It's not the prevailing academic view.

   13. far-right has been rejected in numerous/previous discussions

   Cheers. DN (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

   This has been one of the things that's stood out to me the most. The support arguments are all using similar logic and rhetoric, and the oppose arguments are all over the map in terms of why. Per WP:CONSENSUS:

   Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

   Also, you're missing "too close to a change of presidents" on the list. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

   Completely Random Guy also brought up that the addition shouldn't be made because the GOP got a lot of votes during the election. Note that I don't think this is a valid argument in any way, shape, or form, but it was made. Cortador (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

   @JohnAdams1800 also made the argument that since the GOP got elected by the majority of the populace, it isn't far right. Theofunny (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

   The main issue is that academic sources haven't described the GOP as a whole as far-right, and its electoral results show that it ideologically appeals to about half the country. Regardless of our personal political views (I voted for Harris), the RS and electoral results show the GOP's ideological positions aren't far-right. There are certainly some far-right GOP politicians, with their own RS for that.

   Note: Trump won 49.8% of voters in 2024, go figure on barely not winning a majority. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

   We are not suggesting that the GOP as a whole is far-right, just that like a notable center right faction, there is a far right faction too. Theofunny (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

   Reliable sources don't indicate the center-right is a faction. It, along with right-wing, represent the core position of the party. A better comparison would be centrism; centrist caucuses actually far outnumber the Freedom Caucus, too. Toa Nidhiki05 18:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

   I should have written a part of their ideology is far-right according to other publications. Theofunny (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if this isn't the intention, jamming stuff like this into the infobox just seems like POV pushing. This is especially the case after an election and inauguration of a new president. Nemov (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Requesting close - As it stands right now, this discussion has been up for nearly two weeks, and opposes outnumber supports by a 2:1 margin, with the consesnus unlikely to change. A close is probably in order here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion is still very much active, not sure why you are so eager to close it regardless of the outcome. Theofunny (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  A RfC isn't decided by vote counting, it is decided by the quality of arguments made. As per list of arguments DN provided above, I very much doubt that the oppose arguments are sufficient to close the RfC their favour.

  Also, I don't know why you claim that "the consesnus [is] unlikely to change" - we don't have a consensus yet. Cortador (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  opposes outnumber supports by a 2:1 margin, with the consesnus unlikely to change

  This is not how WP:CONSENSUS is determined. Consensus is based off the strength of argument and agreement, not raw votes. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support, but not as a "minor ideology" but as the dominant/majority ideology in the party. The election proves it. The Overton Window shows that the GOP has slid so far to the right from centrist that there are very few Republicans left who even overlap the center of the political landscape. Eisenhower would not recognize his party. His soldiers went to Europe and killed those who held the views of the current GOP majority. What was once extremist for the GOP has now become centrist for them, even though it is still extremist and very "far-right" for the rest of Americans and the world. Any Republican who does not bow to Trump/Miller/Kirk/Hannity/Proud Boys and support their far-right ideological positions is now marginalized and without any influence in the party. They get viciously attacked, and those in Congress lose their committee positions. There is no good argument to justify seeing the GOP has anywhere near the center anymore. Remaining an Eisenhower Republican is suicide in the party. MAGA is a Trump party, not a Constitutional party. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yep. Not only is this fully true, we have an abundance of reliable and scholarly sources to back it up as well. EarthDude (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Does not seem to describe the party as a whole or the history of the party. Adding it because of just the Freedom Caucus seems a bit of a stretch. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Does not seem to describe the party as a whole

  This isn't what the RfC is about. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is what the RfC is about. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC is not about labelling the party as a whole far-right, no. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's what I gathered, but to be clear, that is to say Far-right ideology is merely accepted or included, not that it encapsulates the entire party. Just the aforementioned factions, correct? DN (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, just as a minor ideology for a faction. Though there is a third option proposal to include it in the range of Political positions, which also seems reasonable. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  That still wouldn't mean calling the whole party far right. I don't think anyone has explicitly advocated for this to be the sole position. Cortador (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Its about what factions to include, and I dont feel they are a significant enough faction given the parties history. PackMecEng (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not to sound rhetorical, but if that is to say that the Freedom Caucus and the Tea Party Movement are insignificant or inconsequential, why are they taking up so much space within the Republican Party (United States) article? Cheers. DN (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would say largely because of WP:RECENTISM. PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Tea Party is actually a great example of RECENTISM; it hasn't been a thing since 2016 at latest. The movement came and went from the spotlight in a span of less than 6 years. Toa Nidhiki05 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is that to say the Freedom caucus and the Tea Party movement are unrelated? According to Britannica..."The caucus, an outgrowth of the 2009 Tea Party movement, represents a shift toward more ideologically driven and less compromise-oriented politics within Congress."

  Cheers. DN (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe initially. The Tea Party started to flame out around 2014 and was utterly irrelevant by 2016. The remnants of it variously merged into fairly normal establishment conservatism (see: Joni Ernst, Marco Rubio), merged into Trumpism (see: most of the fringe weirdos), or even became anti-Trump (see: the Kochs). This WaPo piece is a fairly good overview of the Freedom Caucus, for comparison. Toa Nidhiki05 20:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also TN would note, if they reviewed the eight academic sources I've quoted above, that the academic consensus sees the Tea Party movement as having simply evolved into Trumpism over time. Very little dividing them beyond periodization if even that. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Graphic Chart: The Republican Party has lurched towards populism and illiberalism: The Economist This could help here. Theofunny (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  We can add that to the ever-growing list of reliable sources that call the Republican party far-right, populist or both. Simonm223 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  U.S. Republicans Are Dangerously Close to Paramilitary Groups

  Talk about the links with extremist groups. Theofunny (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is the GOP a far right party? | 11 | The Far Right in America | Cas Mu

  Would you have access to this? Theofunny (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yep, reliable sources, and a lot of reliable sources, back the Republican Party being a far right one EarthDude (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think if you want to ask others to avoid using newspaper sources for political alignment then the evolution of political factions should also be left to the sociologists and political scientists rather than newspapers too. See the comment immediately above. Simonm223 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  WaPo piece about Tea Party morphing into Trumpism.

  The forever grievance Theofunny (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support (Changed to Comment - I forgot I had already added a support vote DN (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)) I support general mention of the far right ideology in the info-box, as the flood of RS over time, including research journals such as this one, from World Affairs, makes it difficult to keep ignoring the significant changes within the GOP that have been going on for many years. Perhaps radical right may be a more agreeable alternative, though I haven't researched how prominent that nomenclature is in sources compared to far right. Cheers. DN (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The sources found by Simonm223 above seem to fairly clearly support the contention that it is uncontroversial that the modern Republican party contains far-right elements. None of the objections to this really seem to hold any water; we don't need to say that the entire party is far-right to note this. Likewise, the sheer weight and number of sources makes it hard to avoid describing it as an academic consensus - nobody has really even provided any sources to support the idea that this is contentious, they've just provided sources that indicate that other factions within the party do, in fact, exist. But that doesn't mean anything because the RFC is only about whether we should acknowledge that there is an infobox-worthy far-right faction; it isn't an assertion that this is the party's sole ideology. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I'm struggling to see why we would mention the Freedom Caucus in the infobox but not list the far-right as a faction in the same infoxbox. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support the mentioning of "far-right" in the "Political position" column of the infobox. It's very obvious that the Republican party is currently dominated and controlled by the MAGA movement^[8][9], which is an ultra-nationalist American political faction widely described as a fascist tendency. Under the rule of Trump, the U.S. government has threatened to occupy Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal and Gaza Strip; and has also threatened hostile actions against Mexico. The Republican party has become a vehicle for Trump to propogate and espouse his hyper-imperialist policies.

Furthermore, there are several academic sources which describe the Republican party under Trump as a far-right party.^[10][11] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)