Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 8

I don't know if this issue has been discussed at great length, but the "right wing to far right" label currently in the side box seems inappropriate to me because the Republican Party contains within itself a spectrum of opinion ranging from the centre right to the far right. The fact that Donald Trump's political positions happen to lie farther to the right than earlier presidents does not, in and of itself, indicate that the Republican Party is a "right wing to far right" party; in any other level of government than the executive branch of the federal government, there are many centre-right Republicans who are generally considered to be within the fold of the Republican Party.

One compromise could be to change the side box description of the party to "big tent of the right" as was done with Syriza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.147.182.16 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is an issue which really deserves attention; at the moment, neither of the two sources in the sidebox describe the Republican Party as either right wing or far right. One of them notes that Steve King associates with far right groups in Europe^[1], but it ignores the fact that King was rebuked for these actions by Steve Stivers, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee^[2]. The rebuke indicates that we shouldn't be too quick to ignore centre right views in the Republican Party; indeed, the Tuesday Group, which includes 50 members of the House of Representatives, has been described as centrist^[3].

There has been much discussion about this issue on the talk page, and it simply isn't enough to have a single user change the article unilaterally without resolving the dispute.

My suggestion to change the political position to "big tent of the right" as was done with Syriza, the ruling party in Greece, stands as a possible resolution to the ongoing dispute. At the very least, we should remove the "political position" section altogether for the moment.

Note that the House membership is now 237, in the lame-duck 115th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

This particular line is controversial and an associate professor is the source. I don't think it has enough standing to be in this page. I can't find the sources from the associate professor and if this line is to remain, I think it should be sourced by the actual numbers instead of opinion.

"After the 1960s, whites increasingly identified with the Republican Party.[22]" 204.57.109.142 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324267606_Polarization_Demographic_Change_and_White_Flight_from_the_Democratic_Party This is an alternate link to the same journal article with the host being research gate. The references that the associate professor used can be clearly seen, and they used a lot of sources. Thus the article itself is sourced enough to be a valid journal article source for Wikipedia. If you think my decision is wrong you can clarify over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where users with more expertise over reliable sources will answer to you. You may refer my comments if you want to say anything there. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The body of the article disputes this designation in the infobox. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it's been well over a year since this has been brought up to a full discussion, and since it's going to have to be done at some point, I figured that I'd bring it up again, and hopefully put the problem to bed for good, invoking WP:CCC, Wikipedia's commitment to a global perspective, and WP:BOLD. The Republican Party has no political position set in the infobox, due to some rather contentious debates about exactly where they fall. Here, I will be laying out an argument for a position(s) which will hopefully be accepted, and will do the same thing, around the same time this is posted, on the Democratic Party talk page as well (although by my rationale, their solution is actually more complex than the one for the Republican Party). ^REMEMBER! This is an argument to place a SOURCED POLITICAL POSITION on the page. Not what you think it should be. All arguments should be clear and backed up with evidence.

Let's start with the first argument: Which political spectrum are we using?

This is an absolutely valid question that raises legitimate concerns. We can either use the US spectrum, or we can use the international one (which is tilted about one degree to the left of the US one-- such that a "left-wing" party in the US advocating for, say, social democracy, would be considered Center-left on the international spectrum. With my solution, I hope to take a little overlap from both, so we'll see if it can draw some support from all sides in an unbiased and civil manner.

Next, we must take into account what each position stands for in a general sense, so it will fit with the current characteristics the Party exhibits.

The Republican Party as a whole argues for American conservatism, as well as social conservatism and fiscal conservatism in its main platform. This would fit into the Center-right category of the US political spectrum.^[1] However, a faction(s) of the Party (Tea Party Republicans and although unorganized, some national conservatives or paleoconservatives) arguably support policies much more conservative than the party as a whole/average, which would be considered Right-wing by US standards, but Hard right^[2] or even far-right/radical by international standards. Since the Party has two different factions (albeit arguing for somewhat different ideals) that can overlap in favor of a claim for Right-wing (Tea Party conservatism and national conservatism by US standards, and average Republicans by international standards/various different political spectra), placing at least Right-wing in the infobox will eliminate the "which political spectrum" question. Right-wing is also seen as a sort of umbrella term for all kinds of ideas to the political Right, so it also fits different ideologies present within the party.

OK, so so far, based on the above compromise solution, the Republican Party would be seen as Right-wing^{[1][3][4][5][6]} in the infobox. Now though, we have to ask if this includes all necessary ideas within the party, and their separate political positions.

In my opinion at least, the answer appears to be yes. Using an overlap of different meanings of Right-wing, they appear to encapsulate the major parts of the party in all contexts regarding the spectrum, from moderates to Tea Partiers.

"Wait! What about moderate Republicans? They don't seem to fit into any position you have stated above."

Moderate Republicans are also members of the Republican Party, and their ideas should and will be taken into account. However, I believe that a good job has already been done to include them, albeit in a rather roundabout way. As previously mentioned, Right-wing is can be seen as a sort of umbrella term for all kinds of ideas to the political Right, from Center-right all the way to Hard right or Far-right, so it also fits different ideologies present within the party. Moderate Republicans, along with Conservative Democrats, make up the centrist wings of their Party, and sometimes even have more in common with each other than the Party they belong to. However, I believe that using the compromise I crafted before, they can be included as well. As mentioned, they represent the centrist wings of their Parties, and by extension, the Center of the US political spectrum, but this would also put them roughly around the Center-right of the international spectrum.

"Why isn't Center-right included then?"

An excellent question. Center-right is not included in this specific context, because there is a faction in the Republican Party that is undoubtedly Center-right, this would not apply if the international spectrum was used to judge. America's political Center is already equivalent to the international spectrum's Center-right, which makes the Republican Party as a whole, seen as Center-right in the US, Right-wing by international standards. This is likely because the American political system and general government infrastructure has had and dealt with the current policies for such a long time now that no one is sure what impact changing them would have-- a fear that affects Democrats and Republicans as wholes as well. This is the reason why some Center-right parties in Europe (like the Independence Party in Iceland, for example, or to a lesser extent, the Conservative Party in the UK) support the varying "welfare state(s)" that their country has built and currently has, even though privately, they may want to do away with some inefficient or overgenerous policies, but either do not or cannot because of high public approval of them.^[7] So what is my point in this? Different countries and their respective spectra evolve based on what that country has had built/up and running for a long enough period of time to know that it works in at least some aspects. The conservative Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans are, in this case, excused from the constraints of what "Center" means or constitutes (a balance between Center-left and Center-right) because their beliefs revolve around a current system that despite being less progressive than those in Europe, for example, they still manage to fit into a Right-wing umbrella position because they do balance Center-right and comparatively Right-wing ideas to an extent, but they do it within the confines of their specific country's political spectrum. However, in order to make absolutely sure that everyone is on board, a note will be included next to the position in the infobox, in order to explain this point accurately. Like this short summary,^[a] or this more detailed explanation^[b].

In addition:

I went on a little exploration mission across every Wikipedia that has an article on the party, and collected the current positions listed on the page if there was one. Here is what I found as of 21 March 2017.

With all of this taken into consideration, I feel that there is enough here to make this position the new consensus. Below, to judge public opinion, I will create a "Responses" section, where you can either Support, or Oppose this proposed change (type this in bold, followed by your reasoning). If you have any questions/concerns (including about my reasoning above), or are unsure, you can leave a Comment in the "Responses" section, followed by your question/concern. It has taken me a while to formulate this, so I'd appreciate some feedback. I may respond to any concerns. Thanks! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Also: an interesting/informative discussion I had on Reddit about the subject is located here.

TL;DR The Republican Party is one of the few remaining political parties to not list a position in the infobox, and each time someone tries to bring it up again to possibly change it, people come in from both sides and it ends in no new consensus. This will keep being an issue/will continue to be brought up until a decision is reached. Some non-political or non-American observers/opinions may be required to avoid perceived bias (See overall talk page section for more). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Dude, you've had this RFC up for four months now and there's nothing close to a consensus. Probably time to give up on it for now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would, but my end goal was to just get it done. If it isn't it's bound to constantly be brought up in the future, so I wanted to avoid others constantly having to have this discussion repeatedly. If necessary maybe having some non-American or apolitical observers/inputs will help eliminate any biases and help reach a conclusion (regardless of what it may be, as long as there is a conclusion-- not no consensus again). It still boggles me as to the variety of reasons why a position has not been listed while it has for most other parties, so I wanted to change that. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This section is a mess. I have fixed it up somewhat by removing unsourced material. I have tagged the section, as it needs expansion, context, and more sources. The primary problem is that the section talks about various factions of the party in a muddled, disorganized way without making any effort to define the terms it is using. SunCrow (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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

It is not fair to only say that senate majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked President Obama's supreme court nomination in the last year of his second term without also pointing out that this action had been suggested at the end of President Reagan's second term. The implication is that this action was some new action devised by the Republican party. It was not.

A sentence or two should be added at the end of that paragraph such as:

"However, this action had been earlier suggested by Senator Joe Biden near the end of President Ronald Reagan's second term and was described as a way to allow some degree of the public's direct participation in the process due to the upcoming presidential election. Although not a law, it has become known as the "Biden Rule"." Concern for complete truth (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The republican party at that time did not discrimate in federal policies that was the democrat party. why are you lying? 2604:6000:1011:A14A:156E:3BA:5AC3:5502 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Roadguy2 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I move that this entire section of the article be removed. Op-eds have no place being used as sources on Wikipedia, even op-eds written by academics and masquerading as academic work-product. The heavy use of moralistic terminology "misuse" "abuse" "obstructed" "undermining democracy" "constitutional norms" should be enough to can this section for absurdly transparent bias. I realize the editors on this site have a left-wing tilt but can you please try to control yourselves just a bit? This section of the article could theoretically be improved by the introduction of certain historical information that pre-dates say, 1992. I realize that's like going back to the Pleistocene for some of us, but please recall Cicero's words "To be ignorant of the world that existed before you were born is to remain forever a child."

Newt Gingrich did not, in fact, introduce the concept of inflammatory political rhetoric, and any attempt to suggest he made it worse in an objective measurable way is partisan special pleading: Orwell was observing as far back as the 1940s that the term fascist had already become a generic political insult. The first contested US presidential election between Adams and Jefferson featured accusations of hermaphroditism, and women burying their Bibles for fear Jefferson would somehow ban Christianity. Lyndon Johnson's insinuation during the election of 1964 that Barry Goldwater as president would mean America's children being incinerated in a nuclear inferno was I suppose in some sense, unprecedented. Did it signal the Democratic party "undermining democratic norms"? The examples could be multiplied a thousandfold. Much of the remainder of the section is nothing more than a series of political scientists being very very upset that Mitch McConnell is more effective as a legislative leader than they wish he was. The nonsense about Merrick Garland being treated in an "unprecedented" manner is in a sense technically true, but might be improved by some additional "unprecedented" events from slightly earlier history, to wit: The equally unprecedented series of bald-faced lies told by "Lion of the Senate" and vehicular manslaughter perpetrator Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D-MA) about Robert H. Bork during his confirmation hearings. The unprecedented practice of trying to deny Clarence Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court based on unproven and unprovable rumours that he engaged in such felonious conduct as making jokes about pubic hair and renting pornographic video tapes. The unprecedented discovery in 1973, by the Supreme Court, of a right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution. This event was unprecedented in the sense that a right to abortion can not actually be found anywhere in the text of the constitution itself and many people both with and without PhD's in political science believe that it was the cause of the treatment received by Bork, Thomas, Garland, et. al. Adding all this information listed above would make the section neutral, balanced, and factual, but would also turn Wikipedia into a political debating forum, which it was not meant to be. Thus I suggest the section be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.61.128 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you finished with your rant? You can't make changes to the article without sources supporting them. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Dimadick (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve put an NPOV tag in this section. I have several issues with it: namely, the use of opinion pieces from left-leaning outlets as authoritative sources with no counterbalance, the conflation of the person opinion of political scientists with tested academic work, the lack of any dissenting or comparative views towards the other political party. I also question why we need an entire paragraph on how terrible Newt Gingrich is; this article is about the party, not one person, and so this would likely be better suited for the Newt Gingrich article. Toa Nidhiki05 16:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nearly every source in the section is either a peer-reviewed study or an assessment by a recognized expert. The section documents changes in the GOP from the 1990s onwards, and the political science literature has accurately identified Gingrich as a key actor in the transformation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Toa 100%. SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas this has controversy highlights one of the deep flaws that appears to be inherent in Wikipedia. We must rely on "reliable sources" by "recognized experts" which of course in practice means that any nonsense published by someone with an academic job can be passed off on this site. Hume's distinction between facts and values is of eternal relevance, and we should try to stick to the facts, even if political scientists rightly or wrongly believe they can do both. If Wikipedia had existed in the early 20th century I'm sure the website would have been infected with "reliable sources" written by all manner of special pleading pro-Eugenics "recognized experts". And dismissing what I wrote originally as a "rant"" without engaging with any of the obvious historical problems with the analysis presented by those "recognized experts" is the purest example of the argument from authority one can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.61.60 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I see that you have POV-ified this section in your typical fashion. It looks like you even lifted some of the material verbatim from your similar POV work on the Mitch McConnell page. I do not have the time or the inclination to attempt to correct the problem, as past experience indicates that you will simply revert and edit-war in response. So, I have renamed the section to reflect its actual content. SunCrow (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof has reverted a series of edits I made, most of which relate to the "Democracy" section of the article. This section has accuracy, balance, and POV problems and has been tagged accordingly. I am reinstating some of the edits that I believe to be non-controversial and will present other proposed edits for discussion here. SunCrow (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

In a demonstration of good faith, I have reinserted the following sentence:

Towards the end of the 1990s and in the early 21st century, the Republican Party increasingly resorted to "constitutional hardball" practices (the misuse of procedural tools in a way that undermines democracy).^[15][16][17]

I find this sentence to be problematic because it presents an opinion as if it is a fact. If it is included at all, the sentence should be edited to reflect that some writers/scholars argue that the GOP increasingly used hardball practices. SunCrow (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have reinstated "economic liberalism" as a majority ideology of the GOP in the infobox at the top of the page, but I do not think it should be here. I think the use of the word "liberalism" could confuse readers who do not click on the link to find out what the term means. I also think that the term "fiscal conservatism" (listed as an ideology that represents a "faction" of the GOP) covers much of the same territory. SunCrow (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I am getting static from Snooganssnoogans for having again removed the assertion that Newt Gingrich "impeached President Clinton in a partisan fashion." First of all, individual members of Congress do not impeach anyone. Second of all, some House Democrats voted to impeach Clinton, which makes the rest of the assertion questionable at best. SunCrow (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Per the reliable sources cited, the House impeached Clinton when Gingrich was Speaker of the House, and political scientists describe the partisan manner of his impeachment and Gingrich's role in it as a key episode in American political polarization and shifting of norms. But you of course just delete reliably sourced text, because you for some reason know better than the experts cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You removed a number of cited reliable sources and expert discussion; your disagreement with those reliable sources is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, your use of the word "asserted" is a word to avoid on Wikipedia; if you object to "credited with," I'll edit it to "stated." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I did not remove any sources at all in connection with the impeachment issue. Rather, I removed a factually inaccurate clause. SunCrow (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I am comfortable with your proposed use of the word "stated" in the topic sentence on Gingrich and have reinstated it. I maintain that some of the other language on Gingrich has to go and should not be a close call. I removed the clause stating that Gingrich "impeached President Clinton in a partisan fashion." This is a simple matter of accuracy (see my comments from earlier today above). The language stating that Gingrich "oversaw several major government shutdowns" has again been edited to state that Gingrich "was also involved in several major government shutdowns." This is also a matter of accuracy. As I stated in my edit summary, "the question of who is to blame for any government shutdown is a matter of opinion and is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, stating that any one individual 'oversaw' government shutdowns ignores the reality that shutdowns result from individuals and groups in multiple branches of government failing to reach agreement." Again, I do not believe these two edits should even be controversial. SunCrow (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow is entirely correct here. That section is a mess and needs to be either reworked or removed entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans removed this content I added to the "democracy" section:

Senate Republicans justified this by pointing to a speech from then-Senate Majority Leader Joe Biden in 1992, who argued for postposing any potential hearings from a Supreme Court nomination, should it arise, until after the election.^[18][19] Biden contested this interpretation of his speech.^[19]

His only explanation was that it is WP:FRINGE to contradict other sources. I'm not exactly what is fringe about proving the Republican explanation for their action, cited to news articles in two highly-reliable sources (The New York Times and Washington Post) and Joe Biden's rebuttal of that claim, but I'd love to hear answers. Toa Nidhiki05 18:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This text is used to rebut peer-reviewed research which characterizes the Garland action as unprecedented, a major violation of democratic norms and constitutional hardball. It's entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, the GOP rationale is false and not even McConnell has already dropped this faux rationale. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't rebut anything given it specifically mentions Biden disagreed with their interpretation. It seems like you just don't like it. As for McConnell, he said this:

The tradition going back to the 1880s has been if a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, and there is a different party in control of the Senate than the presidency, it is not filled

Glad to have you as the supreme arbiter of what sources say, though.

Also, while you're here, would you mind providing a link to the policy or consensus that says we don't quote authors? Would love to see that. Toa Nidhiki05 18:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Toa that the material on the Biden Rule should be included. I have rephrased it somewhat. Also, Biden was never Senate Majority Leader; in 1992, he was Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. SunCrow (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m not even sure why we’re having this discussion, but should we attribute sources in-text to the people that authored them? WP:INTEXT says:

In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism and helps the reader see where a position is coming from. An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question.

Toa Nidhiki05 21:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

We attribute the news publication, not the journalists. Citing the journalists themselves makes it appear as if it's an op-ed. Reporting by a news outlet should get attributed to the news outlet (as is convention). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me highlight this again for you:

In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation);

The phrase in question directly quotes from the article. Because of this, it must be attributed in-text, and it makes sense to attribute the people who wrote the article; not attributing the makes it seem like this is an editorial piece written by the newspaper itself. No examples on this page suggest not mentioning the authors; in fact, there are two specific examples of an incorrect attribution being removed, the first being a hypothetical Lancet article where the Lancet is removed, and the second being a hypothetical New York Times article. I see no valid reason the article should not mention the authors, but there is valid reason to remove NYT entirely. As a compromise, we should attribute both. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Attributions to the NY Times editorial board goes "according to the NY Times editorial board". I don't think anyone will get confused by attributing reporting to a newspaper, as that's how most news reporting gets attributed in RS (e.g. if the LA Times mentions a NY Times report, they would write "according to the NY Times". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You keep saying “it’s convention” but you haven’t actually given any proof. I suggest you find some before reverting again. Toa Nidhiki05 16:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to respond, or are you just going to keep reverting edits with no explanation like you own the page? Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm tempted to revert again at this point, which would put me at 3. Don't want to do that, but Snooganssnoogans has not given any evidence for his position. Toa Nidhiki05 19:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Since you just reverted, I’m still waiting on that link, Snooganssnoogans. I have yet to see any evidence of your stance here. If you can’t find it it might not exist and you might literally be conducting an edit war because you don’t like WP:INTEXT. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Having read the source text it definitely appears less like a news piece and much more like the kind of stuff we refer to on Wikipedia as a synthesis. I believe the authors being mentioned in this case is a good idea.--MONGO (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• The source in question is a news article, not an op-ed piece; it does not require in-text attribution. Neutrality^talk 17:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  Can you cite some sort of policy that says this? WP:INTEXT specifically says that use of direct or indirect speech from a source requires in-text attribution. Given this source is specifically quoted, in-text attribution is required. If this source were modified to not quote (either directly or indirectly) or paraphrase, there would not need to be attribution, but I don't see an exception here for news articles; in fact, all of the examples cited at WP:INTEXT are news articles. Toa Nidhiki05 18:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  "Indirect speech" in this context refers to statements of opinion. WP:INTEXT specifically refers to "summarizing a source's position"; when describing widely accepted facts, in-text attribution is neither necessary nor desirable. The NYT statement here is not a statement of "position." If people want to know from where the statement is supported, they may click on the ref. This makes sense because were the rule otherwise, every sentence would have to have in-text attribution because Wikipedia is based on what external sources say. Neutrality^talk 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  The quote is not an example of indirect speech; the phrase "debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist" is directly lifted from the article. That is, by any definition, a direct quote. So basically none of what you said is applicable. Again, I'll ask you to specifically find somewhere in policy that says not to quote authors. I can't find it, and apparently Snooganssnoogans can't find it either. Toa Nidhiki05 19:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  In that case, we should paraphrase rather than directly quote; excessive quotation is poor style. Neutrality^talk 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)