![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
When reading the lede segment, I'd like to propose removing one tiny little word, and one word alone. That word is "the." Here is the "the" that I propose to remove, see bold, (I tried it once and had my edit reverted, so now I am seeking consensus before proceeding).
"The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with its main historic rival, the Democratic Party."
etc. etc. etc.
That "the" to me, though perhaps seemingly slight, seems to imply a binary nature that is really not necessarily guaranteed to be there. While it might arguably be true that a two part "system" exists in the United States, I believe that a slight change here, by removing this "the" in particular makes the lede sound more inclusive and open to the real possibility (though perhaps remote) that third parties can and do exist in the USA. This is not promotion of third parties, but I believe is a reflection of a more WP:NPOV
Instead, I think that the lede line should look more like this:
"The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"), is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with its main historic rival, the Democratic Party."
Thank you for your time in reading this. This is about ONE word. "The." But I think it matters and was worth raising the point.
By the way, I also feel this word should ALSO be removed from the Democratic Party (United States) page in the very same area and manner that it is used as I am arguing here. So I am not targeting a change on one side or another, but rather pushing for what I perceive to be a more WP:NPOV (even if ever so slightly) on BOTH. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 20:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The article currently includes lines in the infobox for the party's regional affilitions in Europe (
European Conservatives and Reformists Party) and Asia (
Asia Pacific Democrat Union), in addition to its international affiliate (
International Democrat Union). Per
MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize only the most essential information in the body, and that includes the infobox. Given that none of the three are mentioned in the body, and that the GOP is an American political party with very limited international operations, I felt that at most one line for those is warranted, so I kept the international affiliate but removed the European/Asian ones.
Toa Nidhiki05, quick as ever,
reverted me with summary It’s not excess space. These are typical for parties to have
. I doubt that, given that
Democratic Party (United States) does not have European/Asian affiliates, and the Asian one even had to use a custom affiliation parameter. And in any case, that's
WP:OTHERSTUFF. This seems like classic
infobox creep—someone added the European affiliation parameter to the political party infobox template at some point because that makes sense for European political parties, but it was never intended for use at American parties, and the only reason it's here is because it exists. Do others agree with me that it should be removed? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
18:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I put a note about the mayor of the District of Columbia, in the territorial governors box. That way, readers will know why the box goes up to six, rather then five. GoodDay ( talk) 22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Political Position= Right Wing to Far Right 69.80.22.185 ( talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
It has historical significance, in being unprecedented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chowderstorm ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Position should say "Right Wing to Far Right" 69.80.22.185 ( talk) 16:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X: restrictions on immigration,[16][17][18] Y: restrictions on illegal immigration,[16][17][18] 50.225.103.176 ( talk) 01:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Sources seem to support the current prose.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
02:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)I don't know when the new or re-elected members assume or resume their seats in the state legislatures. Whoever does know? I hope they make the gradual & appropriate updates. GoodDay ( talk) 04:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you add Trumpism as ideology 86.58.92.148 ( talk) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
15:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)The primary "Yes" argument is that there are many reliable sources for this statement, which were provided. I find this argument to be strongly policy-based, and consequently am not discounting any of the "Yes"es.
On the "No" side, there were several different arguments of differing strengths. One popular argument is that this trend has recently reversed itself. A source was provided for this argument in the discussion section below, but only one source, and not an academic source.
A second popular argument was that the statement as written is biased, should not be written in WP:WIKIVOICE, or was somehow phrased in a misleading way. Nobody making these arguments explicitly brought up WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV, but I believe many of these arguments were ultimately based on policy-based concerns even if they didn't mention the particular policies. People on the "yes" side did explicitly bring up WP:NPOV to argue that WP:NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia cannot mention any negative information ever, and furthermore asserted not including the statement despite the sourcing for it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Two minor arguments were very well sourced but do not contradict the statement. One was an argument about a specific vote in Congress that goes against the statement. I think this does deserve some weight, but because the statement in question is general and specifies that Republican votes in Congress "tend" to align with business interests and the affluent, I can't give it full weight. Another well-sourced argument was that many Republican voters are working-class. However, the statement in question is not about Republican voters but Republican votes in Congress, so again, I give this argument only partial weight despite the strong sourcing.
A few people on the "no" side voted entirely based on their own beliefs or personal knowledge about American politics. This is clearly WP:OR and so I'm giving arguments based entirely on prior beliefs about American politics no weight at all.
And then finally, many arguments on the "no" side asserted that the statement in question is also true of the Democratic Party and that the sources saying it's true of Republicans were cherry-picked. I believe this argument is only weakly policy-based for two reasons. First of all, the logic doesn't hold: if the statement was true of Democrats it wouldn't make it not true about Republicans. Secondly and more importantly in my view, reliable sourcing that the statement in question is also true of the Democratic Party was not provided. People making this argument alluded to the existence of significant amounts of contradictory research but only produced a single semi-related source when challenged. (I should mention here that some of the sourcing provided by the "yes" side does explicitly say that it's not true of the Democratic Party.) Much of the basis for this argument appears to be personal beliefs about American politics, like the above. While I'm not fully discounting these votes like I did those because at least some outside sourcing was provided, I am giving them significantly less weight.
Overall, therefore, between their greater raw numbers and the greater strength of the "yes" arguments I find that there is a strong consensus to include the statement in the body. Loki ( talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Should the body include the following sentence: "The modern Republican Party's economic policy positions, as measured by votes in Congress, tend to align with business interests and the affluent"?
Restarting non-closed RFC. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 04:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Restarting non-closed RfC. YttriumShrew ( talk) 07:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
References
The Republican Party and business interests are aligned across all issue areas and are more often aligned with the opinions of the richest Americans (especially on economic policy).[1] From the abstract.
We find that affluent influence does not arise through control of both political parties. Instead, the Democratic Party leadership is more likely to agree with the middle class than the affluent and represents the views of advocacy groups, whereas the Republican Party leadership is aligned with business interests and sometimes with the affluent.
Issue-specific measures of public opinion at different income levels also show that Republican representatives are more responsive to their affluent constituents on key votes, whereas Democrats are less responsive to the affluent (Rhodes and Schaffer 2017). Ref is to Rhodes, Jesse H. and Brian F. Schaffner. 2017. “Testing Models of Unequal Representation: Democratic Populists and Republican Oligarchs?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12(4): 185-204.
However, individuals with Republican representatives experience an “oligarchic” mode of representation, in which wealthy individuals receive much more representation than those lower on the economic ladder.(Abstract)
In contrast, among individuals with Republican representatives, the relationship between income and representation is positive regardless of the data used, suggesting a model of representation that is most similar to linear inequality (if not Oligarchy).[2]
Evidence from the Senate confirms the same differential partisan pattern over 39 roll-call votes and 8 legislative sessions (Lax, Phillips, and Zelizer 2019).Ref is to Lax, Jeffrey, Justin Phillips, and Adam Zelizer. 2019. “The Party or the Purse? Unequal Representation in the US Senate.” American Political Science Review 113(4): 917-940.
Republican senators are, on average, more responsive to the rich than the poor, but Democratic senators are largely more responsive to the poor than rich, particularly when there is class conflict. Thus, it is Republican senators, not Democrats, who are primarily responsible for the overall pattern of affluent influence.[3]
Others have considered whether Democratic and Republican lawmakers differ in the degree to which their behavior is biased towardthe preferences of the affluent. Research in this vein often finds that while both parties tend to favor the rich, Republicans do so more frequently.(An extended discussion of four other papers that support this conclusion follows, but I'll avoid it here for now unless someone really wants to see all this, since I suspect this rabbit hole could go on for a while.)
It ignores the successful work that the Dems have doneThis is not Democratic Party (United States). Even if it were somehow equally true, we wouldn't be including "Republicans and Democrats" in an article that's only about one of them. WP:FALSEBALANCE and whatnot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
More detail is required. Does that mean for example that Democratic exonomic poicy positions oppose business interests and the affluent? Isn't the actual difference that the Democrats are more likely to advance the interests of the less affluent, not that they are anti-capitalists? TFD ( talk) 14:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"...affluent influence does not arise through control of both political parties. Instead, the Democratic Party leadership is more likely to agree with the middle class than the affluent and represents the views of advocacy groups, whereas the Republican Party leadership is aligned with business interests and sometimes with the affluent"(Rhodes)
Republican senators are, on average, more responsive to the rich than the poor, but Democratic senators are largely more responsive to the poor than rich, particularly when there is class conflict. Thus, it is Republican senators, not Democrats, who are primarily responsible for the overall pattern of affluent influence(Lax, Jeffrey, Phillips, and Zelizer)
Others have considered whether Democratic and Republican lawmakers differ in the degree to which their behavior is biased toward the preferences of the affluent. Research in this vein often finds that while both parties tend to favor the rich, Republicans do so more frequently.(ibid)
@ Rjensen: What you have said above isn't really a good reason. Just because the GOP receives support from working-class voters doesn't necessarily mean that they are aligned with their economic interests. As outlined in the studies above, Republican policies do tend to benefit the affluent and disadvantage the working class (take the large 2017 corporate and income tax cut and the Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare as examples.) YttriumShrew ( talk) 19:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The rationales in the no votes puzzle me. The RfC text is not about the demographics that support or oppose the Republican Party, but the policy positions that the Republican Party holds (as measured via votes in Congress). The existence of a poor person who votes for the Republican Party =/= The Republican Party's economic policy positions align with the preferences of the poor. Similarly, the existence of a rich person who votes for the Republican Party =/= The Republican Party's economic policy positions align with the preferences of the rich. That's not what the RfC is about. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
comes across as a partisan sentence, but whether it accurately reflects the sources; per WP:NOTCENSORED, we are not permitted to omit accurate summaries of the sources simply because they offend someone's partisan sensibilities. Similarly, WP:NPOV means we report what the sources in a neutral tone - omitting something that the sources plainly say because an editor fears that that accurate summary appears partisan is the opposite of NPOV. The truth is (obviously) always more complex, but as far as it goes this is an accurate single-line summary of the thrust of what the sources say on the topic - and if you feel there is more nuance worth adding, you're free to make additional proposals as long as it accurately summarizes the weight and emphasis of the sources and doesn't veer into WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Both major parties are controlled by their corporate donors. GoodDay ( talk) 07:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I've tried not to get sucked into this debate, because it's a debate we've had before and a debate with a rather predictable course. However, I've decided to lay out my thoughts as one large post, so hopefully my position will be clearer to everyone.
First, I'll deal with the critique that this claim is not supported by the evidence. While this may be true, those who make such a claim would need to provide similar reliable sources detailing the opposite for this to be considered. Many of the no votes have also made the point that since the nomination of Trump the Republicans have shifted towards advocating pro-worker policies. This is much more of a representation of the Republican Party's move towards populist rhetoric than a concrete shift in economic policy, and is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about Congress votes.
Secondly, I'll deal with the much more interesting (and expected) critique that the proposed content is biased and/or unencyclopedic.
On Wikipedia, we usually strive for balance. While that may be a good thing to do, we often (especially with regards to U.S. politics) end up placing balance over facts. We should not do this. Wikipedia is not censored, and it is a critical error for us to not accept what is true because it makes some people uncomfortable. False balance at the expense of actual facts is against WP:NPOV.
YttriumShrew ( talk) 20:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
In comparison, Conservative Party of Canada#Principles and policies only mentions the main rival the Liberals to say they are both "big tent" parties. Canada has a multiple party system.
The assumption is that the policies listed are where Republicans and Democrats differ. Issues which are major political differences in some countries and/or were in the U.S. are ignored: the constitution, slavery, women's suffrage, free markets. In fact the constitution would be controversial in many countries because it supports republican government, independence from England, separation of church and state, the sanctity of private property and free speech.
Therefore, if we say that the Republicans support big business and the wealthy, the implication is that Democrats don't.
TFD ( talk) 11:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
"The Republican Party is, broadly speaking, more aligned with corporate interests than the Democratic Party."? That's what I was attempting to propose. If you support it, we can add it to the RFC - or start another one given how far into this one we are. I feel that that statement accurately reflects the sources and is unlikely to be misintepreted to mean that the Democratic Party is completely unaligned with corporate interests, but if we're going to have an RFC on a better wording we should workshop it properly first this time. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"The Republican Party's policies are, broadly speaking, more aligned with corporate interests than those of the Democratic Party."Just to be clear, I do not agree with these editors on this issue, but this amendment should hopefully alleviate their concerns. What do you all think? YttriumShrew ( talk) 20:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Democratic senators Joe Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema's recent voting records alone, should prove the Democarats are also corporate-controlled. GoodDay ( talk) 18:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Claim in the lede: don't think this applies anymore due to demographic shifts. Georgia and Virginia are already blue. Texas is going purple and Florida already is. It would be better to leave it that the GOP base leans towards rural areas and outer suburbs - or we could say that it leans towards flyover country. States like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas, Nebraska are much redder than states like the Carolinas, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, Florida. 2402:8100:3971:D52B:1948:C5D4:B327:3B7 ( talk) 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the rationale for removal of this content and recommend it be restored. I'm happy to provide additional reliable sources to support it, if requested.
soibangla ( talk) 02:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
To support his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, he and his allies repeatedly and falsely claimed that there had been massive election fraud and that Trump was the true winner of the election. Polls continue to show that large majorities of Republicans consistently agree the election was stolen. They agree with the big lie as it has been explained in that article. If you think the Iraq war
Seems like a better examplethen feel free to provide reliable sources that characterize it as such, but to my knowledge (and I've looked) Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election is the first case since WW2 that the expression has been widely invoked such that it is notable. soibangla ( talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutral tone requires us to use the language that is generally used in reliable sourceswhich is exactly what we have in abundance, but I can overcite it if anyone insists. You prefer
experts writing in academic publicationsbut such sources can lag for years as researchers have to accumulate data and go through peer review; such sources are overwhelmingly the exception rather than the rule in what we do here; and this is not the first time I've observed you call for such sources when it seems multiple reliable sources aren't going your way.
large majorityof democrats believe that, as sources say here for Republicans? If not then it seems like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument - the coverage is obviously not comparable, presumably because the underlying facts (as RSes describe them) are not comparable. Sources reasonably support the fact that this is a defining feature of the current era of the Republican party; I don't believe you can produce comparable sources supporting the idea that 2016 election denialism was significant in scope, let alone that a large majority of Democrats embraced it or that it defined an era of Democratic politics. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
"Feeling" isn't grounds for inclusion. Please find reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I feel that current political thought now accepts that the Republican Party of 2022 includes sign,nificant fascist and racist elements. Please add these to the facions section. Thank you. 69.248.86.147 ( talk) 03:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This was a talking point on the talk page however it hasn't been acted on. We should add a political position of Right-wing to the infoxbox. Some will say that it cannot describe the party in two words, however, it is clearly evident even in the ideology it is a Right-wing party. James1221911 ( talk) 09:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This change would need more discussion than the small section above.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
12:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)I just noticed this sentence:
"While Republican nominee John C. Frémont lost the 1856 United States presidential election to Democrat doughface James Buchanan, Buchanan only managed to win four of the fourteen northern states, winning his home state of Pennsylvania narrowly."
I assume "doughface" is vandalism. If not, it's certainly not neutral and probably should be removed.
I'm not an active editor, and I don't know the norms here, but the page is locked, so I can't fix this. I assume that someone who can monitors this.
Scott@sauyet.com ( talk) 20:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
When reading the lede segment, I'd like to propose removing one tiny little word, and one word alone. That word is "the." Here is the "the" that I propose to remove, see bold, (I tried it once and had my edit reverted, so now I am seeking consensus before proceeding).
"The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with its main historic rival, the Democratic Party."
etc. etc. etc.
That "the" to me, though perhaps seemingly slight, seems to imply a binary nature that is really not necessarily guaranteed to be there. While it might arguably be true that a two part "system" exists in the United States, I believe that a slight change here, by removing this "the" in particular makes the lede sound more inclusive and open to the real possibility (though perhaps remote) that third parties can and do exist in the USA. This is not promotion of third parties, but I believe is a reflection of a more WP:NPOV
Instead, I think that the lede line should look more like this:
"The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"), is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with its main historic rival, the Democratic Party."
Thank you for your time in reading this. This is about ONE word. "The." But I think it matters and was worth raising the point.
By the way, I also feel this word should ALSO be removed from the Democratic Party (United States) page in the very same area and manner that it is used as I am arguing here. So I am not targeting a change on one side or another, but rather pushing for what I perceive to be a more WP:NPOV (even if ever so slightly) on BOTH. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 20:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The article currently includes lines in the infobox for the party's regional affilitions in Europe (
European Conservatives and Reformists Party) and Asia (
Asia Pacific Democrat Union), in addition to its international affiliate (
International Democrat Union). Per
MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize only the most essential information in the body, and that includes the infobox. Given that none of the three are mentioned in the body, and that the GOP is an American political party with very limited international operations, I felt that at most one line for those is warranted, so I kept the international affiliate but removed the European/Asian ones.
Toa Nidhiki05, quick as ever,
reverted me with summary It’s not excess space. These are typical for parties to have
. I doubt that, given that
Democratic Party (United States) does not have European/Asian affiliates, and the Asian one even had to use a custom affiliation parameter. And in any case, that's
WP:OTHERSTUFF. This seems like classic
infobox creep—someone added the European affiliation parameter to the political party infobox template at some point because that makes sense for European political parties, but it was never intended for use at American parties, and the only reason it's here is because it exists. Do others agree with me that it should be removed? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
18:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I put a note about the mayor of the District of Columbia, in the territorial governors box. That way, readers will know why the box goes up to six, rather then five. GoodDay ( talk) 22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Political Position= Right Wing to Far Right 69.80.22.185 ( talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
It has historical significance, in being unprecedented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chowderstorm ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Position should say "Right Wing to Far Right" 69.80.22.185 ( talk) 16:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X: restrictions on immigration,[16][17][18] Y: restrictions on illegal immigration,[16][17][18] 50.225.103.176 ( talk) 01:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Sources seem to support the current prose.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
02:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)I don't know when the new or re-elected members assume or resume their seats in the state legislatures. Whoever does know? I hope they make the gradual & appropriate updates. GoodDay ( talk) 04:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you add Trumpism as ideology 86.58.92.148 ( talk) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
15:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)The primary "Yes" argument is that there are many reliable sources for this statement, which were provided. I find this argument to be strongly policy-based, and consequently am not discounting any of the "Yes"es.
On the "No" side, there were several different arguments of differing strengths. One popular argument is that this trend has recently reversed itself. A source was provided for this argument in the discussion section below, but only one source, and not an academic source.
A second popular argument was that the statement as written is biased, should not be written in WP:WIKIVOICE, or was somehow phrased in a misleading way. Nobody making these arguments explicitly brought up WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV, but I believe many of these arguments were ultimately based on policy-based concerns even if they didn't mention the particular policies. People on the "yes" side did explicitly bring up WP:NPOV to argue that WP:NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia cannot mention any negative information ever, and furthermore asserted not including the statement despite the sourcing for it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Two minor arguments were very well sourced but do not contradict the statement. One was an argument about a specific vote in Congress that goes against the statement. I think this does deserve some weight, but because the statement in question is general and specifies that Republican votes in Congress "tend" to align with business interests and the affluent, I can't give it full weight. Another well-sourced argument was that many Republican voters are working-class. However, the statement in question is not about Republican voters but Republican votes in Congress, so again, I give this argument only partial weight despite the strong sourcing.
A few people on the "no" side voted entirely based on their own beliefs or personal knowledge about American politics. This is clearly WP:OR and so I'm giving arguments based entirely on prior beliefs about American politics no weight at all.
And then finally, many arguments on the "no" side asserted that the statement in question is also true of the Democratic Party and that the sources saying it's true of Republicans were cherry-picked. I believe this argument is only weakly policy-based for two reasons. First of all, the logic doesn't hold: if the statement was true of Democrats it wouldn't make it not true about Republicans. Secondly and more importantly in my view, reliable sourcing that the statement in question is also true of the Democratic Party was not provided. People making this argument alluded to the existence of significant amounts of contradictory research but only produced a single semi-related source when challenged. (I should mention here that some of the sourcing provided by the "yes" side does explicitly say that it's not true of the Democratic Party.) Much of the basis for this argument appears to be personal beliefs about American politics, like the above. While I'm not fully discounting these votes like I did those because at least some outside sourcing was provided, I am giving them significantly less weight.
Overall, therefore, between their greater raw numbers and the greater strength of the "yes" arguments I find that there is a strong consensus to include the statement in the body. Loki ( talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Should the body include the following sentence: "The modern Republican Party's economic policy positions, as measured by votes in Congress, tend to align with business interests and the affluent"?
Restarting non-closed RFC. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 04:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Restarting non-closed RfC. YttriumShrew ( talk) 07:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
References
The Republican Party and business interests are aligned across all issue areas and are more often aligned with the opinions of the richest Americans (especially on economic policy).[1] From the abstract.
We find that affluent influence does not arise through control of both political parties. Instead, the Democratic Party leadership is more likely to agree with the middle class than the affluent and represents the views of advocacy groups, whereas the Republican Party leadership is aligned with business interests and sometimes with the affluent.
Issue-specific measures of public opinion at different income levels also show that Republican representatives are more responsive to their affluent constituents on key votes, whereas Democrats are less responsive to the affluent (Rhodes and Schaffer 2017). Ref is to Rhodes, Jesse H. and Brian F. Schaffner. 2017. “Testing Models of Unequal Representation: Democratic Populists and Republican Oligarchs?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12(4): 185-204.
However, individuals with Republican representatives experience an “oligarchic” mode of representation, in which wealthy individuals receive much more representation than those lower on the economic ladder.(Abstract)
In contrast, among individuals with Republican representatives, the relationship between income and representation is positive regardless of the data used, suggesting a model of representation that is most similar to linear inequality (if not Oligarchy).[2]
Evidence from the Senate confirms the same differential partisan pattern over 39 roll-call votes and 8 legislative sessions (Lax, Phillips, and Zelizer 2019).Ref is to Lax, Jeffrey, Justin Phillips, and Adam Zelizer. 2019. “The Party or the Purse? Unequal Representation in the US Senate.” American Political Science Review 113(4): 917-940.
Republican senators are, on average, more responsive to the rich than the poor, but Democratic senators are largely more responsive to the poor than rich, particularly when there is class conflict. Thus, it is Republican senators, not Democrats, who are primarily responsible for the overall pattern of affluent influence.[3]
Others have considered whether Democratic and Republican lawmakers differ in the degree to which their behavior is biased towardthe preferences of the affluent. Research in this vein often finds that while both parties tend to favor the rich, Republicans do so more frequently.(An extended discussion of four other papers that support this conclusion follows, but I'll avoid it here for now unless someone really wants to see all this, since I suspect this rabbit hole could go on for a while.)
It ignores the successful work that the Dems have doneThis is not Democratic Party (United States). Even if it were somehow equally true, we wouldn't be including "Republicans and Democrats" in an article that's only about one of them. WP:FALSEBALANCE and whatnot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
More detail is required. Does that mean for example that Democratic exonomic poicy positions oppose business interests and the affluent? Isn't the actual difference that the Democrats are more likely to advance the interests of the less affluent, not that they are anti-capitalists? TFD ( talk) 14:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"...affluent influence does not arise through control of both political parties. Instead, the Democratic Party leadership is more likely to agree with the middle class than the affluent and represents the views of advocacy groups, whereas the Republican Party leadership is aligned with business interests and sometimes with the affluent"(Rhodes)
Republican senators are, on average, more responsive to the rich than the poor, but Democratic senators are largely more responsive to the poor than rich, particularly when there is class conflict. Thus, it is Republican senators, not Democrats, who are primarily responsible for the overall pattern of affluent influence(Lax, Jeffrey, Phillips, and Zelizer)
Others have considered whether Democratic and Republican lawmakers differ in the degree to which their behavior is biased toward the preferences of the affluent. Research in this vein often finds that while both parties tend to favor the rich, Republicans do so more frequently.(ibid)
@ Rjensen: What you have said above isn't really a good reason. Just because the GOP receives support from working-class voters doesn't necessarily mean that they are aligned with their economic interests. As outlined in the studies above, Republican policies do tend to benefit the affluent and disadvantage the working class (take the large 2017 corporate and income tax cut and the Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare as examples.) YttriumShrew ( talk) 19:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The rationales in the no votes puzzle me. The RfC text is not about the demographics that support or oppose the Republican Party, but the policy positions that the Republican Party holds (as measured via votes in Congress). The existence of a poor person who votes for the Republican Party =/= The Republican Party's economic policy positions align with the preferences of the poor. Similarly, the existence of a rich person who votes for the Republican Party =/= The Republican Party's economic policy positions align with the preferences of the rich. That's not what the RfC is about. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
comes across as a partisan sentence, but whether it accurately reflects the sources; per WP:NOTCENSORED, we are not permitted to omit accurate summaries of the sources simply because they offend someone's partisan sensibilities. Similarly, WP:NPOV means we report what the sources in a neutral tone - omitting something that the sources plainly say because an editor fears that that accurate summary appears partisan is the opposite of NPOV. The truth is (obviously) always more complex, but as far as it goes this is an accurate single-line summary of the thrust of what the sources say on the topic - and if you feel there is more nuance worth adding, you're free to make additional proposals as long as it accurately summarizes the weight and emphasis of the sources and doesn't veer into WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Both major parties are controlled by their corporate donors. GoodDay ( talk) 07:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I've tried not to get sucked into this debate, because it's a debate we've had before and a debate with a rather predictable course. However, I've decided to lay out my thoughts as one large post, so hopefully my position will be clearer to everyone.
First, I'll deal with the critique that this claim is not supported by the evidence. While this may be true, those who make such a claim would need to provide similar reliable sources detailing the opposite for this to be considered. Many of the no votes have also made the point that since the nomination of Trump the Republicans have shifted towards advocating pro-worker policies. This is much more of a representation of the Republican Party's move towards populist rhetoric than a concrete shift in economic policy, and is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about Congress votes.
Secondly, I'll deal with the much more interesting (and expected) critique that the proposed content is biased and/or unencyclopedic.
On Wikipedia, we usually strive for balance. While that may be a good thing to do, we often (especially with regards to U.S. politics) end up placing balance over facts. We should not do this. Wikipedia is not censored, and it is a critical error for us to not accept what is true because it makes some people uncomfortable. False balance at the expense of actual facts is against WP:NPOV.
YttriumShrew ( talk) 20:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
In comparison, Conservative Party of Canada#Principles and policies only mentions the main rival the Liberals to say they are both "big tent" parties. Canada has a multiple party system.
The assumption is that the policies listed are where Republicans and Democrats differ. Issues which are major political differences in some countries and/or were in the U.S. are ignored: the constitution, slavery, women's suffrage, free markets. In fact the constitution would be controversial in many countries because it supports republican government, independence from England, separation of church and state, the sanctity of private property and free speech.
Therefore, if we say that the Republicans support big business and the wealthy, the implication is that Democrats don't.
TFD ( talk) 11:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
"The Republican Party is, broadly speaking, more aligned with corporate interests than the Democratic Party."? That's what I was attempting to propose. If you support it, we can add it to the RFC - or start another one given how far into this one we are. I feel that that statement accurately reflects the sources and is unlikely to be misintepreted to mean that the Democratic Party is completely unaligned with corporate interests, but if we're going to have an RFC on a better wording we should workshop it properly first this time. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"The Republican Party's policies are, broadly speaking, more aligned with corporate interests than those of the Democratic Party."Just to be clear, I do not agree with these editors on this issue, but this amendment should hopefully alleviate their concerns. What do you all think? YttriumShrew ( talk) 20:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Democratic senators Joe Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema's recent voting records alone, should prove the Democarats are also corporate-controlled. GoodDay ( talk) 18:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Claim in the lede: don't think this applies anymore due to demographic shifts. Georgia and Virginia are already blue. Texas is going purple and Florida already is. It would be better to leave it that the GOP base leans towards rural areas and outer suburbs - or we could say that it leans towards flyover country. States like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, the Dakotas, Nebraska are much redder than states like the Carolinas, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, Florida. 2402:8100:3971:D52B:1948:C5D4:B327:3B7 ( talk) 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the rationale for removal of this content and recommend it be restored. I'm happy to provide additional reliable sources to support it, if requested.
soibangla ( talk) 02:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
To support his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, he and his allies repeatedly and falsely claimed that there had been massive election fraud and that Trump was the true winner of the election. Polls continue to show that large majorities of Republicans consistently agree the election was stolen. They agree with the big lie as it has been explained in that article. If you think the Iraq war
Seems like a better examplethen feel free to provide reliable sources that characterize it as such, but to my knowledge (and I've looked) Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election is the first case since WW2 that the expression has been widely invoked such that it is notable. soibangla ( talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutral tone requires us to use the language that is generally used in reliable sourceswhich is exactly what we have in abundance, but I can overcite it if anyone insists. You prefer
experts writing in academic publicationsbut such sources can lag for years as researchers have to accumulate data and go through peer review; such sources are overwhelmingly the exception rather than the rule in what we do here; and this is not the first time I've observed you call for such sources when it seems multiple reliable sources aren't going your way.
large majorityof democrats believe that, as sources say here for Republicans? If not then it seems like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument - the coverage is obviously not comparable, presumably because the underlying facts (as RSes describe them) are not comparable. Sources reasonably support the fact that this is a defining feature of the current era of the Republican party; I don't believe you can produce comparable sources supporting the idea that 2016 election denialism was significant in scope, let alone that a large majority of Democrats embraced it or that it defined an era of Democratic politics. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
"Feeling" isn't grounds for inclusion. Please find reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I feel that current political thought now accepts that the Republican Party of 2022 includes sign,nificant fascist and racist elements. Please add these to the facions section. Thank you. 69.248.86.147 ( talk) 03:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This was a talking point on the talk page however it hasn't been acted on. We should add a political position of Right-wing to the infoxbox. Some will say that it cannot describe the party in two words, however, it is clearly evident even in the ideology it is a Right-wing party. James1221911 ( talk) 09:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This change would need more discussion than the small section above.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
12:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)I just noticed this sentence:
"While Republican nominee John C. Frémont lost the 1856 United States presidential election to Democrat doughface James Buchanan, Buchanan only managed to win four of the fourteen northern states, winning his home state of Pennsylvania narrowly."
I assume "doughface" is vandalism. If not, it's certainly not neutral and probably should be removed.
I'm not an active editor, and I don't know the norms here, but the page is locked, so I can't fix this. I assume that someone who can monitors this.
Scott@sauyet.com ( talk) 20:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)