Talk:Republican Party (United States)

message: *A: There a a lot of RS covering the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, both in the US in general and in the context of the GOP specifically. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A secondary comment, it would be better to word the proposal/RFC as GRT rather than GRCT. Adding "conspiracy" to GRT mostly turns it into a straw man description of the allegations.  I think that most persons using the term allege that it is a general direction or initiative without alleging that there is a conspiracy. Adding "conspiracy" to allegations usually mis-describes allegations as an implausible straw man version of them. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources widely describe GRT as a conspiracy theory. There's not basis for dropping that descriptior. Cortador (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll (GRCT)

message: Do they though? I highly doubt it. After all, the same paragraph cites Pat Buchanan as the biggest example of a "nationalist republican", and you can go read his article and see the man has a long history of antisemitism. So, what am I saying here? That declining GOP support for Israel does not come from "sympathy for Palestinians", that is RIDICULOUS, it comes from the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theorists like Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, etc. I mean, let's not forget Trump dined with Nick Fuentes...
In conclusion, that paragraph should really mention that, at least mention that MAYBE the decline in support of Israel has something to do with the documented rise in antisemitism in America in the past few years.
Oh, one last thing. The part of the article I've been discussing focuses too much on some random comments made by Trump about Israel to doubt his support for it. That's stupid. Trump says A LOT of things and let's be real here, he doesn't really mean most of what he says, he is not a very honest guy. Let's not judge Trump for what he says, let's judge him for what he does, what he did as president. He was the most pro-Israel president America ever had, certainly a lot more than Obama and Biden. When it comes to the Iran nuclear deal, the Golan Heights and his ridiculously one-sided peace plan, Trump trumps every other president. What Trump says about Netanyahu is clearly just interpersonal drama, as is usual with Trump. Bibi recognized Biden's election, that made Trump mad, end of story. That doesn't hold a candle to Obama's fight with Netanyahu, which was actually over policy, the Iran deal. Guyermou (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What you doubt doesn't matter - what reliable sources state does. If you think that the source doesn't represent all relevant viewpoints on the topic, feel free to cite additional sources regarding that. Cortador (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Support changing the wording on such statements. The Republican Party has never supported Palestine over Israel, but has sometimes supported non-interventionism and isolationism. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   "nationalists, who tend to sympathize with Palestine" 

message: I don't know if this has been discussed because there are lots of topics. But on the Democratic Party page, it says we can't use the PA's page as a source to include it in the infobox but the IDU's page is used as a source here. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Affiliation  

message: It says people who did not attend college. How does that get put in there ridiculous 24.239.244.233 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 08:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that the original poster was referring to this sentence: "In the 21st century, the party receives its strongest support from rural voters, evangelical Christians, men, senior citizens, veterans, white voters, and those who did not attend college." It "got put in there" because surveys of Republicans show that many of them do not have college degrees. This is not to say that no Republican has a college degree. Or even that the numbers of Republicans without college degrees is higher than the number of Republicans with them. All it is saying is that people without college degrees are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats. This is far from "ridiculous", this is well documented. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024 

message: I have added a WP:Request for page protection because of the ongoing edit war. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for page protection added 

message: What are the views for how to arrange the factions for the Republican Party in the infobox? There appears to be widespread support for keeping Conservatism (American) as the party's dominant ideology.
It appears the two main positions are:
A: Alphabetical order--
Centrism; Christian right; Neoconservatism; Right-libertarianism; Trumpism
B: Trumpism at the top, due to being widely described as the dominant faction of the party. The others in some other order, likely alphabetical--Centrism; Christian right; Neoconservatism; Right-libertarianism
Are there other proposals for the ordering, such as potentially including no factions in the infobox?
I personally support option B, for reasons stated in the prior discussion post. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go with none if that is the long term stable version of the article.  If they are included then the long term factions first and the recent/newer ones later.  Do note that the 538 source I provided in the previous section doesn't support the view that "Trumpist" is the largest faction, only the loudest. Springee (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As many RS in the lead state, "As of 2024, Trumpists are the dominant faction within the GOP.". Unfortunately, it's not clear that which faction being the "largest" or "dominant" is the distinction that is what determines the order. The suggested order should provide stability to the article, and I believe that's what the info-box project community would suggest, but I could be wrong. DN (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

text: They don't need to because nobody has claimed that Trumpists are the largest faction. Cortador (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Making it alphabetical seems the easiest and least troublesome solution. DN (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Option A as it's the most neutral and will cause the least talk page bickering. I also worry option B runs afoul of WP:RECENTISM. — Czello (music) 07:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Option A for reasons stated above by User:Czello. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Option A because it just makes more sense. It's also how we order the Democratic Party's factions. Completely Random Guy (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox consensus discussion to resolve editing dispute 

message: I've noticed some content being added to this article that includes data from surveys of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. I don't think it would be appropriate to regard "leaners" in the same camp as party members - at least for statistical purposes, but I'd be interested to see how others think. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just include the number of registered republican voters (35,739,952). Also the info-box should not refer to them as members. Party members are expected to pay dues, attend meetings and support both their party and its ideology. For someone unfamiliar with U.S. politics, it would seem odd that both U.S. parties had higher membership levels than their counterparts in totalitarian countries, and many times more members than parties in other liberal democracies. TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I have major issues with using party member data at all. Each state has different rules on party membership, and some have none at all. Toa Nidhiki05 02:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, state parties are a incontiguous patchwork or rules and classifications. DN (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we count "leaners" as members?