Wikipedia

Talk:Republican Party (United States): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Info box at top of article
 
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
*[[Talk:Republican Party (United States)/archives1]]
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|blp=other|1=
{{WikiProject United States |importance=top |UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=top |political-parties=yes |political-parties-importance=top |libertarianism=yes |libertarianism-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums }}
}}
{{FailedGA|14:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)|topic=Politics and government|page=1|oldid=1214273454}}
{{American English}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader={{aan}}
|maxarchivesize=100K
|counter=42
|minthreadsleft=3
|algo=old(30d)
|archive=Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
__TOC__
 
{{old move|date=25 March 2025|destination=Republican Party|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1283373875#Requested move 25 March 2025}}
 
== Center-right to right wing ==
==My removal==
I've removed the following:
: although there are differing views on various issues
because it seemed, essentially, to needlessly soften the statement it follows. Even Lincoln Chafee or Rob Simmons (moderate Northeastern Republicans) would agree that the GOP is the more conservative of the two major parties. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 17:18, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 
Center-right to right wing would be much more accurate. Don’t let Donald Trump mark the whole Party’s history.
==Italics or quotation marks==
the Republican platform headers I think appear best if italicized, is there a rule about this sort of approach? [[User:Salazar|Salazar]] 21:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] indicates italics for titles of works or when using words as words. I do not think these platform headers qualify as titles of works (if you can show that they are publications under those names, then that's different, but I'm not aware of this being the case). I think quotation marks are the appropriate style here as the remarks are likely quotations from the platform (or of people speaking or writing about the platform). [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 22:26, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
i like your name, that's how I feel most of the time. Thanks for the pointer to the Manual of Style, that's exactly what I wanted. The relevant part:
 
Ronald Reagan was definitely centre-right and not right wing, and [[George H. W. Bush|George H.W Bush]] was even somewhat of a centrist. [[User:דולב חולב|דולב חולב]] ([[User talk:דולב חולב|talk]]) 03:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works, such as the following, should be enclosed in quotation marks (""):
 
:Though Republicans like G. H.W. Bush were much more center-right, the "Ideology" classification is meant to state the ''current'' ideology of the party. Which is of course right-wing populism/far-right under Trump. [[User:Be-Plants|Be-Plants]] ([[User talk:Be-Plants|talk]]) 03:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
* articles, essays, or papers
::Ok… I think the page should represent the Party’s history too but fine. [[User:דולב חולב|דולב חולב]] ([[User talk:דולב חולב|talk]]) 05:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
* chapters of a longer work
:::The page ''does'' represent the party's history, briefly under the [[Republican Party (United States)#History|#History]] section and more in-depth in [[History of the Republican Party (United States)|its own article]]. In the lead and under the political positions sections and basically everywhere outside of the section dedicated to the party's history should contain up-to-date information about the party as it currently stands. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 11:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
* episodes of a television series
::::@[[User:Be-Plants|Be-Plants]] [[Special:Contributions/2A00:1FA1:43C9:D1BC:0:4D:35E0:CF01|2A00:1FA1:43C9:D1BC:0:4D:35E0:CF01]] ([[User talk:2A00:1FA1:43C9:D1BC:0:4D:35E0:CF01|talk]]) 00:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
* short poems
:Reagan was definitely right wing and contemporaneously recognized as such. [[User:Jaydenwithay|Jaydenwithay]] ([[User talk:Jaydenwithay|talk]]) 16:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
* short stories
::Since when?
* songs
::He is THE example for a [[Neoliberalism|Neo liberal]].
::Definitely very liberal and not a big nationalist. [[User:דולב חולב|דולב חולב]] ([[User talk:דולב חולב|talk]]) 19:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::This is getting very silly. Please stop these tendentious proteststions. The infobox should say "right wing" only. The body can describe the various factions and their position in the American Overton window, hopefully also describing that the American Overton window skews right of the rest of the liberal representative democracies of tne world. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::This is not silly, I think the inbox should also represent the Party’s history and many people think the same, we disagree, but as we know Wikipedia is a dictatorship of the admins opinions and ideology so it doesn’t really matter. [[User:דולב חולב|דולב חולב]] ([[User talk:דולב חולב|talk]]) 22:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::And there are still Center-right individuals and factions in The Republican Party, who deserve to represented. So it’s not all right wing. [[User:דולב חולב|דולב חולב]] ([[User talk:דולב חולב|talk]]) 22:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Center-right ''is a right-wing ideology'' - just not an extreme one - what are you even saying? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's completely ridiculous to claim that {{tq|Wikipedia is a dictatorship of the admins opinions and ideology}}, admins very rarely have any final judgement in content disputes, at least not in their capacity as admins. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and the consensus in this instance is '''against''' the inclusion of "centre-right" in the infobox. Please drop this. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 13:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
:Just because the person who holds the highest political position in the party might lean a certain way, doesn’t mean many in the party don’t lean other ways. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have many moderates and far right or left individuals, but it makes more sense to use a term like centre right to right wing to show how there are many opinions. This is the case in many two party systems [[User:NathanBru|NathanBru]] ([[User talk:NathanBru|talk]]) 03:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
::What difference are those "moderate" Republicans making now? I see nothing. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 03:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Just because people feel as if moderates or extremists don’t make a difference, they do. And both the Democratic Party and the Republicans Party have large coalitions, filled with millions of people, each person with a different perspective. It’s a result of the two party system, and while in many multi party nations, we can describe parties with just one word, it is harder in two party systems, thus the need for centre-right to right-wing. [[User:NathanBru|NathanBru]] ([[User talk:NathanBru|talk]]) 14:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
::Trump is the Republican party. Trumpism is the primary ideology of the party. In my opinion, instead of readding center right, we should be adding far right to the infobox [[User:EarthDude|EarthDude]] ([[User talk:EarthDude|talk]]) 04:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 04:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I support the idea of adding a mention of "far-right" in principle, but reliable sources are needed first to back up the claim and probably another RfC. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 04:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
::::We describe [[Trumpism]] as right wing. Right now the Republican Party IS Trumpist. So it is right wing. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]])
:::::Only in the info-box and it's unsourced. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed. The consensus is right-wing. We can change that to include center-right or far-right, but we ''need'' reliable sources to do so. Otherwise, people are simply sharing their opinions and perceptions here which are not relevant to Wikipedia. [[User:Be-Plants|Be-Plants]] ([[User talk:Be-Plants|talk]]) 18:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::I did a search myself, and there doesn't seem to be a large array of articles discussing this issue. I did find a few, all supporting either right-wing or far-right:
:::::[https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/31/the-republican-party-has-lurched-towards-populism-and-illiberalism The Republican Party has lurched towards populism and illiberalism]
:::::[https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/01/30/curtis-yarvins-ideas-00201552 Curtis Yarvin’s Ideas Were Fringe. Now They’re Coursing Through Trump’s Washington. - POLITICO]
:::::[https://www.wired.com/story/us-authoritarian-movement-future/ The Uniquely American Future of US Authoritarianism | WIRED]
:::::This ''Time'' article was interesting as well, highlighting a more naunced view: [https://time.com/6563669/tina-nguyen-maga-diaries-interview/ Tina Nguyen on Her Book 'The MAGA Diaries' | TIME]
:::::Despite specifically looking for them, I found zero reliable sources arguing that the modernday GOP is center-right.
:::::In light of this search, I believe either "right-wing" or "right-wing to far-right" are the most appropriate labels. That's the clear consensus among reliable sources. [[User:Be-Plants|Be-Plants]] ([[User talk:Be-Plants|talk]]) 18:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::In that case, after some more time has passed (no less than a month or so imo), I'd like to interrogate an RfC about adding far-right as a descriptor. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 23:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Pointless to bring up this topic again, if it was rejected multiple times. [[Special:Contributions/62.217.184.233|62.217.184.233]] ([[User talk:62.217.184.233|talk]]) 15:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That's not how Wikipedia works, [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. But like I said, there's currently consensus and there shouldn't be another discussion for at least a month. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 15:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Personally under my "Original Research", I would say "Right-Wing to far-right" but obviously that would breach Wikipedia guidelines and there isn't enough reliable sources to call it "Far-right" compared to many reliable sources calling it "Right-wing". [[User:Mhaot|Mhaot]] ([[User talk:Mhaot|talk]]) 07:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That makes no sense. Right-wing includes the far-right. "Right-wing to far-right" makes about as much sense as "arm to pinky finger". --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 16:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Right-wing genarally means mainstream right views. Far-right on the other hand, refers to extreme right views. While right-wing is sometimes used as an umbrella term, being more specific helps, as in this case. [[User:EarthDude|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkviolet">'''EarthDude'''</span>]] ([[User talk:EarthDude|<span style="Color: navy">''wanna''</span> <span style="Color: green">''talk?''</span>]]) 05:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I've always understood usages of right-wing to be in the broad sense. If you want to be more specific, you need to be more specific with both terms. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 11:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::One thing I will say is that I see a lot of opinions, but you always need to remember perspective. Even if you don’t like a person, policy, or party, we in Wikipedia have to remember to maintain un unbiased view in our editings. Much of what I’m seeing is people unhappy with Trump and wishing to label the party he is a member of as far-right as a result. It doesn’t make sense to do so just because you don’t like someone, and it ought to be reverted back to Centre-right or centre-right to right-wing. [[User:NathanBru|NathanBru]] ([[User talk:NathanBru|talk]]) 02:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Agreed, it needs to be handled objectively. Do you have any sources calling them "center-right"? I looked and only really found sources that said "right-wing" or discussed the growing influence of the far-right. [[User:Be-Plants|Be-Plants]] ([[User talk:Be-Plants|talk]]) 03:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::We don’t need to lie just because some of Trump’s supporters like to think that Trumpism has anything to do with the center-right. If they want Wikipedia to stop describing them this way they can ask their party to stop calling the center-right “RINO’s” and running them out of the party, and then get Reliable Sources to report on that. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 03:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
 
== The Speaker of the House should be placed above the Senate Majority Leader ==
They "chapters of a longer work", within the Republican platform. So it is correct to have them in quotation marks, not italics as I thought. [[User:Salazar|Salazar]] 23:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 
Per the order of precedence the Speaker outranks the Senate Majority Leader and should therefore be placed above the later in the infobox. [[User:Lucky9808|Lucky9808]] ([[User talk:Lucky9808|talk]]) 04:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
==New table==
:I respectfully disagree. The Senate is the upper chamber, while the House is the lower chamber. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
What are peoples thoughts about the new table that was added by 192.139.245.254 and removed by Evercat? ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_%28United_States%29&oldid=9655002 Version with table])
::Right but the Senate Majority Leader is not technically the Senate counterpart of the Speaker, that is the President of the Senate i.e. the Vice President. I agree the Vice President should be placed above the House Speaker and that the Senate Majority Leader should be placed above the House Majority Leader, and the order of precedence affirms this as well. However the Speaker, as the presiding officer of the the House should be above any Senate floor leader. [[User:Lucky9808|Lucky9808]] ([[User talk:Lucky9808|talk]]) 16:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Lower in the infobox, we list (on all US party pages) the Senate 'above' the House of Representatives. That consistency should be maintained. Note - These are political party pages, not government pages. PS: But let us wait for others to give input. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
::::This isn't about the houses, it's about specific offices. The Speaker of the House outranks the Senate Majority Leader. This is completely separate from the Upper vs Lower house designations. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 16:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::I agree--this is about individual offices rather than the respective chamber of Congress. In addition, the Speaker is a constitutionally defined office and in the presidential line of succession, while the Senate Majority Leader is neither constitutionally defined nor in the line of succession. [[User:Aoi|Aoi (青い)]] ([[User talk:Aoi|talk]]) 19:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::I agree. This is about positions in the party, not the legislature. In comparison, J.D. Vance, as VP, outranks everyone else in the [[Republican National Committee]], but as Finance Chair, he is listed as the third most important member of the organization. Historically, this came up in charts of the British Army, where titled junior officers sometimes had higher social rank than senior officers. Regimental lists of officers would always list officers according to military rather than social rank. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 21:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
 
== Far right ==
I liked it; it summarized the formation of the party and its current political position. If it was added to all political parties worldwide, it would make comparison easier.--[[User:BaronLarf|BaronLarf]] 13:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
The republican party are the anti-democracy, antisemitic, islamophobic, racist, homophobic party. They should be called fascists and nazis because that is what they are. [[Special:Contributions/5.100.76.16|5.100.76.16]] ([[User talk:5.100.76.16|talk]]) 04:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
:It had been added to many other parties in several other countries, a table was also added for the Democratic Party. I know the term "conservative" is arguable, but the GOP seems to be consistently conservative these days in most aspects. Fascism is going way too far, as one vandal had written, although some on the left may argue.
 
:Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Talk%3ARepublican+Party+%28United+States%29%2F&search=Far-right&ns0=1 all the previous discussions] and please provide reliable sources [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
== Culture war ==
::None of these are official positions of the Republican Party. There are certainly large and increasingly powerful far right factions within the party but as a whole, but the party is still best defined as right-wing as per the established consensus. The fascist and Nazi labels are political attacks and not facts supported by any reliable sources. As editors we must put aside our political views and focus solely on facts [[User:Lucky9808|Lucky9808]] ([[User talk:Lucky9808|talk]]) 01:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
:::are you fucking blind? they are FAR RIGHT WING FASCIST. Get your head out from under your rock and look out your window for fuck sakes. [[Special:Contributions/174.91.60.68|174.91.60.68]] ([[User talk:174.91.60.68|talk]]) 22:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Please watch your tone. I understand and respect your strong opinions on this topic but this is a place for facts not opinions. Please present your arguments in a respectful manner with evidence to back them up. [[User:Lucky9808|Lucky9808]] ([[User talk:Lucky9808|talk]]) 22:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Lucky9808 would ask for sources that the GOP is fascist even while being dragged off by ICE to a deportation camp. [[Special:Contributions/174.91.60.68|174.91.60.68]] ([[User talk:174.91.60.68|talk]]) 22:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::There is no need for you to levy personal attacks against me or any other editor. I simply want to preserve this page's accuracy and neutrality. [[User:Lucky9808|Lucky9808]] ([[User talk:Lucky9808|talk]]) 22:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I will echo both responses that [[User:Lucky9808|Lucky9808]] said above. Discussions are to be focused on the article and with the goal of providing content that's [[WP:NPOV|neutral]], [[WP:V|verifiable]], and of the highest quality possible to the reader. Any discussions that are outside of that goal is inappropriate, and [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] will not be tolerated. If any personal attacks continue, they will be handled in a manner that's [[WP:BLOCK|appropriate and necessary]] in order to make sure that they stop, and that harmonious discussion on this page can continue. Please let me know if any more personal attacks occur, and I'll be happy to take care of it. :-) [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 22:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:This IP is blocked by the way. The discussion can be closed [[Special:Contributions/62.217.184.233|62.217.184.233]] ([[User talk:62.217.184.233|talk]]) 14:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
::I'm reopening the discussion. The GOP is FAR RIGHT FASCIST and should be classified as such. Can't believe how blind and obtuse you people are. Wikipedia is a joke. [[Special:Contributions/174.91.60.68|174.91.60.68]] ([[User talk:174.91.60.68|talk]]) 22:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:The Republican Party's Official stance may not be far-right, however most of their recent actions, and "''Project 2025"'' would merit at least a mention of far-right politics in the "Factions" sub-section [[User:PumaZ01d|PumaZ01d]] ([[User talk:PumaZ01d|talk]]) 03:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::You will need sources that explicitly say that those actions would actually represent far-right politics [[Special:Contributions/62.217.184.233|62.217.184.233]] ([[User talk:62.217.184.233|talk]]) 11:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:62.217.184.233|62.217.184.233]]
:::I would put the "Project 2025" PDF as a source but heritage.org is on the Wikipedia blacklist
:::https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-deportation-undocumented-immigrants-policy-change-rcna213356
:::https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/11/number-of-australian-journalists-hit-by-us-law-enforcement-during-la-protests-climbs-to-four
:::https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2232&context=ulj
:::https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-rise-to-power
:::https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2023/03/30/far-right-news-sites-have-been-radicalizing-republican-politicians-and-are-dividing-the-party/
:::https://www.pennpress.org/9780812298109/far-right-vanguard/
:::https://www.britannica.com/topic/Republican-Party/Policy-and-structure
:::reminder that this would be in the "factions" section, not the main section [[User:PumaZ01d|PumaZ01d]] ([[User talk:PumaZ01d|talk]]) 16:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Sources? Look outside. That's like needing to provide evidence that your house is on fire while sitting int he living room surrounded by flames. [[Special:Contributions/174.91.60.68|174.91.60.68]] ([[User talk:174.91.60.68|talk]]) 22:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
 
== Re-add center-right to far-right? ==
[[Culture War]] was removed as a red link. The article actually exists at [[Culture war]], but I'm not sure if I should add it in myself as it doesn't seem quite directly relevant like [[Republican National Convention]]. If someone wants to add it back, it would probably fit better integrated into the narrative of the text than as a 'see also'.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 06:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 
Congressionally this makes the most sense. Thomas Massey to MTG? Wouldn’t say both of them sit in the same “right-wing” category [[Special:Contributions/66.228.30.51|66.228.30.51]] ([[User talk:66.228.30.51|talk]]) 07:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
== Only one ideology? ==
 
:I don't follow your reasoning. How are center right and far right not both part of the totality of the right wing? --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 22:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Why is only one ideology of the party listed? We know that the two major political parties in the united states are "catch all parties" as is stated under the political section of the article on the [[United States]] itself. Conservatives are not the only people in the republican party, shouldn't we at least have some of the ideologies of the other factions listed? Such as [[Libertarianism]] and [[Christian Democracy]]?
::Maybe I misunderstood the definition of “Right-Wing”, but isn’t it the middle of the Center-of-right spectrum? Like populism is right-wing. [[User:Char3290|Char3290]] ([[User talk:Char3290|talk]]) 22:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I believe the IP was talking about the infobox where it lists the GOP as 'right-wing' instead of 'center-right to far-right.'
:::But center-right definitely isn't correct for the current party, they call center-right people RINOs and they have very little influence these days. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 20:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::::The IP was me— accidentally contributed to this without being logged into my account. Sorry for the confusion [[User:Char3290|Char3290]] ([[User talk:Char3290|talk]]) 21:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
::Can we change Democratic Party to Left-Wing instead of center-left? [[Special:Contributions/67.0.206.75|67.0.206.75]] ([[User talk:67.0.206.75|talk]]) 01:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
:::It's only by US standards that the Democratic Party is left wing at all. Globally (and this IS a global encyclopaedia) it's centrist to mildly right wing. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 03:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
:::No, because they aren't. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 04:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The Republican Party is definitely more right wing that the Democratic Party is left wing. If anything we should change them to center to center left. But we can discuss this on that talk page if needed. [[User:Lucky9808|Lucky9808]] ([[User talk:Lucky9808|talk]]) 03:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
 
== Repeated reversions to addition of lead content with no explanation ==
: It's accurate enough. Listing all of the factions is an exercise in verbosity that doesn't add anything, really. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 18:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 
[[User:Springee|Springee]], you have twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1305452385 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1306928661 2] reverted the addition of content to the lead providing no explanation other than it should be talked about and agreed to by consensus first. As I explained and is elaborated upon per [[WP:DRNC]], no Wikipedia policy allows for removal for the sole reason that an edit has not been talked about or agreed to by consensus. Please explain your reasoning for removal below.
:Not to mention that true libertarians in the Republican Party are few, far between, and generally conservative in emphasis. Christian Democrats, self-avowed or otherwise, simply don't exist in the United States. [[User:Radicalsubversiv|'''R'''adical'''S'''ubversiv]] [[User talk:Radicalsubversiv|'''E''']] 18:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 
(Also [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]], thank you for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=1306938140 restoring] the edit but this was not a part of the contemporary demographics sentence mentioned by the hidden note.) [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 15:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: An entire section of this article says otherwise, the "Factions in the Republican Party" bascially describes the Cristian right as Chritian Democrats. And there are eight listed house representatives as members of the liberty caucus, that many deserve to be mentioned in the ideology section. And considering that libertarianism or government non-involvement in general is what garners many of the western voters.
 
:Thanks for the correction. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 15:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::The factions article, which has always been of dubious accuracy and neutrality, says nothing about Christian Democrats. Also, 8 out of a caucus of 232 (7 of whom vote with the conservative caucus leadership on virtually everything) do not signify a major ideological divide within the party. Finally, please [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your comments]]. [[User:Radicalsubversiv|'''R'''adical'''S'''ubversiv]] [[User talk:Radicalsubversiv|'''E''']] 19:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*Anyway let's just talk about the sentence. You're correct that [[WP:DRNC]] applies but beyond that, the sentence in question summarizes the body and is extensively sourced; coverage is also [[WP:SUSTAINED]] at this point going back several years, so it can't really be called recentism. It's simply extremely heavily sourced in high-quality sources that the Republican party had a noticeably illiberal shift, with roots going back decades but which accelerated under Trump; it is, going by most sources, one of the most important developments on the subject in the 21st century. We should ''also'' expand on it in the body but that's not a reason to omit it from the lead. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
 
:BootsED, first, per BRD, you should not restore the material absent consensus on the talk page. Such a contentious claim needs strong support. As for adding it to the lead, what are the sources that make it due for the lead in an article that is meant to be a summary of a ~150 year old political party? Critically, do sources agree this natural should be included in a summary vs just in a section about Trump era politics and is this a claim that is disputed? If yes, why isn't that mentioned? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
==Totally Disputed and Why==
::Sources very seldom comment on whether something should be included in a Wikipedia article summary, I wouldn't expect to see that here, either.
::And is it actually disputed? I know that people don't like hearing it, but are there any sources that say lying about crime and sending in the National Guard to intimidate citizens is actually a liberal position? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 17:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::How do we decide this view is DUE for the lead if we don't have other summary sources to follow? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't know what you mean by 'summary source'. If you can find a source that says 'this information should not be in the lede of a Wikipedia article about the party' then we can take a look at it.
::::In the meantime, is it actually disputed, or do some people just not like it? Those aren't the same thing. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 17:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::The question is if the natural is due for the lead. That wisdom could be answered if we have summary sources that put this in their summary of the GOP. It would also be helpful to see if sources dispute the claim. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::<s>You claimed it was disputed already, what source did you base that on?</s>
::::::And are you planning on answering the question about a 'summary source' is? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 17:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I asked if this assessment is disputed. I did find a source that said both sides are moving in that direction this it wouldn't be something uniquely due for this article's lead. A summary source is a high level source that summarizes the same topic as our article. It helps us judge what weight others have assigned to various topics and would suggest if we are over/under weighting some aspect. Looking through our article I found only a brief mention of illiberal in the body which suggests the claim is undue for the lead. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 20:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::There seem to be a number of sources on it in the article, and from the archived discussions it seems to have been compromise language when people thought that 'authoritarian' or 'fascistic' might have been premature.
::::::::I've seen no sources that support that the GOP under Trump hasn't been moving towards violent authoritarianism. If the GOP doesn't want people to mention things like that, they should stop claiming in court that the president doesn't have to follow the laws or that due process doesn't actually apply to everyone. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 20:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::To be fair, the erosion of [[civil liberties]] in the United States can be traced back to the [[September 11 attacks]]. See the article on [[police brutality in the United States]]: "After the [[September 11 attacks|attacks of September 11, 2001]], [[human rights]] observers raised concerns about increased police brutality in the U.S. An extensive report prepared for the [[United Nations Human Rights Committee]], published in 2006, stated that in the U.S. the [[War on Terror]] "created a generalized climate of impunity for law enforcement officers, and contributed to the erosion of what few accountability mechanisms exist for civilian control over law enforcement agencies. As a result, police brutality and abuse persist unabated and undeterred across the country."<ref name="War on Terror">{{cite web |title=In the Shadows of the War on Terror: Persistent Police Brutality and Abuse in the United States |url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/usa/USHRN15.pdf |last1=Ritchie |first1=Andrea |last2=Mogul |first2=Joey |publisher=[[Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights]], [[United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination]] |date=December 2007 |access-date=December 26, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171215161444/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/usa/USHRN15.pdf |archive-date=December 15, 2017 |url-status=live }}</ref> The culture of impunity for police is reinforced by law enforcement operations with the FBI's [[Joint Terrorism Task Force]], which undertakes "disruption" actions against suspects instead of investigations and criminal charges. During the "war on terror", there have been noted increases in enforcement power for officers. By 2007, discussion on the appropriateness of using [[racial profiling]] and force against people of color has decreased since 9/11.<ref name="War on Terror"/> Racial profiling specifically increased for those of South Asian, Arab, Middle Eastern, and Muslim origins.<ref name="War on Terror" />" [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 20:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::What source? Can you provide it?
::::::::If anything, the illiberal claim should probably be expanded a bit as others have mentioned. The sources provided for the illiberal sentence already mention the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]], [[attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election]], [[Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 United States presidential election]], and [[Election denial movement in the United States|election denialism]]. The body also mentions these events as part of the party's illiberal drift. So it seems [[WP:DUE|due]] that per [[WP:SUMMARY|summary style]], the overall theme of illiberalism should be mentioned which covers all of these events mentioned in the body. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk:BootsED|talk]]) 12:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
 
== GOP official website ==
Compared with the article on the Democratic Party, this article has an entirely different tone. I don't whether this is intentional or not but it makes for a less than useful reference tool for those doing research on the GOP.
 
Is the official website the GOP geo-blocked?
The following is a good example of what I mean:
''Original primary political principles included deregulated free-market capitalism, states' rights, and a strong [[national defense. While these issues are still the stated focus of the party, new issues such as the privatization of Social Security, and opposition to both same-sex marriage and federal funding for abortions have become new priorities for many in the party.''
 
When I try to visit their official website by clicking the link in the infobox it does not take me to their website instead what happens is that a message shows up that says "The requested URL was rejected. Access Forbidden"
Aside from being very poorly written, it is not true to say that the Republican party's original primary political principles included "deregulated free-market capitalism." Indeed the GOP legislated or supported the creation of many government agencies and under Nixon, as just one example, saw reasonably tough enforcement of securities, anti-trust laws etc. This is just simplistic, and seems written by someone who is an opponent of the Republicans.
 
So is it possible that one can not access the website outside of the United States?
States' rights? Perhaps this is considered important now by many Republicans but it was really the Dems who stood for states' rights, particularly in relation to the right of the Southern states to enslave African Americans. So that's wrong too.
 
For reference I reside in Sweden which located in Europe. [[User:Kaffe och bullar|Kaffe och bullar]] ([[User talk:Kaffe och bullar|talk]]) 11:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Privatization of social security? Hardly a neutral description of Republican policy. Indeed, President Clinton's commission on social security recommended private accounts in addition to the government system. So was he advocating a "privatization" of social security? No.
 
== Illiberalism? ==
Opposition to samesex marriage and abortion as the primary political principles of the GOP. Sure they're important issues to many Republicans but they are by no means universally held or primary political principles of any kind.
 
Illiberalism is not neutral, nor factual, and should be either removed or given more context or evidence that it exists. The word itself doesn't have a widely recognized definition. How can you shift towards something that is made up? [[Special:Contributions/98.96.3.113|98.96.3.113]] ([[User talk:98.96.3.113|talk]]) 23:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't know where to start with this article, it seems in need of a total re-write by a non-Republican, non-Democrat author with some skill. I hope such a person is out there and can improve this abysmal effort. [[User:Lagavulin|Lagavulin]] 19:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Your objections to me sound like more of a request for a NPOV article; I don't see any obvious factual errors. I agree with you that there are many npov objections, so I would vote for a <nowiki>{{npov}} tag, but not a {{TotallyDisputed}}</nowiki> tag. --[[User:BaronLarf|BaronLarf]] 19:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree. I'll change the tag, but if anyone really feels the other is necessary, go ahead and change it back. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 21:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
:If you feel that the definition of illiberalism isn’t clear enough, you need to go to a dictionary site, not Wikipedia.
Yes I have changed it back and should explain why.
:And as always, if you have a source that proves that the President isn’t sending the National Guard into cities that he’s upset with, you are welcome to provide the link. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
 
::Please review [[wp:CIVIL]]. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
It is a factual error to assert that "state's rights" (just one example of many) was a founding principle of the Republican party. In fact, by opposing slavery, they were insisting on federal determination of the issue. I could go on. And on. But what the article needs is a comprehensive re-write from someone without baggage. I'm not qualified to write it, I use Wikipedia regularly but haven't had time to contribute much.
:::Please stop dishonestly quoting policy as a personal attack. You should have learned this lesson after after your vexatious filing of a report at AE. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 02:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
 
::::Accusing editors of "dishonestly quoting policy" is also a violation of CIVIL. I did not say "personal attack". [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I guess a place to start is to consider what the Republicans stood for initially and compare and contrast with today perhaps. But I doubt they have ever stood for "unregulated free market capitalism", Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II have all presided over big governments with a lot of regulation of the market. So I just wonder where this stuff comes from and rightly or wrongly it makes me wonder about the intellectual integrity of the whole article.
:::::Please stop talking to me, including on my Talk page. I do not have any interest in being harassed by you again, especially after the last time. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 04:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
 
::::::What "last time"? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 10:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
[[User:Lagavulin|Lagavulin]] 23:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
:Hmmm. Well I wish you would go on (and on), because otherwise those problems that you see won't be sorted out. It's been my experience that articles don't get totally rewritten by themselves, but if you raise specific points we could all put our heads together and find sources etc. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 03:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
:I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. It seems Lagavulin has put these tags in other political articles as well, though without really establishing a dialogue. If you want to change the article in any way, [[Wikipedia:Be bold|be bold]] and do it, but just putting in a totally disputed tag and asking for someone to rewrite the article is not appropriate. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 06:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
:: Please don't remove a tag and please don't falsely claim I haven't opened a dialogue about the problems in this or other articles. I don't feel qualified to impose any changes when there are many other experienced editors equipped to do so. But as a regular wikipedia user, I think it is important I make a contribution however small.
::Most of what is said to be core Republican belief seems to be no such thing, as I pointed out above. Respond to that, if you wish, or even better improve the article but don't remove the tag and ignore the problem. It won't - and I won't - go away. [[User:Lagavulin|Lagavulin]] 21:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
::: I removed the tag because you were saying, basically, that this article is crap and we need a new one. It doesn't really work that way &ndash; if you see a problem, fix it or raise it on the talk page so it can be resolved. Saying that you don't think it's accurate, but you don't feel qualified to fix it, although you'll slap a <nowiki>{{TotallyDisputed}}</nowiki> tag on it, is the wrong thing to do. By all means, be bold and make changes where you see fit, but the tag should be used when the issues can be resolved by the editors involved, not when one editor wants an entirely new article because of nebulously defined issues. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 21:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
If the only dispute with the article is over this paragraph
 
''It's original primary political principles were a strong national defense along with libertarian beliefs such as deregulated free-market capitalism, low taxation, the protection of gun rights and smaller government. While these issues are still the stated focus of the party, new issues such as religiosity, Social Security reform and repair, and opposition to both same-sex marriage and abortion have become new priorities for many in the party.''
 
then that should be rewitten. What were and are the prinicals of the Republican Party?--[[User:Seanor|Seanor]] 18:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
I have proposed the removal of that paragraph in order to remove the disputed tag.
 
* It has a misplaced apostrophe
* I doubt the GOP's original principles had anything to do with a strong national defense or libertarianism or deregulated free-market capitalism.
* Yes they probably liked low taxation (like most Democrats) and gun rights and smaller government but are these "primary political principles"? Clearly not, they are just issues.
* "Religiosity" isn't exclusively Republican or universally Republican either.
* Social Security is another issue too, but not the central principle of the GOP
* I agree with the reference to marriage and abortion but again I doubt these are central principles either.
 
As it stood the best thing I could think of proposing with the paragraph - as it was central to my concerns about the bias in the article and the errors within it - was its removal. [[User:Lagavulin|Lagavulin]] 23:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
:Those concerns seem a bit too ... unsourced. These days religiosity is quite clearly identified with Republicanism, for better or for worse. I think the Social Security issue taps into an ideological segment of Republican thought that's against many New Deal innovations, but I agree with you that it's not necessarily indicative of the Republican party as a whole. (Indeed, many Republican senators are against partial privatization). On the whole, though, I think we really need to come up with some sources - deleting the whole paragraph because of doubts doesn't seem prudent. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 00:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
The paragraph is just wrong and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Writing a paragraph that accurately sums up one party's view is certainly beyond me but it doesn't mean that we should accept a highly negative and factually wrong assertion of what they believe in. The religiosity reference is particularly troubling, as it just not true to say the Republicans are dominated by religion or by the religious. Being conservative and religious are very different things as [[Richard Nixon]] demonstrated rather powerfully in his scandals. [[User:Lagavulin|Lagavulin]] 00:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
:I don't really understand your point about Nixon, but I disagree that the paragraph is negative. As for its accuracy, you'll have to come up with some sources if you want to convince anyone. You yourself have admitted you're no Republican party scholar (and neither am I), so I repectfully think that some sort of substantiation is in order. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 01:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
::It might be helpful to look at the early history of the GOP. The national party that nominated [[John C. Frémont]] in 1856 emphasized "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Though he lost the election, he set forth early stands on important issues like westward expansion, extension of slavery, certain civil liberties, and union activities. Certainly, his support of free distribution of western Federal properties is important, as is his opposition of slavery in the west. When Lincoln was elected 4 years later, abolitionism was in full stride, as were support for tariffs, the distribution of Federal lands for colleges, and larger Federal land division among settlers. These seem to be the views of the early party. There are some negative aspects I haven't included, such as Lincoln's suppression of Habeas Corpus, but only because I doubt one would think that central to the party (as in, it was a response to a perceived problem that is singularly applicable - times of civil discord). I'm open to comments. [[User:Rkevins82|Rkevins82]] 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
[[User:Weirdperson11]] has been tagging the article with the "totallydisputed" tag. I have removed it for the time being because, while it might be true that aspects of the article's accuracy and neutrality are in question, the user has not shown where. Instead, the user says that disputes are "all over the talk page" in the edit summary. All I could find is this section, from back in April 2005, that specifically mentions that the whole article is totally disputed. Additionally, in controversial situations it is best to avoid using [[edit summaries]] to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. That's why I think until the disputes are indicated clearly on this talk page, the tag should be kept off. --[[User:Howrealisreal|Howrealisreal]] 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==My removal and rewrite==
I've removed
:It's original primary political principles were a strong [[national defense]] along with [[libertarian]] beliefs such as deregulated [[free-market]] [[capitalism]], low [[taxation]], the protection of [[gun rights]] and smaller [[government]]. While these issues are still the stated focus of the party, new issues such as [[religiosity]], [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] reform and repair, and opposition to both [[same-sex marriage]] and [[abortion]] have become new priorities for many in the party. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 01:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 
I will now be rewriting something, but this was just inaccurate. The GOP favored high tariffs, for example--the South (and thus Democrats at the time) wanted lower tariffs so they could sell their cotton abroad. Also, "Social Security reform and repair" is hopelessly POV.
 
:Well that's good. I agree about social security. I do think that opposition to [[gay rights]] and [[abortion]] have indeed become new priorities for the party, as one can see in the 2004 platform (linked to in the article). Perhaps we could get some sources for founding philosophies. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 01:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
Sources? What're those, man? This is Wikipedia! (/snark) I'd been planning to read up on GOP history anyway, so this will give me a good excuse, but it won't happen for a few days/weeks. Of course, if someone else gets to it before me, I won't complain, but barring that, expect a decently-researched version of this article by mid-May. Finals and all. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 01:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 
:Why the change for NPOV on "partial privatization of Social Security?" The term seems accurate in the sense that the President's plan that Congress is addressing would be a change to part of the system, including a shift to private accounts invested in the private sector. Maybe just let me know who would object to the term so I can work on rewording. [[User:Rkevins82|Rkevins82]] 03:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
::Well even though the President himself has used the term, and long-time proponents have used "privatization" for years, the current Republican party line is "personalization," never privatization. Apparently public support for "personalization" is higher than "privatization." I think personalization just doesn't convey the actual meaning of the proposal; everyone has their own personal Social Security account already. The change would be to privatize part of it so that you could invest in the private sector. I don't know if any ''real'' people (i.e. not politicians) would object to "partial privatization," but I say it's worth a shot. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 18:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
== swastika image ==
 
I have commented out the swastika image. This is the work of a Anti-NPOV Democrat. [[User:Andros 1337|Andros 1337]] 03:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Where exactly is the swastika? I can't find it in the current revision or in the history. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 20:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:And to be honest, vandalism could be the work of any opposing political viewpoint such as socialism, anarchism, etc. as well as none at all - just a vandal. Let's not needlessly elevate any animosity here. [[User:Limeheadnyc|T<small>IMBO</small>]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<font color="black">(<small>T&nbsp;A&nbsp;L&nbsp;K</small>)</font>]] 20:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
:: I have used the revert function of the image. I guess the cache hasn't updated properly on my PC. I will now change back to the PNG. Here is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Republicanlogo.png Image:Republicanlogo.png]. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/d/d9/20050424032735%21Republicanlogo.png Revision 18:18, 23 Apr 2005 by Enpsychopedia] contains the swastika. [[User:Andros 1337|Andros 1337]] 20:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 
== 6-29-05 extensive historical detail added by RJensen ==
I have added extensive historical detail, for which I own the copyright and allow its use by Wikipedia. Richard Jensen
:Anything submitted to Wikipedia is also licensed to the public under the GFDL; see [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] for more information. Cheers. --[[User:BaronLarf|Baron]][[User talk:BaronLarf|Larf]] June 29, 2005 19:36 (UTC)
:I have reverted your changes. While I appreciate your extensive contribution to Wikipedia, your large insertions of text duplicates existing content in many places and breaks up the historical narrative (it's also important note that this is not the place for a detailed political history of the United States, but only of the GOP). I also have concerns about point-of-view -- the party systems chronology you have laid out is far from universally accepted, especially post-1932. Finally, please learn some of the style and technical practices for editing Wikipedia articles -- in particular, use line breaks only at the end of a paragraph, and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)|title and format section headings appropriately]].
 
:I am pasting your inserted text below, and will try to integrate some of it back into the article as appropriate. I encourage others to do the same.
 
:[[User:Radicalsubversiv|'''R'''adical'''S'''ubversiv]] [[User_talk:Radicalsubversiv|'''E''']] 29 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)
 
===RJensen's text===
 
The party emerged in 1854-56 out of a political frenzy, in all northern states, revolving around the Slave Power issue. The new party was so named because "republicanism" was the core value of American politics, and it seemed to be mortally threatened by the expanding "slave power." The enemy was not so much the institution of slavery itself, nor the mistreatment of the slaves. Rather it was the political-economic system that controlled the South, exerted disproportionate control over the national government, and threatened to seize power in the new territories. The fight was over allowing the new settlers of Kansas Territory to decide for themselves whether to adopt slavery, or whether to continue the Compromise of 1820 which explicitly forbad slavery there. The new party lost on this issue but in addition to most northern Whigs, it gained support from "Free Soil" northern Democrats who opposed slavery expansion. Only a handful of abolitionists joined. The Republicans adopted most of the modernization programs of the Whigs, favoring banks, tariffs and internal improvements, adding as well a demand for a homestead law that would provide free farms to western settlers. In state after state the Republicans outmaneuvered rival parties (the old Whigs, the prohibitionists, and the Know Nothings), absorbing most of their supporters without accepting their doctrines. The 1856 campaign, with strong pietistic Protestant overtones, was a crusade for "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, and Fremont!" Fremont was defeated by a sharp countercrusade, warning against fanaticism and the imminent risk of civil war. By the late 1850s the new party dominated every northern state. It controlled enough electoral votes to win, despite its almost complete lack of support below the Mason Dixon line. Leaders like William Seward of New York and Salmon Chase of Ohio were passed over in 1860 because they were a bit too radical in their rhetoric, and their states were safe enough. Abraham Lincoln was more moderate, and had more of an appeal in the closely divided western states of Illinois and Indiana.
 
The Republicans had not expected secession, and were baffled when seven cotton states broke away and formed their own country. The Lincoln administration, stiffened by the unionist pleas of conservative northern Democrats, rejected both the suggestion of abolitionists that the slaveholders be allowed to depart in peace, and the insistence of Confederates that they had a right to revolution and self governance.
 
Lincoln proved was brilliantly successful in uniting all the factions of his party to fight for the Union. Most Democrats were likewise supportive until the fall of 1862, when Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal. All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. How to deal with the ex-Confederates was a major issue; by 1864 "radical" Republicans controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off just barely. With the end of the Civil War came the upheavals of Reconstruction under Democratic President Andrew Johnson (who had bitter disputes with the Republicans in Congress, who eventually impeached him) and Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican. For a brief period, Republicans assumed control of Southern politics (due especially to the former slaves receiving the vote while it was denied to many whites who had participated in the Confederacy), forcing drastic reforms and frequently giving former slaves positions in government. Reconstruction came to an end with the election of Rutherford B. Hayes through the Compromise of 1877.
 
Andrew Johnson, proved too eager to reunite the nation, allowing the radicals to seize control of Congress, the party and the Army, and nearly convict Johnson on a close impeachment vote. Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen; most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption. The "Liberal Republicans," split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House, and formed "Redeemer" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence. The Compromise of 1877 resolved the disputed election of 1876 by giving the White House to the Republicans, and all the southern states to the Democrats. The GOP, as it was now nicknamed, contained into "Stalwart" and "Half-Breed" factions, but policy differences were slight; in 1884, "Mugwunp" reformers split off and helped elect Democrat Grover Cleveland.
 
In the north the Republican party proved most attractive to men with an ambitious vision of a more richer, more modern, more complex society and economy. The leading modernizers were well-educated men from business, finance, and the professions. Commercial farmers, skilled mechanics, and office clerks largely supported the GOP, while unskilled workers and traditional farmers were solidly Democratic. The moral dimension of the party attracted pietistic Protestants, especially Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and Quakers. By contrast the high church or "liturgical" denominations (Roman Catholics, Mormons, German Lutherans, and Episcopalians) were offended by Republican crusaders who wanted to impose their own moral standards especially through prohibition and control over public schools. Millions of immigrants entered the political system after 1850, and usually started voting within about five years of arrival. The Catholics (Irish, German and Dutch) became Democrats, but the Republicans won majorities among the Protestant British, German, Dutch and Scandinavian newcomers, and among German Jews. After 1890 new, much poorer ethnic groups arrived in large numbers -- especially Italians, Poles, and Yiddish-speaking Jews. For the most part they did not become politically active until the 1920s. After 1876 Southern voting was sui generis, with very few white Republicans, apart from pockets of GOP strength in the Appalachian and Ozark mountain districts. The party remained popular among African Americans, even as segregation minimized their political role. (They were allowed to select delegates to the Republican national convention.)
 
In 1888 for the first time since 1872, the Republicans controlled the White House and both branches of Congress. New rules of procedure in the House gave the Republican leaders (especially Speaker Thomas Reed) the ability to pass major legislation. New spending bills, such as generous pensions to Civil War veterans, coupled with the new McKinley tariff made the GOP the target of charges of "paternalism." Democrats ridiculed the "Billion Dollar Congress;" Reed shot back, "It's a billion dollar country!" At the grass roots militant pietists overcame the advice of more tolerant professionals to endorse statewide prohibition. In the Midwest reformers declared war on the large German community, trying to shut down their parochial schools as well as their saloons. The Republicans, relying too much on the old-stock pietistic coalition that had always dominated the party's voting base, was badly defeated in the 1890 off-year election, as well as the 1892 presidential contest. Alarmed professionals thereupon reasserted control over the local organizations, leading to a sort of bossism that (after 1900) fueled the outrage of progressives. Meanwhile a severe economic depression struck both rural and urban America in 1893--on Cleveland's watch. Combined with with violent nationwide coal and railway strikes, and the snarling factionalism inside the Democratic party, the upshot was a sweeping victory for the GOP in 1894. The party seemed invincible in 1896, until the Democrats unexpectedly selected William Jennings Bryan. Bryan's hugely popular crusade against the gold, the financiers, the railroads, the industrialists--indeed, against the cities--created a crisis for McKinley and his campaign manager Mark Hanna. Because of civil service reforms, parties could no longer finance themselves internally. Hanna solved that problem by directly obtaining $3.5 million from large corporations threatened by Bryan. For the next century campaign finance would be hotly debated. McKinley promised prosperity for everyone and every group, with no governmental attacks on property or ethnic groups. The business community, factory workers, white collar workers, and commercial farmers responded enthusiastically, and became a major component of the new Republican majority. As turnout soared to the 95 percent level throughout much of the north, Germans and other ethnic groups alarmed by Bryan's pietistic moralism, voted Republican.
 
Rejuvenated by their triumphs in 1894 and 1896, and by the glamor of a highly popular short war in 1898, the GOP rolled to victory after victory. The party had again grown too large, and factionalism increasingly tore it apart. The break came in 1912 over the issue of progressivism. President William Howard Taft favor conservative reform controlled by the courts; former president Theodore Roosevelt went to the grass roots, attacking Taft, bosses, courts, big business, and the "malefactors of great wealth." Defeated at the convention, Roosevelt bolted, and formed a third party. The vast majority of progressive politicians refused to follow Roosevelt's rash action, for it allowed the conservatives to seize control of the GOP; they kept it for the next 30 years. Roosevelt's quixotic crusade also allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to gain the White House with only 40% of the vote. After Wilson's fragile coalition collapsed in 1920, the GOP won three consecutive presidential contests by landslides. Herbert Hoover represented the quintessence of the modernizing engineer, bringing efficiency to government and economy. His poor skills at negotiating with politicians hardly seemed to matter when the economy boomed and Democrats were in disarray. When the Depression hit, his political ineptitude compounded the party's weaknesses. For four decades, whenever Democrats were at a loss for words, they could always ridicule Hoover.
 
The Great Depression sidelined the GOP for decades. The main causes were a sense of defeatism--the old conservative formulas for prosperity had lost their magic--and the success of the Democrats in building up liberal majorities that depended on labor unions, big city machines, federal relief funds, and the mobilization of Catholics, Jews and African Americans. On the other hand, middle class hostility to new taxes, and fears about a repeat of the First World War, led to a Republican rebound. Franklin Roosevelt's immense popularity gave him four consecutive victories, but by 1938 the GOP was doing quite well in off-year elections when FDR's magic was not at work. In 1948, taxes were high, federal relief had ended and big city machines were collapsing, but the unions were peaking in strength and they helped Harry Truman reassemble FDR's coalition for one last hurrah. 1948 proved to be the high water mark of class polarization in American politics; afterwards the differences narrowed between the middle class and the working class. In 1952 attack issues of Korea, Communism and Corruption gave war hero Dwight Eisenhower a landslide, along with a narrow control of Congress. However the GOP remained a minority party, and was factionalized, with a northeastern liberal element basically favorable to the New Deal welfare state and the policy of containing Communist expansion, versus Midwestern conservatives who bitterly opposed New Deal taxes, regulation, labor unions, and internationalism. Both factions used the issue of anti-communism, and attacked the Democrats for harboring spies and allowing Communist gains in China and Korea. New York governors Tom Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller led the liberal wing, while senators Robert Taft of Ohio and Barry Goldwater of Arizona spoke for the conservatives. Eisenhower represented internationalism in foreign policy, sidetracking the isolationism represented by Taft and Hoover. Richard Nixon was aligned with the eastern liberal GOP; he lost in 1960 because the Democrats had a larger base of loyal supporters, especially Catholics who turned out to support their coreligionist John Kennedy. The defeat of yet another candidate sponsored by the eastern "establishment" opened the way for Goldwater's 1964 crusade against the New Deal and Great Society. Goldwater permanently knocked out the eastern liberals, but in turn his crushing defeat retired many old-line conservatives. Goldwater in 1964 and independent George Wallace in 1968 ripped southern whites and many northern Catholics away from their Democratic roots, at the same time the Democratic commitment to civil rights won over nine-tenths of all African American voters. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society collapsed in the mid 1960s in a frenzy of violence and protest over racial hatreds, Vietnam, generational revolt, crime in the streets, burning inner cities, and runaway government. Nixon seized the moment. As president he largely ignored his party--his 1972 reelection campaign was practically nonpartisan. Even so his self-destruction wreaked havoc in the 1974 election, setting the stage for the Carter interregnum.
 
Jimmy Carter's presidency crashed in 1980. Foreign affairs were unusually salient, as public opinion saw failure in policy toward the Soviet Union, Iran, and Mideast hostages. Stagflation in the economy meant a combination of high unemployment and high inflation. Most of all there was a sense of drift or, worse, of malaise. The country craved leadership. Ronald Reagan led a political revolution, capitalizing on grievances and mobilizing an entirely new voting bloc in 1980, the religious right. Southern Baptists and other fundamentalists and evangelicals had been voting Democratic since the New Deal, because of their low educational and economic status, and their southern roots. Suddenly they began to react strongly against a perceived national tolerance of immorality (especially abortion and homosexuality), rising crime, and America's apparent rejection of traditional family values. Reagan had vision and leadership qualities that workaholic policy gurus could never understand. Under Reagan history happened--including a massive military buildup, the defeat of the anti-nuclear peace movement, and massive tax cuts. By 1984 inflation had faded away, unemployment eased, profits and fortunes were soaring Social Security had been reformed, and Reagan carried 49 states in winning reelection. Most astonishing of all was Reagan's revival of the Cold War, followed closely by the total collapse of the Soviet Empire. The best issue for the Democrats was the soaring national deficit--long a conservative theme--though their attacks doomed any hopes that they could ever return to the liberal tax and spend policies of yore. For the first time since 1932, the GOP pulled abreast of the Democrats in terms of party identification on the part of voters. Higher income people were more Republican, and still voted, while the lower income groups that had always been the mainstay of the Democratic party increasingly lost interest and simply did not bother to vote. By the 1980s a gender gap was apparent, with men and married women more Republican and single, divorced and professional women more Democratic. Thanks to the religious right, the GOP gained the votes of less-educated moralistic voters. Those gains were largely offset by a tendency toward Democratic positions regarding multiculturalism and tolerance of homosexuality and abortion among holders of college and postgraduate degrees.
 
George H.W. Bush rode to the White House on Reagan's popularity, and could himself claim smashing victories in the Cold War and the Gulf War. The public was baffled that Bush--so knowledgeable and decisive regarding Kuwait and East Berlin--seemed unconcerned about taxes, deficits and other domestic issues that bothered Americans far more. When independent Ross Perot polled an amazing 19% of the vote in 1992 by crusading against the deficit, Bush was doomed. However the GOP roared back in 1994, gaining control of Congress for the first time since 1952, as well as control of governors' mansions in nearly all of the major states. The rancorous leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich soured politics in Washington; he was unable to deliver on most of his "Contract with America." Meanwhile, as a party the GOP for the first time had built a national infrastructure, based on its ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from political action committees and individual donors. While ideological Republicans in Congress failed in their efforts to remove President Bill Clinton by impeachment, the party did cooperate with the president to sharply reduce welfare spending and end the federal budget deficit. The nomination of George W. Bush in 2000 signalled a turn to the states for leadership, as he became the first incumbent governor to win the GOP nomination since Tom Dewey in 1944 and 1948.
 
== Tlotz's edits. ==
 
Since he refuses to make his arguments here, apparently preferring deceptive edit summaries, I've made a section for him. Tlotz seems to advocate four noticable changes to this article's opening paragraphs:
#Including "the Party of Lincoln" as a name the GOP is referred to in media or common parlance.
#Removing any mention of moderate, "big tent," or "RINO"-accused Republicans.
#Removing any mention of the Log Cabin Republicans ("This is an article about the Republican party. If you want to write an article about gay republicans then do it.")
#Closing the introductory paragraphs with the following sentence: "The Republican Party stands for family values, smaller government and individual responsibility."
Opinions on his proposed edits? [[User:Shem Daimwood|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem Daimwood|(talk)]]</sup> 01:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:1. It is.
:2. original research not appropriate, include as a criticism in appropriate section if you must
:3. Tlotz correct
:4. This is accurate as to what it stands for. If you have a criticism or believe that it does not truly stand for these or believe that it stands for other things, add it. But no original research.
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 01:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
Shem, I am not refusing to do anything. I am just new to this...Didn't know how to use it.. thanks for showing me... I saw the beer bottles in your bio and the three times this year "quitting smoking" quote.. so you probably have bigger problems than me. Anyway this is suppose to be a place to learn... or so I was told... New information that you are not aware of should be welcomed not silenced.
 
:1. Google "Party of Lincoln" "Lincoln Day Banquet". Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Wisconsin, Kentucky etc. etc. etc. annually hold dozens of Lincoln Day banquets across their states honoring Lincoln and we are always characterized as the "Party of Lincoln" at these events. I have been to dozens of them...
:2. Didn't do that.
:3. Didn't do that. I did remove the lenghty paragraph that was obviously written by a leftist that editorialized gays in the GOP. The article is about the Republican Party. Not just gay republicans. It is a big tent.
:4. Uhhh whats wrong with that.
 
Noitall... how is Michael Steele? He got several standing ovations when he spoke in Idaho a couple years ago when he was the GOP chair in MD. He is a good man.
 
I see the term "original research" a lot... what does that mean...
 
--[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 09:16, July 15, 2005
 
:Original research: An edit should be based on a source (you can use your own words). Theories, speculation, and points of view (POV) are inappropriate. Of course, editors argue about all of these.
 
:Steele: He is making 2006 interesting, which is what I am interested in. There has not been a real Senate race in perhaps half a century. He is a very good speaker. We do not know yet how he will do in a debate, but I would guess he will come off well. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 03:29, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
--------------
noitall... thanks... If Steele is anything like he was in Idaho I think he would do well... Well he would do fine in Idaho! Don't know about MD...
 
Previously you said "original research not appropriate"... what did that mean... ??
 
--[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 09:38, July 15, 2005
 
:I replaced the chunk of text which mentioned Schwarzenegger's left leanings, Log Cabin, etc. I can't imagine how it's original research to state that the Log Cabin Republicans exist. I added two citations, one of which verifies that Arnold has been accused of being a "RINO". Please do not remove. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 03:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
:Funny... You don't want your thoughts removed but you have no problem removing mine. I see you are from the peoples republic of MA... and a business "student"... that says it all. Why do DEMS keep defacing the GOP site? Who cares if Arnold has been accused of being a RINO... If I lived in CA I would have voted for him. Also it is not just the Log Cabin Republicans its the laundry list of gay republicans you insist on making a focal point of the article... again this is a story about the party...not gay republicans.... why do DEMS have such a facination with Gay republicans??? Go write a why I hate Republicans story...
 
--[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 10:05, July 15, 2005
 
:A few responses for Tlotz. First, [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]. My beliefs are irrelevant, although I'm amused that your accusation comes mere hours after I've been accused of being a "bush fellating moron" in [[Talk:George W. Bush]]. Next, please do not remove verifiable information from encyclopedia articles. Removing references - as you did - is frowned upon here at Wikipedia. The [[Log Cabin Republicans]] article does no good if you remove all links to it. Please do not add your own slogans to the article - saying that the GOP stands for "family values, smaller government and individual responsibility" is not only POV, it's also meaningless. Many would disagree that the current deficit-spending GOP stands for smaller government. The phrase "smaller government" is actually nowhere to be found in the GOP platform which you linked. Last, please keep in mind the [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]]. Excessive reverting can get you blocked from editing. I'm happy to compromise with you here but I will not let you simply remove information which bothers you. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 04:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::Having seen Rhobite in action on several articles over a number of months, I, as a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, will vouch for him on this point. Ideologically, he is much closer to being a Bush-fellating moron than a Democrat. Of course, with defenders like me, he may want his enemies back. :) [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 05:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:Right back at you. You removed information that bothered you. Your sentence leading into your RHINO link is purely your POV and should be removed and has nothing to do with the "Party". You state: "However, during the administration of President Bush, there has been an increasing emphasis on cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives rather than accommodating certain moderate positions, " is your POV... where is your proof...if anything the appointments of Powell, Condi Rice, Rod Paige, Alberto Gonzalez, Janice Rogers Brown etc. etc. disproves your point... Bush has appointed more minorities than any other President. He made major inroads into the Black and Hispanic communities in 2004 with increased % in both. As far as excessive reverting right back at you again. You need to change your sentence leading into your Rhino link as you have no proof, it is not part of the platform and it is only your editorial POV.
 
Here is a Republican platform that believes in family values, smaller government and individual responsibility.[http://idgop.org/custimages/2004platform.doc Idaho GOP Platform] "WE ARE REPUBLICANS BECAUSE:We believe the strength of our nation lies with our faith and reliance on God, our Creator, the individual, and the family; and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored."
 
Also Why the facination with Gay republicans and RHINO's anyway... its a very small part of the party.
 
--[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 11:05, July 15, 2005
 
:Thanks, James. :) Tlotz, what does appointing minorities have to do with anything? The sentence says that Bush has brought together core social conservatives.. what does that have to do with minorities at all? I did link to a Newsmax article which discussed opposition to Arnold Schwarzenegger's candidacy on the basis of his "RINO" status. I understand that you're not familiar with the rules around here yet, but generally speaking, if something is a verifiable fact then it is not an NPOV violation. It is a fact that some Republicans have criticized the more liberal members of their party.. just like some Democrats have criticized politicians like Joseph Lieberman and Zell Miller.
 
:About the Idaho GOP statement you linked: Again, where does that mention small government? I feel like you're trying to put one over on us.. You have now used two non sequiturs: One, saying that Bush has appointed minorities, therefore it is not the case that he is "cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives". Two, saying that the Idaho GOP statement indicates support for small government. Neither conclusion follows from the premises. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 05:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
::On some of the points raised above:
::#"Party of Lincoln" is not widely used in the media, but rather is a favored self-description of Republicans, and should be labeled as such.
::#It's not original research or POV to mentioning the divergence of views within the party, including the "RINO" label applied by some Republicans to others. It ''is'' POV, however, to assert that any particular fact is "proof" of some disputed point that an editor wants to advance. Wikipedia articles state the facts; that includes reporting the facts about notable opinions but doesn't include telling the reader which opinion is better grounded. We can say that a particular Republican leader or entity has called the party a "big tent". We can also report that the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republicans for Environmental Protection both chose to withhold endorsement of Bush in 2004. My personal opinion is that such facts prove that the "big tent" slogan is pure spin, but my opinion also should not be included in the article.
::#To give a brief mention of the Log Cabin Republicans is not to evince a fascination with them or to give them undue prominence. They are indeed a small part of the party, and accordingly are a small part of the article.
::#There is certainly dispute about whether the Republican Party stands for smaller government. Ask Michael Schiavo. Ask [[José Padilla]], a U.S. citizen; the Bush administration seized him in Chicago and asserted a power to hold him in detention indefinitely, without a trial, without even bringing charges against him. Ask any woman who wants an abortion. Historically, the party has voiced support for smaller government and for emphasizing state power over federal power, but it has significantly departed from these principles in particular cases. Here again, we present the facts without drawing conclusions. (My conclusion is that most Republican leaders are a bunch of shameless hypocrites, but my opinion isn't notable and doesn't merit inclusion.)
::Tlotz, you're apparently new here. I suggest you read [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], a policy that's especially important for people editing on political subjects. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 05:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 
------------
:
-------------------
 
:Ah Rhobite... parsing words... I love it ....no you said "However, during the administration of President Bush, there has been an increasing emphasis on cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives rather than accommodating certain moderate positions, " Your link to RHINO is fine... your lead up to it is your POV... no proof... in fact it is false.. BUT there is Proof that GW has reached out people who have been disenfranchised by both parties. Besides your sentence leading up to the RHINO statement has absoutely nothing to do with the party... it's about GW... which is as you put it is a non sequitur... also if you take the time to read a couple more paragraphs of the IDGOP platform you will see : "We believe government must practice fiscal responsibility; and that taxpayers shall allow the government only the money necessary to provide appropriate functions. We believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and '''that the best government is that which governs least'''." That grasshopper is smaller government.
 
:A couple questions.
 
:1. Are you married?
:2. Do you have kids?
:3. Have you ever made a payroll or employeed anyone?
:4. Paid 100% of the health insurance for over 50 people?
:5. Over 30 years of age?
:6. In a 50% tax bracket? (fed, state and local combined)
 
If you answer yes to any one of those questions then you might be able to understand where I am coming from.
 
--[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 11:55, July 15, 2005
 
:JamesMLane... Spoken like a true attorney... where do I begin...
 
:1. Google "Party of Lincoln" you will see that the media uses the "Party of Lincoln" sufficiently enough.
 
:2. "However, during the administration of President Bush, there has been an increasing emphasis on cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives rather than accommodating certain moderate positions, " is a POV.. the link to RHINO is fine.
 
:3. Just because the Log cabin republicans and Republicans for EP "didn't" endorse Bush doesn't mean that it is not a big tent. While they Chose to not endorse GW they were never excluded from the party and were at the convention in NY. If you want to talk about exclusion one only has to look at how the DEMS excluded Bob Casey in 92.
 
:4 Ask Terri Schiavo... opps you can't we starved her to death.
 
:5 Ask any baby in the womb if they think abortion on demand is a good idea.
 
:6 My opinion is that most DEMS are spineless, self absorbed, baby boomer trustfunders who cannot wait for their parents to die so they can inherit their hard earned money. That DEMS believe in Free Speech...errr until you say something they disagree with... which has been most of this discussion... but my opinion isn't notable and doesn't merit inclusion.
 
::
 
--[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 12:25, July 16, 2005
 
:::Tlotz, I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but you're exhibiting a problem that many new editors have, one that gets in the way of their contributing to Wikipedia. The issue that's been raised is that your edits violate the NPOV policy, because they push a particular opinion. Your response is to argue that the opinion you're pushing is the correct one. That's the wrong focus. We aren't here to decide how the courts should have ruled in the Schiavo case, or what the law on reproductive rights should be. There are plenty of other places online to argue those points. We're here to craft a properly encyclopedic description of such controversies. Whether the Republican Party's position on these issues is morally superior to that of the Democrats is irrelevant. The question is how we should describe the Party's positions.
 
:::I'd say there's no legitimate dispute about generalizing how members of each major party are more likely to characterize themselves: Republicans as "pro-life" and Democrats as "pro-choice". Of course there are exceptions to both generalizations; for example, [[Harry Reid]], a pro-life Democrat, wasn't exactly excluded by Democrats, who chose him as their Senate leader. Still, as long as we make clear that neither party is monolithic on the issue, the generalization about their comparative positions is undisputed. On the other hand, the generalization that the Republicans stand for smaller government is not undisputed, so we don't assert it as fact, although we can report notable opinions on all sides of the question.
 
:::I'm glad to see you acknowledge that your opinion, like mine, doesn't merit inclusion. The consequence is that we don't say that the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans is "proof" that the party is truly a "big tent". We also can't say that Bush 41's religious intolerance ("I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n70/ai_10454668]) is "proof" that the party is ''not'' a big tent. That's just not how NPOV works.
 
:::As for "party of Lincoln", I did Google it. It's used by Republicans; when used by neutral media, it's often in quotation marks, indicating that they're reporting Republicans' usage of it. For example, the first hit is from ''USA Today'':
:::<blockquote>Ken Mehlman, the national party chairman, has been especially aggressive in urging African-Americans to consider a return to the "party of Lincoln." [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-12-opcom_x.htm] </blockquote>
:::Many other uses are from critics (Republican and non-Republican) who charge that the party has abandoned the ideals that would make the phrase accurate. ("This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." (U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT) [http://www.theocracywatch.org/terri_conservatives_times_mar23_05.htm]; "How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?" (''In These Times'') [http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/979/]) By contrast, "Grand Old Party" and, especially, "GOP" are more generally used as neutral descriptive terms. Our article must account for this difference in usage. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 09:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 
You are quite misguided on many issues:
:1. The "party of lincoln" is so pervasive that it more than notable, it is self identifying description. Perhaps even more important, it summarizes the history of the party. Just because some in the media do not use it does not make it not notable or important.
:2. Any "big tent" party (and that includes the Democrats) finds individual disagreement on single issues. And at any point in time, many candidates have been called a RINO for not delivering on a special interest issue.
:3. Big tent is POV if it only identifies Republicans.
 
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 14:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
 
 
 
JamesMLane... I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but Like most liberal elites you look at the sliver in another's eye and don't see the log in your own.
 
:1. You brought up Schiavo, not me and it was brought up in this discussion... not in an article. Do you believe in free speech?
 
:2. WHere is your denouncement of "However, during the administration of President Bush, there has been an increasing emphasis on cultivating deeper loyalty among core social conservatives rather than accommodating certain moderate positions, " Clearly someones POV and irrelavent to an article about the Republican party. Oh I forgot its a liberals POV so its ok...
 
:3. "Party of Lincoln" uhhh you are changing the intent like a lawyer. The original complaint is that it is not refered to by the media or commonly used... I have proven that while you may not like how it is used it is in fact used... and used a lot.. It bugs you liberals that Lincoln was a Republican...
 
:4 As for GOP being a neutral descriptive term ROFLMAO... do you really want me to show you some Howard Dean quotes... they are hardly neutral...
 
:5 As for Harry Reid... It was either him or Ted Kennedy! Man they must have held their noses when they picked Reid (also a Mormon).. who BTW has been very weak and ineffective. Republicans have run all over him.
 
From what I can see The biggest flamethrowers on Wikipedia are liberal, elite, propeller heads who think they are smarter than everyone else... here is the proof... If you look at "Bill Clinton", "Hillary Clinton", and "Howard Dean" clearly polarizing individuals and then look at "George Bush", "Dick Cheney".. what do you see??? On Bush and Cheney there is a big warning hand that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed" If you read the discussions you will see that it is a bunch of liberals trying to interject their "facts" (Like Cheney is a member of the American Nazi party) into the articles. Hill, Bill and Howie have no such problems. Why? Because for the most part Republicans are respectful, polite and not quite so angry. One look at the anger exibited by liberal dems these days is all you need to see. You're an angry bunch.
 
--[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 9:33, July 16, 2005
 
[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]], you may be right on many of your arguments and statements. You will be most successful in obtaining the consensus of your supporters if you are very specific as to your issues and arguments. I think your "party of Lincoln" argument is strongest. The big tent argument is weaker because NPOV, you can not in fairness say the the Republicans are a big tent and the Democrats are not. If you want to say big tent, you have state something like: From the days of Reagan, many Republicans have promoted a "big tent" policy . . . . Just trying to be helpful. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 16:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
:--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] Thanks for the advice... I appreciate it... I will keep it in mind... Yes I am still trying to figure all this out, but I am not trying to argue just trying to add to an article, and its very obvious that liberals on Wikipedia only want history to reflect their view. As for big tent I only said that the GOP is a big tent... I did not say the DEM party isn't... but now that you mention it.. the DEM party (as proof of their poor election performances lately) has been hijacked by the radical extreme left visa vis Hillary and Howie Dean. My dad is an 80 years old ex WWII and Korean War US Marine and never voted for a Republican till last year. The DEM party is not the party our parents (or Ronald Reagan) grew up with. As evidenced by their contributions to both the Republican and Dem articles on Wikipedia they are consumed by abortion on demand and gay marriage/rights. I wonder how long this sentence would last on the DEM article...."Even though Bill Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage act" in 1996 the Dem party is seen as champions of gay rights. Gay democrats include Barney Frank, Melissa Ethridge, blah blah blah"....
 
:Thanks again for your help. --[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 10:33, July 16, 2005
 
::Response to Tlotz:
 
::1. Yes, I believe in free speech, yours and mine. (You should note, however, that Wikipedia limits editors' freedom of speech in ways that would not be permitted to a government entity under the First Amendment.) The point I made was that, from the point of view of ''Michael'' Schiavo (and others), the Republican Party's stance on the Schiavo case was an example of the party's preference for bigger government, not smaller government. The issue isn't whether that characterization of the Republican Party is well taken. The issue isn't how the Terri Schiavo case should have been handled. The issue is whether it's NPOV to assert that the party favors smaller government, as if it were an incontestable fact along the lines of saying that Lincoln was elected in 1860. Clearly, it's not an incontestable fact. It would be POV to say "Republicans favor smaller government", just as it would be POV to say "Republicans are a bunch of shameless hypocrites". Therefore, we say neither.
 
::2. It's more difficult to determine how we should describe recent trends in the party's internal power struggle. I haven't denounced the passage you cite. You might also note, however, that I haven't praised it, and that I haven't re-inserted it into the article at any time. Despite these facts, you jump to accuse me of liberal bias. This is a good example of Noitall's advice to you to pay attention to specifics. As for what my position is, I'm still thinking about it. I'll try to give fair consideration to your arguments. It's harder to do so when serious arguments are mixed in with personal attacks and POV pressing; I'm only human. Among sensible editors, what would normally happen on Wikipedia is that consensus language would be reached that conveyed the information Rhobite wants included, but in a way that did not strike you as being POV.
 
::3 and 4. The media regularly use "GOP" as a neutral shorthand for the party. It is also used by detractors, like Dean, and by supporters; note that the RNC itself operates the [http://gop.com/ GOP.com] website. In sources like the Associated Press, it's routine to see a statement like "Reid's GOP counterpart, Bill Frist, said...." By contrast, the term "party of Lincoln" simply isn't used in those contexts. It's used in opinion commentaries.
 
::You believe, based on your two days of experience, that the worst offenders against fairness and common sense are the editors who disagree with you. I'm not surprised. Right-wing editors tend to reach that conclusion about left-wing editors, and vice versa. I don't edit articles about the Middle East, but it's my impression that pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors tend to blame the editors on the other side for ay unpleaantness. If there were two competing schools of thought about origami, we'd see the same thing.
 
::Response to Noitall:
 
::Your edit message says "this is not the page for anti-war messages". You reverted several edits, only one of which was about the merits of the war, and that one was perfectly NPOV. The party has positions on abortion and on the war. Neither position is held by all Republicans, however. The article listed some pro-choice Republicans. I followed the same pattern by naming an anti-war Republican. I'm restoring that edit and the others. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 17:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 
 
JamesMLane you obviously do not believe in free speech as you just took it upon your liberal elitest self to delete everything that I wrote on the Republican Article. You prove my point that liberal elitests believe in free speech errr... until you say something they disagree with. --[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 11:51, July 16, 2005
 
:JamesMLane- Administrator "Pharos" reverted back to my edits "Pharos (Talk) (Reverted edits by 69.177.7.234 to last version by Tlotz)" I guess someone a little higher up the food chain thinks they are ok....Would you anti-republican people please be courteous and leave them alone?? --[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 12:35, July 16, 2005
 
::Tlotz, please read [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. I sent you a message about this. Please only use the talk page to discuss the article itself. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 18:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
Rhobite: A blanket deletion of everything I wrote on the Republican page without comment, explanation or justification could only lead one to the conclusion that Free speech is being abrogated. Why no chastising of JamesMLane? Especially after an Admin reverted back to my edits??? Hmmmmmmmmm? When you can answer one of the questions above you may understand. I was young once too... (Still am). I am beginning to realize that Wikipedia is where the leftist Academic Elite hang out... too bad... it will be its downfall in the end. --[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 12:35, July 16, 2005
 
Just as I thought... I added this to the DEM page... very similar to the Log Cabin reference on the GOP page... It was removed within minutes.....no explanation... just smoked... DEMS, what do you have against the Stonewall Democrats?? Free Speech??? "The Democratic party has long been known for their support of gay rights. The Stonewall Democrats are to the Democratic party what the Log Cabin Republicans are to the Republican Party. Even though Bill Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage act" in 1996 the Democratic party is seen as champions of gay rights. Gay democrats include Barney Frank, Melissa Ethridge and Rosie O'Donnell." --[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 1:15, July 16, 2005
 
:Please stay on the topic of the Republican Party. You can discuss the changes in the Democratic Party article on its talk page. FWIW your addition to that article was not removed, it was rephrased and resectioned. I am sick of your misleading statements and your tired conservative cliches ("academic elite"). Read my lips Tlotz, this is not a debate site. Also, I am an admin too. Admins have no editorial control over the site - our opinion carries no more weight than yours. So please don't defer to someone's judgment simply because they are an admin. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 19:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
Rhobite... nice deflection... no comment on my blanket deletion.. hmmmmmmmmmm... If you care to read I told Noitall in a previous discussion on this board that if I added those comments to the dem boad they would be removed.... so then it would be appropriate for me to "rephrase and resection" the Rhino and Log Cabin comment on the GOP site... Thanks I will get right on it. this is too easy.. FYI the word Stonewall was removed from the DEM page... You liberals cannot have it both ways... --[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 1:35, July 16, 2005
 
:Again you are being disingenuous. You removed a whole sentence and replaced it with the words "log cabin republicans". Not the same as what Stirling did on the Democratic Party page. I'm done discussing with you, you are unable to have a rational discussion without whining about "you liberals". Simply going to revert your removals of information as much as I can. You can expect an RFC on your conduct soon. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 19:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
[[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]], I can understand your frustration with dealing with a new Wiki user who you obviously have many disagreements with. But threatening an RfC is inappropriate and violates Wiki policy. Please focus on educating him on policy and let him modify his edits accordingly. On the substance, he does not need to follow your advice, but he would be advised to follow Wiki policy on the method for making such edits. Please no more threats like that to a new Wiki user. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 19:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
::There's no rule against notifying a user that he is going to receive an RFC. Feel free to come to his defense in the RFC. There comes a point when one gets sick of being accused of being against "free speech", a "liberal academic elite", a resident of the "peoples republic of MA", "you liberals", etc. Frankly I don't care that he's a new Wiki user. I showed him the relevant policies.. he chooses to ignore them and continue his pointless personal remarks. Fine. I choose to ignore his (mostly fallacious) arguments and simply revert his edits. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 20:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
:Rhobite... My statement completely disappeared from the DEM page... no discussion... just gone... "Stonewall Democrats" poof... Clinton signing the defense of marriage act in 1996.. poof.... you liberals hate it when logic and common sense take over... "You can expect an RFC on your conduct soon"? So that is how you stifle free speech... nice...... You don't like what I have said so you will take your toys and play somewhere else... ROFLMAO....I know, being 20 is tough. Something you might want to think about... "When I was 20 I thought I had all the answers... when I turned 40 I realized that I didn't even know the questiosn." --[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 1:51, July 16, 2005
 
 
:Noitall. Like I have said all I am trying to do is contribute. I didn't start this discussion... I didn't attack first... I will defend myself... I can tell you that Rhobite the "business school student" couldn't work third shift at the company I own...
:I made an edit to the DEM page that was very similar to the Log Cabin comments on the GOP page and within 5 minutes they were gone... Rhobite says they were "rephrased and "Resectioned"... Bull they were completely wacked... I made a comment about the "Stonewall Democrats" (gay dems) Poof! GOne... Clinton signing the defense of marriage act in 96... Poof! Gone. It is very appearant to me that liberals on Wikipedia are trying to rewrite history and stifle the contributions of thos they disagree with... and I am not willing to let that happen. Any advice on how to work around this would be appreciated... because from where I sit in looks hopeless... --[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 1:51, July 16, 2005
 
::Tlotz, "free speech" in Wikipedia does not mean that you can prevent other people from editing your work ("mercilessly" if they deem it appropriate). Nor is there any requirement that a subsequent editor leave in at least some of what you wrote. I didn't pay attention to whether I was deleting everything you wrote, because if Editor #1 makes some changes, and Editor #2 thinks all the changes are ill-conceived, then Editor #2 may in fact delete them all. The issue isn't whether I deleted everything of yours (I still don't know or care whether I did); the issue is how the article should read. Your assertion that I made my edit "without comment, explanation or justification" is a manifest falsehood. My edit summary was "NPOV per talk; move platform discussion and Lincoln reference to appropriate sections in body of article". Thus the ES provided the explanation for moving some of the material to other locations in the article. With regard to the other changes, the ES referred to the explanations I'd previously given on this talk page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=18941107&oldid=18940576], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARepublican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=18949713&oldid=18942684]), to which I later added a further comment ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=18966417&oldid=18963256]).
 
::You've given us some information about yourself -- that you own a company. I ask for information about you that's more important in this context; I ask whether you've read the Wikipedia namespace pages to which you've been referred ([[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], and [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]]). You'll be able to do a better job of ensuring that our article on the Republican Party is accurate if you're familiar with those pages.
 
::While I'm alluding to Wikipedia policies, let me add a word to Noitall: As a more experienced user, you should be aware of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]. "Any [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]] effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=next&oldid=18973375 This edit summary] of yours denounces as vandalism (in all caps, yet) an edit that is obviously not vandalism.
 
::As to the specifics, the above discussion is about the Log Cabin Republicans. Despite Tlotz's incessant accusations that the two major parties are being treated differently because of liberal bias, the fact is that the article on the [[Democratic Party (United States)]] includes a description of each of the listed factions, giving the reader some idea of the substance of the disagreements within the party, whereas the Republican Party article consigns that information to a daughter article. Of course, there is no requirement that the two parties be treated identically. At any rate, for the moment I'll pass that subject by, while restoring my other edits for the reasons already explained. Tlotz, it's really important that you focus on the question of how the article should read, and leave out the denunciations of other editors. In fact, along with the other policies and guidelines, I'll suggest that you take a look at [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]. If you'll pardon me for quoting a Democrat, Adlai Stevenson, "Mud thrown is ground lost." [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 22:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 
[[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] Thank you for your clarification... Then you should have no problem when I edit a page... Oh.. but you do have a problem with it...! Your quote "the issue is how the article '''should''' read." is your self proclaimed "Hostile to the right wing" POV. You have done nothing but further my view that DEMS believe in free speech errr until you say something they disagree with. That is why the once proud democratic party has been reduced being run by The screamer Howard Dean and Hilliary Clinton. You are now the party of zero ideas and obstructionism. Period. -- I have an idea... why don't Dems work on the Dem page and Republicans work on the Republican page...[[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 5:12, July 16, 2005
 
==POV edits==
So-called experienced editors have no excuse for adding unsourced unspecific edits that say nothing except their own POV interests. If you want to talk about Repubs disagreeing, you must discuss a specific issue and put in context. The most conservative Repub and most liberal Repub still agree about 60% of the time. Shwartzenegger's policies routinely get over 90% of the GOP vote. So, if you want your POV issue in here, you must do it correctly, e.g., "On the issue of civil unions, some Republicans have supported . . . . On this issue, many of the conservative interest groups have accused them of abandoning conservative values . . . "
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 21:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
== Request for comments ==
 
I have started a request for comments on Tlotz' personal attacks. Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tlotz]]. Thank you. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 20:35, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
:My first thought that [[User:Rhobite]]'s actions on that page, this page, and in his many violations of Wiki policies, deserve the initiation of a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhobite]]. '''Rhobite WAS WARNED TWICE''' about his actions in violation of Wiki policy, but continued to take them. But I realized that 2 wrongs do not make a right. Just because Rhobite violated Wiki policy in his actions does not mean that others should. Thus Rhobite should be recognized for what he is: a Wiki troublemaker. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 21:57, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
::Which policy did I violate, and where? I don't believe I've been anything less than completely civil with Tlotz. I have never made a personal comment about him or speculated about his or your bias. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 22:05, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
:[[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] Civil? You immediately smoked everything that I wrote about the Republican party and then accused me of "Trying to pull one over on you" regarding the party's stand for smaller government. That is hardly civil for someone with so much "self proclaimed" Wikipedia experience. I will not let two liberals run rough shod over the Republican article. JamesMLane even says in his bio that he is "hostile" to the "right wing" which simply put means he hates Republicans. This mindset should ban him from even commenting on the subject because he clearly has a preconcieved bias... [[User:Tlotz|Tlotz]] 4:58 , July 16, 2005
 
== Ballot symbols ==
 
Hi, I would like to start an article on the various ballot symbols used by U.S. political parties in different states. I have never seen a source for these anywhere. I think with the diverse knowledge of Wikipedians, we can compile a comprehensive resource right here. Help out at [[User:Pharos/List of political party ballot symbols by U.S. state]]. I've already added a few for New York. Thanks.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 21:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Ideology==
I've removed "centrism" from the list of ideologies. All of the congressional leadership, as well as the President, are quite conservative as that term is understood in the U.S. today. Political science lit suggests that centrism has been declining steadily, and that the two parties are both developing a more coherent, stronger ideology. That might have been an appropriate term for them 30 years ago--nowadays, it's simply inaccurate. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 15:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 
:Now the article has been edited to claim that the Republican Party stands for [[neoliberalism]] and even [[libertarianism]]. I missed the announcement that invading Iraq and promoting a "culture of life" were now libertarian issues. The predominant ideology in the GOP is US-style conservatism, esp. neoconservatism. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 07:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
::Well, neoconservatism doesn't have anything to do with a "culture of life". There is some diversity in the party.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 07:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:::I agree that there's some diversity, but it's clear where the power lies. There are several prominent neocons holding high-level positions in the Bush administration. There's only one significant libertarian Republican officeholder, [[Ron Paul]], who frequently departs from the Party's positions and is only grudgingly tolerated by the Party leadership. (In the past, they've tried more than once to defeat him.) Finally, the Republican Party platform does not endorse ''any'' significant libertarian positions that differ from the Party's dominant ideologies (paleoconservatism/neoconservatism/Christian right). (For example, libertarian opposition to the income tax fits comfortably with Republicans' pro-business bent. That doesn't mean that Republicans are libertarians.) Whatever one thinks of the status of libertarianism in the Republican Party today, it's clear that neoconservatism is far more influential. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:I agree--leave the ideology section with cons./neoncons. only. As per JamesMLane. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 13:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 
There is clearly a double standard being applied between the two articles, [[Republican Party (United States)]] and [[Democratic Party (United States)]].
 
On the former, the terminology used for the "ideology" is the one generally more strongly preferred by the opposition ("neoconservative") than general members of the party. (I do not know any Republicans that would self-identify as neoconservatives.) On the latter, the self-identification of "centrist" has been persistently added, yet "socialist" or other derogatory terms are left off. (In fairness, "liberal" is used both ways, but my beef is with the additions of "centrist" and "neoconservative", specifically). Either both articles need to use terms of self-indentification or neither should. And it is absolutely unacceptable for either article to use opposition terminology.
 
To put it simply, the liberal party in the US is the Democratic Party. The conservative party in the US is the Republican Party. There are centrists in both parties. Adding "centrist" to the Democrat article is POV (just as adding it here was deemed POV). Adding "neoconservative" to the Republican article is POV (just as adding "socialist" to the Democrat one would be) and well, it's inaccurate/unnecessary too, as neoconservatism is only a subset of conservatism.
 
As it stands, I think the two articles warrant an NPOV disclaimer, but I will refrain pending further discussion.
 
[[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 02:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 
I really don't see the need for a template attempting to give parties short ideological labels at all -- I think the best solution is for the articles in question to do a decent job explaining the political coalition each party represents (which, ultimately, is all that American political parties really are). But if we're going to do it...
 
* There's absolutely no need for "neoconservative", "neoliberal", or "libertarian" to be applied here. All refer to specific groups and/or sets of beliefs which, while certainly existing within the party, do not in any real way define or describe it. (Incidentally, neoconservatives mostly got their start in the Democratic Party, and a few have remained there. And there's unfortunately plenty of support for neoliberal trade policies among Democrats.)
 
* I don't think "centrism" belongs here either, though the situation is not the same with the Democratic Party. For a variety of reasons, much of the leadership of the Democratic Party, going back about twenty years, has decided to consciously reject traditional liberalism and embrace "[[third way]]" centrist politics. Republicans, even the moderates among them, have not sought to do any such thing relative to conservatism. In this sense, adding "centrism" to the Democratic Party article is not necessarily POV, though some variation on "third way" would probably be more accurate.
 
[[User:Radicalsubversiv|'''R'''adical'''S'''ubversiv]] [[User_talk:Radicalsubversiv|'''E''']] 05:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:: I disagree with your '''opinion'''. It's the Republicans who have moved to the center. If you fail to grasp my point, sorry. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 16:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::I don't know what opinion you're referring to. You can't deny that there's been a movement by Democratic leaders to specifically reject liberalism in favor of the "third way" (well, I suppose you could try, but you'd be wrong) -- do you claim that there's some parallell effort vis a vis conservatism among Republicans? [[User:Radicalsubversiv|'''R'''adical'''S'''ubversiv]] [[User_talk:Radicalsubversiv|'''E''']] 02:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:I'm not sure I agree; intra-party disputes are much less prominent now then they used to be, say, 5 years ago, let alone 15. But on the larger issue, you're right--we should probably get rid of the "ideology" section of the template. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 14:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
::Disagree with getting rid of the "ideology" section. It's included in other countries' political parties with no conflict whatsoever; the disputes here over America's parties look strictly partisan, to me. [[User:Shem Daimwood|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem Daimwood|(talk)]]</sup> 19:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
::: American political parties are not the same as those in other countries, for a variety of reasons dealt with at [[Politics of the United States]] and elsewhere. They do not embrace official ideologies in the same way that Labor, Social Democratic, Christian Democratic, Green, and Liberal parties in other countries do. [[User:Radicalsubversiv|'''R'''adical'''S'''ubversiv]] [[User_talk:Radicalsubversiv|'''E''']] 02:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 
The identification of a 1-word "Ideology" is inherently POV for both sides. First, the identification is relative to where you stand on a particular issue. Second, labeling a 1-word conclusion is by definition POV. Then, bringing in a source just brings you back to square one, and that is labeling the source (having Kennedy call you a conservative, the Dobson report call you a left winger or the New York Times call you a neoconservative is not helpful in identifying. And third, it depends on the issues and times. Currently, the GOP is extremely progressive on Social Security while the Dems are extremely conservative. Bush, the leader of the GOP, is extremely progressive on immigration while a large portion of both GOP and Dems are conservative ([[Know-Nothing Party|know nothings]] whould have been appropriate at another time or [[paleoconservative]] today). Bush and the majority of the GOP are neoconservative in foreign policy but do not identify themselves as such. Kennedy is a radical left winger but does not identify himself as such. Clinton has been a liberal, progressive and conservative depending on the times, job and issue. And, to the extent anyone disagrees with my assertions, you only prove my overall point and that it is all relative and thus by definition unresolvably POV. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 14:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 
The GOP is a conservative party, in the same way that the Democratic Party is a liberal one. But it is '''not only''' a conservative party. The GOP is a coalition made up of conservatives (that are the growing majority), but also of Libertarians, and moderates (centrists, such as Giuliani). I think reducing the GOP to its conservative part is really biased, especially when we do not reduce the Democratic party to its liberal part. It looks like the GOP is a bunch of close-minded and extremists people, in face of moderates and inclusive democrats (sorry, I'm not an English speakr).--[[User:Revas|Revas]] 15:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Your stating that it is a conservative party does not make it so, nor address any of the POV issues I went through above. Paleoconservatives and libertarians think the GOP is liberal on many issues. And I mentioned that many of their policies are accurately considered progressive while the Dems are accurately considered conservative. The only way you label them "conservative" is if you remove all meaning from the word and just sustitute it for "GOP". That is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 19:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 
I'm deeply concerned by the "centrism" issue. In particular, given the tremendous overlap between the policies of the GOP and the Dems, it seems to me highly POV to describe exactly one of the two as centrist. Either they both are, or neither is. [[User:WMMartin|WMMartin]] 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:Maybe I'm the only one, but it doesn't bother me if we just have R=Conservative and D=Liberal. Yes, there is an area of overlap between the parties on some issues, which is similarly reflected in ideological overlap. In this context, while both may be centrist, I don't see that as the central governing philosophy of either. Seriously though, I'm on vacation. [[User:Rkevins82|Rkevins82]] - [[User talk:Rkevins82|TALK]] 16:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::I know that it is incredibly fun on Wiki to assign your labels and do your analysis, which can't be wrong since your teacher can't fail you here, and which I am certain is better than any talk show host, but seriously, at some point the POV has to stop and serious Wiki consideration begin. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 00:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::While I haven't posted here yet, I've been following the discussion on the equivalent Dem party page and posting occasionally there. I think the most important thing to do is consider how the two parties identify themselves. Do they consider themselves to contain a centrist branch? Both do; both deserve the label. I agree with WMMartin above: either both should have it, or neither. In the US there is an evenly-split electorate, and it is fairly a matter of common sense that if there is ''anything'' definable in the "center" it is split between the two parties, and both deserve the label. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 
As I have stated repeatedly, I think the inclusion of simple "ideology" labels in the template for the two major parties is inappropriate to begin wtih. However, if we're going to do it, we need to be both accurate and neutral. The GOP is unquestionably a conservative party -- virtually all of their major figures are self-described conservatives, however moderate some fo them might be. This is not true for liberalism and the Democratic Party -- in fact, most liberals these days reject the term to begin with, favoring progressive. Apparently editorial consensus is now favoring the use of centrism in describing the Democratic Party -- I think "third way" would be more accurate and neutral, but I'm not about to get into an edit war about it. However, I will continue to object strenously to a fundamentally incorrect addition to this article. [[User:Radicalsubversiv|'''R'''adical'''S'''ubversiv]] [[User_talk:Radicalsubversiv|'''E''']]
 
== Fascism project ==
 
{{FascismTalk}}
''([[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]]; besides, it's just a talk page]])''
 
I will withhold my own commentary for now and see what happens. See also [[Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#Fascism project]].
 
:See [[WP:POINT]] please. And other contributors, please don't reply. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 03:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 
::Yes, it seems clear that the [[Republican Party (United States)]] fits the definition of fascism. Make a note of it. [[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 12:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 
The GOP as fascist? What a quaint conception, something out of the 1930s!
1. The GOP ridicules the national government: "Government is the problem, not the solution" proclaimed Ronald Reagan. Federal bureaucrats are routinely ridiculed by Republicans.
2. Loyalty to a single leader? Bush?? The Republican uproar over his choice of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows otherwise.
3. Using violence--like the gangs in Berlin in 1932 who beat up and assassinated their opponents. Americans have not seen party-sponsored political violence in 100 years (I refer to Kentucky in 1900).
4. The Republicans are pledged to reduce regimentation and repeal laws and regulations. Liberals complain all the time about this.
5. Syndicalist? Only two big-business figures are in the cabinet (one is there because he is Hispanic), and none on the Supreme Court. Likewise the recent heads of Federal Reserve have been technical experts not businessmen.
6. Implementing totalitarian systems? The GOP has been tearing them down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and helped kill the Soviet system. It vigorously opposes the ones in North Korea and Cuba (while tolerating the one in China).
Richard Jensen [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 04:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Revert of edit by "Lima bean of the north" &ndash; majorities ==
I removed this line added to the 2nd paragraph:
 
:''Although Democrats had a majority in the house and senate for a while, the Republican Party currently has majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as in governorships and the majority of state legislatures.''
 
True, perhaps, but not accurate enough in its details. I assume that "for a while" means the 30-40 years or whatever it was that the Democrats had a lock on the Congress. Firstly (if it's not already in the article but is salient), it should be presented with a bit more detail than "for a while." Secondly, it may not belong in this particular paragraph. -- [[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3rd]] 18:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 
== NPOV ==
 
I've removed the NPOV tag, added by an anon IP who keeps claiming at [[George W. Bush]] that he is responsible for x number of murders. No reasons were given for the tag.--[[User:Scimitar|Scimitar]] [[User talk:Scimitar|<sup>parley</sup>]] 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== republican party ==
 
<'''''math>[[Media:[[ithink that this is bullshit and i hate learning about this crap everyday of my little life.i]]]]</math>'''''
 
:I'm sorry you feel this way. Is there something we can do to help you out? --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Vold</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]][[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">mort</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 14:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Civil Rights Movment ==
 
Thanks for fixing that, [[User:Rkevins82|Rkevins82]], I wasn't exactly sure how to word it properly. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|Sigma]] 03:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Info box at top of article ==
 
Should this include "Party leader: G W Bush"? If so does he go above or below Party Chairman? If not, why not? -- [[User:SGBailey|SGBailey]] 11:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)"