Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

RfC: Should the article mention support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP?

Should the article mention support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP?

• A: Mentioning of support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP should be included in the article.
• B: Mentioning of support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP should not be included in the article.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Background

Content regarding GOP support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory has been removed from the article, and at least two editors have voiced opposition to include mentioning GRCT in the article altogether. While the discussion around a recent edit started only recently, this topic has been discussed her before earlier this year and has been unresolved for several weeks (see here). Since general opposition to including information on the GOP and GRCT anywhere in the article has been voiced, I suggest to keep this RfC simple and determine whether or not this topic should be included at all. We have an article on GRCT in the US if you are not familiar with the topic.

Poll (GRCT)

• A: There a a lot of RS covering the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, both in the US in general and in the context of the GOP specifically. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Per discussion below this question is too vague to be useful. I suggest proposing a specific or reasonably specific edit (text and location) rather than suggesting that somewhere, someplace this content might be included. Springee (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  What if we determine which historians and academics understand GRCT well enough to rely on before we get into where we put it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't their opinions help us determine the answers to those questions? Cheers. DN (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• B - because it is not really a part of the Republican Party so much as a belief among some Republicans, politicians and supporters. Relevant in the pages of those notable Republicans that do espouse such views, less so in the article on the party itself. nableezy - 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• B - Agree with User:Nableezy's reasoning. MonMothma (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• B, it's not a mainline belief of the GOP specifically.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• B, doesn't appear to be the political party's official stance. Best keep the info within the aforementioned GRCT article. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• B It's not a part of the Republican Party. The fact that some of the 300 million Democrats and Republicans use or believe in the term does not make it a part of either party. North8000 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A secondary comment, it would be better to word the proposal/RFC as GRT rather than GRCT. Adding "conspiracy" to GRT mostly turns it into a straw man description of the allegations. I think that most persons using the term allege that it is a general direction or initiative without alleging that there is a conspiracy. Adding "conspiracy" to allegations usually mis-describes allegations as an implausible straw man version of them. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources widely describe GRT as a conspiracy theory. There's not basis for dropping that descriptior. Cortador (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• B It is not a significant aspect of the party in reliable sources to justify inclusion. Furthermore, the few sources that use polling do not actually ask respondents if their believe in the theory. TFD (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment At this point I agree with Springee, and given the recent responses above I think it's possible the RfC would be better off being withdrawn. There needs to be clarification as to what, where, and how the proposed addition would fit into the current article, what source(s) it is attributed to, etc. DN (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• B - I agree with most above that it is not an official party stance and does not appear to be a mainstream belief in the party amongst supporters. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• B - Per reasons already given. KlayCax (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (GRCT)

I'm not sure this is helpful as there is a big difference between "don't mention at all" and putting this is the section on GOP immigration policy as was recently done. Perhaps pulling this RfC back and replacing it with something that is closer to a proposed change would be helpful. Springee (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You voiced blanket opposition to inclusion of mentioning of GRCT in this article, therefore determining whether that should be included at all is the way to go. Cortador (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that A is vague at best. Would we then have an RfC on positioning and one on weight? — Czello ^(music) 14:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Czello. This RfC is too vague, and I think we should start over with something more specific (e.g. some proposed language to consider). At present, my response to this RfC is "it depends". If someone proposed to add a sentence stating, "Polls show that x percent of Republican voters believe the GRCT", that would be worth considering (I believe some polling along those lines was referenced above in the endless talk page discussion). However, if someone proposed to add a sentence stating that the Republican Party as an entity supports the GRCT, that would be unacceptable unless there was some mention of it in a GOP platform or some other GOP document. MonMothma (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason why mentioning of GRCT has repeatedly been removed from this article is because one editor stated that it shouldn't be mentioned be included in the article at all. I opened this RfC to determine whether or not GRCT should be mentioned or not.Cortador (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) I'm not staking a position on whether or not it is appropriate to mention this particular subject matter in this particular article, especially given the very broad (and as others have noted, overly-flattened) yes/no dichotomy of the OP inquiry. I'm very hesitant to endorse any inclusion without more particularized discussions about the exact context and wording (largely because of concerns regarding WP:EXCEPTIONAL), but I also can't completely rule out the possibility of connecting the two subjects in this article, depending on the specific connection being identified and how the sources discuss said connection.

So, insofar as my first paragraph there goes, I think we are in strong agreement. However, I also want to point out that when you go on to say "However, if someone proposed to add a sentence stating that the Republican Party as an entity supports the GRCT, that would be unacceptable unless there was some mention of it in a GOP platform or some other GOP document.", that is absolutely and without question not how inclusion on this project is determined, and would be unambiguous WP:Original research. It is not the place of our editors to scrutinize the conduct and actions of a subject to analyze whether or not some value or belief ascribed to that subject is an accurate representation (whether we are using the official statements of the subject or any other measure).

Rather, if enough WP:Reliable sources created enough WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT, through their coverage, for the claim that the Republican Party as a whole embraces this (or any other) conspiracy theory, then we would follow suit and relay that this has been an observation made about the party. We might do it with scrupulously attributed statements, but we would mention it, if there was enough WEIGHT, because our role as editors here is not to ascertain to the "truth" through our own individual lenses and faculties, but to relay what has been observed by reliable sources (WP:NPOV/WP:OR).

Now, do I think there is enough WP:WEIGHT to justify a blanket statement about the GOP as an institution embraces this particular belief system? Well, I'd have to dig much, much deeper into the sourcing to give an absolutely conclusive answer to that, but my initial inclination is to say that a truly huge volume of high quality sources would be necessary to support an un-qualified, un-attributed statement like that in Wikivoice, given the size of the overall corpus of sources and the variety of opinions about the Republican Party--and, again, the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of the claim.

Nevertheless, it bears remembering that any such decision has to be based exclusively upon the weight of the sources, and not our own individual, idiosyncratic views about what makes something a product of the party as a whole (such as a test based on whether or not the party had formally, affirmatively endorsed it through an explicit statement in their platform, or any other measure we as individuals think might make such an observation a "fair" one). That's just not the standard on this project; our role here is not to make sure that the observations we put in our content are rational and reasonable, but rather that they reflect what reliable sources say on the matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussing a "proposed" sentence which describe all of the GOP as GRCT supporters is a pointless hypothetical. Nobody has made such a suggestion, and it has never been in the article. Cortador (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That fact is merely incidental to the point I was stressing for MonMothma (whose perspective I otherwise align with). Regardless of what particular statement is or is not proposed for inclusion, the metrics for inclusion must be based exclusively upon the weight of discussion in reliable sources, not our own feelings as individuals about whether or not ascribing this or that label is reasonable, logical, or fair, based on our own analysis of the facts and how the party in question has behaved. As the old Wikipedia adage goes, it's about WP:WEIGHT, not WP:TRUTH.

As a side note, I think you very much need to drop the ambivalence to the primary piece of advice pretty much every respondent and participant of this discussion so far has given you about your opening prompt. Everyone gets what you are saying when you state that you structured the options as you did because at least one other editor has implied there should be no mention of the 'Great Replacement Theory' whatsoever. Nevertheless, approaching the discussion with that dichotomy, especially on such a high traffic talk page, is still next to useless. Because almost every veteran editor is going to agree that we don't permanently proscribe any subject from any article. Therefor all you are doing by wording the prompt as you have is scoring a philosophical victory by getting a bunch of respondents to agree with you in the broadest of possible terms, at the cost of a lot of wasted volunteer time. But after that point is established, you are still going to have to engage in further discussion to resolve the exact disputed content.

It is therfore infinitely better to first establish a prompt that directly inquires about the actual content that may or may not be appropriate. And refusing the accept that time-saving advice and instead insisting upon having this high level (but essentially functionless) debate about whether mention of the Great Replacement Theory in any capacity would be acceptable under any circumstances, purely on principle, is not going to help you with support on the underlying and more specific issues. Each of us can only afford to respond to so many FRS requests, so make this RfC count for something concrete. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Snow Rise, I hear you, and I stand corrected. If reliable sources say the GOP adheres to the GRCP, that is what the encyclopedia should say--whether or not there is a GOP policy statement on the subject. On a related note, I resonate strongly with your statement that "a truly huge volume of high quality sources would be necessary to support an un-qualified, un-attributed statement like that in Wikivoice". I am concerned that biased sources--including some that might be considered reliable--might carelessly smear the GOP by connecting the GOP to the GRCP without any real justification. MonMothma (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see what the issue is with having a second discussion should the outcome of this RfC be that GRCT should be included in this article. Quite the opposite: the discussion where and what specific wording to include is going to be more productive once blanket refusing is off the table. Cortador (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Since January there hasn't been much discussion on this topic. For clarity I'm copy-editing Cortador's most recent edit from the bottom of the Immigration section to this discussion for easier examination.

• A number of Republicans support the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory based on the idea that immigration is used as a tool by certain groups in power to displace white Americans in favour of racial minorities. It was a largely fringe believe until 2014. According to a 2022 study by AP and NORC, half of Republicans believed in the conspiracy theory, compared to a third of all and 20% of Democrats surveyed. A poll by Yahoo News and YouGov in the same year showed that 61% of Trump voters agreed with the core message of the conspiracy theory. This is a shift from the party's 2013 post-election assessment, which had come to the conclusion that the Republican Party needed to appeal to minorities in order to be successful.

Refs

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this since this cites the repeatedly removed section:

NPR: GRCT has been replaced by Republicans, explicitly and implicitly.

NPR: Republicans politicians, including high-ranking ones, have embraced GRCT.

USA News: The concept of GRCT has been "woven into the campaigns against Democrats".

The Guardian: GRCT is "Republican orthodoxy" and "Republican party mainstream".

PBS: Several Republican 2022 cnadidates promoted GRCT.

WP: The Republican Party has increasingly been embracing GRCT.

ABC News, citing Larry Rosenthal: Expression of GRCT has "assumed rhetorical predominance" in the GOP.

NPR: GRCT "has come to dominate mainstream Republican discourse on immigration, extremism researchers warn". Cortador (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP: "Versions of the same ideas [...] have become commonplace in the Republican Party".

• I moved the central question to the top of the RfC and signed it so that part is copied over to WP:RFCA. Cortador, you may want to substitute your own signature for mine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have any articles about the Republican Party that say it is significant? Also, you need an expert to interpret the polls. While likely most Republicans and many Democrats don't want to see non-white people immigrate, that doesn't necessarily mean they think we're in the beginnings of a genocide against white folks. TFD (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need a source that states that this is signifiant. Significance is established by RS covering the topic. Likewise, we don't need an expert to interpret the poll. The poll isn't directly cited from the polling company, but from a source reporting on it. That is sufficient. Cortador (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually we should have such a source. When dealing with a topic as big as and with as much source material as the GOP we do need some way to help filter what is WP:V but not due for inclusion. RSs that tend to summaries a topic are excellent guides for us to decide what expert/professional editors think is important to include in an article that is meant to summarize a topic. Springee (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, we should not. If a high enough number of quality sources cover this topic, it should be included. Don't try to create artificial requirements here. Cortador (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So how many is enough? If this is really due then why aren't summary sources including it? Springee (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  A number that editors agree is sufficient. "Summary sources" is a requirement you made up. Cortador (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It has been discussed more heavily since the string of attacks ending with Buffalo in 2022.

  1. Greenblatt, Gertz and Miller-Idriss say claims of an orchestrated "immigrant invasion" have gained legitimacy through the endorsement of some elected Republicans, most notably former President Donald Trump. But they note that the messaging has continued after Trump left office. NPR

  2. Cas Mudde In few countries has this process of mainstreaming has been as successful and visible as in the United States, where the main representatives of the mainstream right wing, like Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, are propagating the Great Replacement Theory with great success. Just a few days before the terrorist attack, a poll showed that nearly half of Republicans believe the conspiracy theory...The Grand Old Party has become a far-right party that advances racist arguments in both implicit and explicit form. And many organizations within the broader “conservative” movement have followed suit, from Fox News to Turning Point USA. The Guardian

  3. Joseph Lowndes - "But scholars and journalists have noted that in recent years, right-wing pundits and Republican politicians have also begun using the term “replacement” to assert without evidence that there is a liberal plot to outnumber Republicans with Democrats by opening the borders to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. This political version of replacement is neither an exotic import from European white nationalists, nor is it novel. The contemporary notion of political replacement draws on this longer history of perceived threats posed by non-White populations to White democracy, but it is more immediately rooted in the history of the modern Republican Party." WaPo

  4. Mark Pitcavage Some of the Republican campaigns denied that their statements amounted to replacement theory, but among the experts, there is little question. Five experts on hate speech who reviewed the Republican candidates’ comments confirmed that they promote the baseless racist theory, even though the Republicans don’t mention race directly. Indeed, a mainstream interpretation of replacement theory in the U.S. baselessly suggests Democrats are encouraging immigration from Latin America so more like-minded potential voters replace “traditional” Americans, says Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism. PBS

  5. Kathleen Belew - So I think the very different thing here is that this is no longer a fringe idea. And what we are seeing is the move from sort of a looking away position where, for instance, after the El Paso shooting of Latina and Latino people in the Walmart a number of years back, there was a memo by the GOP directing our attention away from white power activism and towards mental health. So this directing our attention away has now moved to an open embrace by pundits, by people in the party of a overtly white power tenant. NPR DN (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Summary sources" is not a requirement that was made up.

  "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

  "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight."

  The Republican Party is a huge big topic. You need reliable sources to determine what is significant, not what you find to be significant.

  Editors should watch Gangs of New York, which is about New York politics circa 1860. New Irish Catholic immigrants were welcomed by Tammany Hall and sent to fight in the Civil War. Reactionaries set up organizations to protect "true Americans." Nothing has changed. TFD (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Can", "may" - they are not a requirement. Also, as DN has shown above, there's plenty of material. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that it's not typically a word for word recitation of the original replacement theory by Renaud Camus. Reports often use the term "echoes" to describe rhetoric "espousing" or "overlapping" with GRCT. The rhetoric experts commonly associate it with involves mention of an organized plot by Democrats to subvert elections and "invade" the US to undermine and or destroy white American culture, but seems to rarely mention any elite cabal of Jewish people.

  6. The once-fringe immigration proposals pushed by former President Trump are now the backbone of the GOP’s immigration and border security platform. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday launched his official immigration and border security platform titled “Stop the Invasion” — a term civil rights organizations associate with the Great Replacement Theory...“And what do we mean by that? We mean that you have elected officials and public figures like media personalities promoting things like the Great Replacement Theory, or promoting conspiracy theories about all sorts of things...“It’s important to point out that the word invasion has been used for many, many years by various political figures on the right who don’t want undocumented immigrants coming into the country,” said Marilyn Mayo, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that DeSantis is promoting the Great Replacement Theory. It does mean that he has some viewpoints that overlap with that theory,” added Mayo...The Hill

  7. The Global Project Against Hate & Extremism, headed by Heidi Beirich PhD and Wendy Via of the SPLC, have also been tracking GRCT, very closely monitoring statements by politicians.

  8. This conspiracy theory has grown so popular among key GOP figures that the conservative elite can no longer condemn it unreservedly. Instead, some prominent conservatives have chosen to defend it in sanitized form, arguing that the Democratic Party’s support for immigration reform is a plot to, as Representative Elise Stefanik of New York put it in an ad last year, “overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington.” Note the notion that an “electorate” can be “overthrown” by being outvoted, as though Republican electoral defeat is by definition illegitimate—especially if that victory is enabled by the wrong kind of voters. The Atlantic

  9. It is difficult to square this rhetoric with the actions of the Republican National Committee, which insists Latinos are the future of the Republican Party and have held naturalization events for immigrants around the country. The Washington Times reports the Republican National Committee “hosted and planned over 100 events for Hispanic Heritage Month” in swing states that include Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Florida and others. Over 100 Hispanic House candidates are running as Republicans, a new record, according to the RNC. Immigration Legislation: The conflict between “great replacement” rhetoric and GOP outreach to Latinos affects individuals who need Congress to address their legal status. Forbes

  Cheers. DN (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"But they note that the messaging has continued after Trump left office." No surprise there. Who is the current head of state has little impact on what ideas the various parties and political organizations are promoting. Ideas refuse to die, unlike humans. Dimadick (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying that GOP rhetoric overlaps with GRCT is not saying they are the same thing.

It is a fact that the white percentage of the population has declined every census period since 1940 (See White Americans#Demographic information.) The U.S. will probably become a majority minority country in the 2040s (See Majority minority in the United States.) What makes this a conspiracy theory?

TFD (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory makes it a conspiracy theory. Cortador (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says claims that the relative size of the white population in America is declining is a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Calling certain data factual is one thing, but GRCT is not said data. Adherents have used statistics like that in conflation with GRCT, in an attempt to give GRCT legitimacy. Essentially, quoting data is not the same thing as saying that Democrats are "invading" or "flooding" the US with immigrants to replace/destroy white American culture and it's electorate, ie Republicans. The point is that many of these adherents are high profile GOP members, ranking leaders as well as Republican voters, according to RS.

10. "The theory’s first inaccurate assumption is that white Americans will soon become a minority population. But using any nuanced reading of the data, that’s not true. Yes, in 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau published a population projection that by the year 2044, non-Hispanic white Americans would no longer be a numerical majority in the country. But not being the majority is not the same as being a minority: Even in that projection, non-Hispanic white Americans would still make up a plurality of the population compared with any other race. And non-Hispanic white Americans are not the only white Americans."

"Another plot hole in the mainstream replacement narrative is the assumption that immigrants will solely support the Democratic party...Carlson, too, has repeatedly warned of a so-called Democratic plot to “import an entirely new electorate from the Third World and change the demographics of the U.S. so completely they will never lose again.” But even he concedes that this narrative is flawed, pointing out in his show last week that many non-white and immigrant voters are, in fact, Republican. In the 2020 election, roughly 2 in 5 Latino voters cast a ballot for then-President Donald Trump." fivethirtyeight.com

DN (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not my job to dig out sources for you. Sources state that GRCT is in fact a conspiracy theory. If you want a RS for any other claim, feel free to search for one Cortador (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition...

11. "The argument made by Trump in 2016 and by other Republicans at other points is that the Democrats hope to cut this Gordian knot by simply granting immigrants citizenship status. While there have been debates on the left about creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, that is more a function of making such immigrants eligible for citizenship at all which, at this point, they are not. To become a citizen, you must have entered the country legally. Regardless, it’s clear that no such legislation is going to be passed by Congress anytime soon, particularly given the Republican ability to block legislation in the Senate. We can go one step further. Even if there were some magical bestowing of citizenship on newly arrived immigrants, this theory about White voters being “replaced” depends on those immigrants voting. I’m not clear how the conspiracy theory speculates that the cabal of elites will force those newcomers to cast ballots, but I can say, thanks to Census Bureau data, that many naturalized citizens don’t bother voting. In 2020, an estimated 67 percent of native-born Americans voted in the presidential election. Only 61 percent of naturalized citizens did. Among immigrants from Latin America and Mexico, the percentage was lower: 57 percent." WaPo

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The SPLC asked three questions:

(1) As you know, the demographic makeup of America is changing and becoming more diverse, with the U.S. Census estimating white people will be a minority in approximately 25 years. Generally speaking, do you find these changes to be very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or very negative?"

(2) Do you feel the changing demographics of america pose a threat to white Americans and their culture ad values, or not? (IF YES) Do you feel that way strongly, somewhat, or only a little?

(3) Agree or disagree: The recent change in our national demographic makeup is not a natural change but has been motivated by progressives and liberal leaders actively trying to leverage political power by replacing more conservative white voters?"

Elsewhere in the SPLC article it says, "The [GRCT] says there is a systematic, global effort to replace white, European people with nonwhite, foreign populations. The ultimate goal of those responsible — Democrats, leftists, “multiculturalists” and, at times, Jews — is to reduce white political power and, ultimately, to eradicate the white race."

Notice the article does not ask respondents whether they believe in the GRCT, but comes to its conclusions based on three questions. Since a reasonable person might come to another conclusion, you would need to show consensus opimion for their conclusions in reliable sources, i.e., among sociologists and political scientists.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "The [SPLC]'s views...should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article." TFD (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What's your point? Any of the points made about GRCT don't rely exclusively in SPLC. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the conclusions you want to include in th article rely exclusively on the SPLC, it doesn't mean that we should not examine each source you provide.

My point is that you are presenting opinions as facts in order to determine the level of support for the GRCT among Republicans. You are confusing facts used to support their conclusions with their actual conclusions. TFD (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What "opinions"? Cortador (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That most republicans believe in the GRCT. You know, what this discussion thread is about. TFD (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My addition claimed that "[a] number of Republicans support the Great Replacement conspiracy theory" and "[a]ccording to a 2022 study by AP and NORC, half of Republicans believed in the conspiracy theory". None of those are "opinions", they are statements backed up by reliable sources.

"Most republicans believe in the GRCT" is a statement you fabricated. Cortador (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There are studies and polls other than the SPLC's and (12.) AP-NORC, regarding GRCT and it's predominance in Republican party, by different experts and organizations. However the AP-NORC data has been cited repeatedly by experts and academics in discussions about GRCT and the GOP, including...

13. Samuel L. Perry & Philip Gorski "Since 2015, that theory has captured the fringes and some in the mainstream on the right, from angry young men bearing tiki torches in Charlottesville; to pundits like Ann Coulter, Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson; to at least a half-dozen prominent Republican candidates and lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), Reps. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and Scott Perry (Pa.), Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers, and J.D. Vance, Ohio’s GOP nominee for the Senate. WaPo

and...

14. Nicole Hemmer In the case of the great replacement conspiracy theory, the ideas are far older than Mr. Carlson’s show, or even the Fox News Channel, on which it appears. It repackages the mass of reactionary ideas and anxieties that have fed nativism, racism and antisemitism in the United States and Europe for centuries... Stephen Miller, the hard-line nativist who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump throughout his presidency, also favored the book (“The Camp of the Saints”) as a framework for talking about immigration to the United States...Part of the strategy was to present white-power ideas as more palatable. Another was to draw in new recruits attracted, or at least intrigued, by the ideas they heard...All of this has had an effect. In the years since Mr. Carlson began talking about the conspiracy theory, it has spread rapidly on the right, not just in the dark hollows of the violent white-power movement, but (15) also among Republican politicians and voters. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Representative Elise Stefanik, the No. 3 Republican in the current House, have echoed the theory, and a recent Associated Press-NORC poll showed that nearly a third of Fox News viewers believe in the tenets of the great replacement conspiracy theory (for viewers of the far-right cable channels Newsmax and OANN, that number is even higher). NYT

among others...

Outside of the AP-NORC there's this study by Garen Wintemute via United States National Library of Medicine.

16. "This report focuses on one specific group that may be at increased risk for political violence: so-called MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republicans. In speeches on August 25, 2022, in Bethesda and Rockville, Maryland [10, 11], and September 1, 2022, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [12], US President Biden used that term in reference to Republicans who supported Donald Trump and denied the results of the 2020 election. He asserted that MAGA Republicans endorsed political violence, implying that they did so more than others or that others did not. He emphasized his belief that his characterization applied to only a minority of Republicans [13–16]. Critics nonetheless accused him of maligning half the country, apparently referring to persons who had voted for Donald Trump [13, 17–20]. These critics were asserting, in essence, that MAGA Republicans were indistinguishable from other Republicans.

"This study applies a public health approach to political violence. It uses standard methods to investigate variation in self-reported support for and willingness to engage in political violence, which are plausible proximate markers of risk for committing political violence [33]. It also assesses variation in prevalence of extreme beliefs—including the QAnon delusion and great replacement thinking, that have been linked to political violence in specific cases [34–36] and can be considered as potential indicators of risk for political violence. NCBI.NLM.NIH

There's one by the Public Religion Research Institute which Ronald Brownstein has discussed with William H. Frey as an economic argument against Republicans pushing GRCT in a 2021 CNN article.

17. Far right White supremacist groups, conservative media personalities and now (18) Republicans in Congress are trying to inflame nativist feelings among conservative Whites by warning that liberals want immigrants to “replace” native-born Americans in the nation’s culture and electorate...In polling by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, about three-fifths of Republicans in both 2019 and 2020 agreed with the harshly worded statement that “immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background.” Among Whites who described themselves as very favorable toward Trump, more than three-fourths in each year endorsed that idea, according to detailed results provided by the institute."

"Already the Public Religion Research Institute polling shows that Republicans who receive most of their information from Fox News are more likely than others in the GOP to embrace the “invading” argument.

The economic realities facing the nation suggest that the “replacement theory” has the equation almost exactly backward. Carlson, Johnson and other proponents of the theory are telling their audience centered on older and working-class Whites that they should fear being “replaced” by immigrants. But the real threat to those constituencies, as more of them step into retirement, is that they won’t be replaced by immigrants in the workforce and the tax base. Without more immigrants, those culturally anxious Whites face the virtual certainty of more financial pressure on their federal retirement benefits and slower economic growth for American society overall. “You talk about ‘replacement,’ well, they need to be replaced in the workforce – that’s the issue,”

"Frey says. “Growing the younger age groups and particularly the younger workforce age groups is essential for us to not get into a situation of accentuated age dependency.” It’s far from the first time, but in pushing the racist “replacement theory,” the voices of the populist right are stirring cultural anxieties to mobilize their blue-collar and older White constituencies behind economic policies that harm their own interests." CNN

19. The great replacement: Strategic mainstreaming of far-right conspiracy claims In the United States, the idea of replacement has been propagated by Fox News star host Tucker Carlson. Carlson has repeatedly expressed the idea that ‘white Anglo-Saxons’ are being replaced by immigrant populations (Åsard, 2020). Moreover, Republican senators such as Ron Johnson have also tapped into ‘The Great Replacement’ theory when addressing questions on (new) voter cohorts. Johnson claimed that immigration policies are a way for Democrat elected representatives to ensure political support: ‘[T]his administration wants complete open borders. And you have to ask yourself why? Is it really, they want to remake the demographics of America to ensure their – that they stay in power forever? Is that what’s happening here?’ (Benen, 2021) (20.) MSNBC "It wasn't long before a toxic echo reverberated in some Republican circles. The Washington Post (21.) noted, for example, that Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) spoke up at a congressional hearing on Central American migrants, delivering rhetoric that sounded awfully similar to Carlson's..But as important as those relevant details are, it's the degree to which Johnson's suggestion dovetails with Tucker Carlson's "replacement" rhetoric that's especially jarring. The wording obviously wasn't identical, but the similarities in sentiments are hardly subtle, and they reinforce larger concerns about the poison spreading, both on Capitol Hill and in conservative media...".

This (22.) WaPo article has commentary from several academics involved in the above other research papers.

I have more to share, but I am pressed for time at the moment...To be continued.

Cheers. DN (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there should be more mention on how the modern Republican Party has embraced and promoted once fringe far-right conspiracy theories, of which the replacement theory would be one of them. A sentence or two on this topic would be relevant to include on this page, although we don't need to have a whole paragraph just on the replacement theory in my opinion. Rather, it should be linked to so readers can learn more about it if they choose to. BootsED (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

TFD's arguments are similar to ones I made not that long ago. First, TFD is correct in saying we really should be looking to summary sources to decide if this is due in this article. The GOP is a very large topic. When a topic is small it might be reasonable for editors to try to decide what RS information is DUE/BALASP. However, when the topic is as big as this we really need external sources to show us what content is due. I don't think their are any summary sources that emphasize this talking point. TFD is spot on in their analysis of the SPLC's survey and leap from it's answers to "believe in GRCT". The survey is flawed in part because some of the questions are asked in a way where someone might say "yes" because they generally agree even if they don't agree with the specific racial implications with the way the question was asked. Certainly someone could answer yes to the last question based on politics without a concern for race. As was discussed previously, it is widely acknowledged that the immigrant vote favors Democrats. The way the SLPC phrased the questions makes it easy to claim someone who says "yes" believes in "a core principle" of the GRCT. When such claims are reported that distinction is often conflated with "believes in GRCT". While DN has provided many sources how many specifically say "the GOP" vs "some conservatives" or "some on the right" etc. I would also note that in January's discussion it was clear that a sizable number of Democrats also answered Yes to the same survey questions. Either they are also racists who believe in the GRCT or perhaps most of these people thought they were answering a different question. Springee (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course there are racist Democrats, racism doesn't discriminate. XD

Cheers. DN (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The AP-NORC poll asked respondents whether the purpose of non-white immigration to benefit Democrats in elections and whether non-white immigration would lead to white folks "losing economic, political, and cultural influence." It did not test for belief in the GRCT itself. It just noted that these two issues related to core GRCT beliefs.

So like the SLC poll, the conclusions of the AP-NORC pollsters are their opinions.

In order to make your claim as fact, you need a poll that asks Republicans outright whether they believe in the GRCT. TFD (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

We know there are also Democratic racists. But following the SPLC article's methodology, we would have to conclude that 17% to 35% of Democrats believe in the GRCT, with 9% to 19& undecided. Wouldn't you see that as a REDFLAG? TFD (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Making interpretations like that feels like WP:OR. I just look at what the sources say. DN (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR says, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Obviously it takes some critical thinking on our part in order to determine whether the statement made in the SPLC article is one of fact or opinion. Even saying that something sounds like OR is itself OR, unless you can find a reliable secondary source that comments on what another editor has written.

How else would one distinguish between fact and opinion in sources, without using critical thinking? TFD (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not against criticism or evaluation of sources for the purpose of "rewriting source material in our own words while retaining the substance", but at the moment there are so many sources to keep track of, (which I only started doing back in January) I barely have time to keep up with that aspect at the moment, let alone audit other editor's interpretations of methods and statistics. I will try to comment on that at some point later on.

There's the NLM study (16)

The PRRI poll (Immigration-Immigrants as Cultural Threat) (17)

...And others, only to be followed by the multitude of news reports and opinions of by multiple academics and experts in research papers and secondary sources...If any of the citations so far has the potential to be a preferred summary source, by all means, please share those evaluations as well.

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What that means is that you can post opinions and interpretations on talk pages without that content needing the backing of sources like article space does.

You are trying to label sources you don't like as "opinions", or have a fundamental lack of understanding how sourcing on Wikipedia works. Cortador (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

((outdent))Posting onto talk pages facts and opinions in reliable sources without providing references is not original research.Your interpretation of policy is however OR which is true of any interpretation whether good or bad. So is your interpretation of my motives which btw violates policy not because it is OR but because it is a personal attack.

Anyway, How else would one distinguish between fact and opinion in sources, without using critical thinking?

TFD (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Summary sources" is a requirement you fabricated. We have external sources. We also have sources that explicitly state that Republicans agree with GRCT e.g the Washington Post using the wording "Nearly half of Republicans agree with ‘great replacement theory’". Your original research regarding SPLC doesn't change that.

BALASP states: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."

There are a lot of RS on that topic. This is not a on-off event or recent event. Lastly, you repeated "But what about the "Democrats!" whatbaoutism doesn't matter because this isn't the article about the Democratic Party.

What you are doing here is stonewalling by making up requirements for the inclusion of this content in the article because you don't want it included. Cortador (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It would take a lot of space to address your issues point by point, so I will address them generally. Also, please don't make personal attacks such as accusing me of "fabricating" things or of rejecting facts I don't like. It is not persuasive and does nothing to further discussion.

It should be obvious that unless respondents are polled whether they believe that there is an international plot by "Democrats, leftists, “multiculturalists” and, at times, Jews...to eradicate the white race," that concluding they do is a matter of analysis and opinion. Certainly original the title used by the SPLC, "Racist 'Replacement' Theory Believed by Half of Americans" brings up redflag issues.

I frequently come across editors who object to using the SPLC desription of "hate group" in articles about conservative groups. And, as Generally Accepted Reliable Sources requires, I say that it is being presented as an attibuted opinion and is done not because it is the opinion of the SPLC but because reliable sources routinely mention the SPLC's assessment when referring to the group. I don't say it is a fact that should be included without attribution.

BALASPS applies only to facts, not opinions. But if the SPLC opinion were a fact, then BALASPS would require it be routinely used in describing the Republicans. The Republicans is such a huge big topic that countless papers are written about even its most minor aspects. For example, numerous Republican politicians, such as Bob Lafollette and Fiorello La Guardia are not mentioned in the article, although they are subject of countless books and well remembered today. TFD (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

While you accused another editor of "fabricating" "summary sources," please see WP:TERTIARY (refers to sources that "summarize.") Can you explain the difference between sources that summarize and summary sources? These sources, as the policy explains, are useful in determining WP:BALASPS and the relative weight of opinions. Is there any reason you think they are not? TFD (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no requirement for summary sources. The bit you linked to merely states that they "can help" or "may help". Cortador (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the polls (of which there are multiple, not just one by the SPLC) and alleged "red flags" continues to be original research. If you don't like the SPLC as a source in general, you are free challenge it on the reliable sources noticeboard.

"But X isn't included either" is another version of "But what about the "Democrats". Cortador (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Check whether the piece is a news piece or an op-ed/commentary, check whether RS discussions consider the source opinionated, and don't exclude sources because you don't agree with them i.e. doing original research again. Cortador (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

While there is no requirement for summary sources, they "can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." Do you have a better way to provide due weight in this case"

"Original research says, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Obviously it takes some critical thinking on our part in order to determine whether the statement made in the SPLC article is one of fact or opinion. Even saying that something sounds like OR is itself OR, unless you can find a reliable secondary source that comments on what another editor has written.

How else would one distinguish between fact and opinion in sources, without using critical thinking? How else would one know if something is a redflag?

Your original research that I dislike the SPLC as a source is a fabrication. I have always supported its use as a reliable source. I also happen to agree with what Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "The [SPLC]'s views...should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article."

When you say that my mention of the Democrats is whataboutism, you should explain why you think it is wrong to use it. Throwing out random terms without explaining how they apply is not helpful to any discussion. If I ask why Walmart associates earn minimum wage, while the Waltons are among the wealthiest families in the U.S., you could say that is whataboutism.

Maybe our point of disagreement is that you have a different conception of what facts and opinions are. Facts are statements that rational people consider to be true. Opinions are conclusions about what those facts imply. Rational people can disagree over conclusions. In this case, an analyst has taken three answers from a survey and determined that half the U.S. believes in the GRCT. No other expert source has been provided. I am not arguing that she is wrong, just that another rational person could come to a different conclusion, which puts it in the realm of opinion rather than fact.

TFD (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources covering the topic. There's no requirement for a "summary source". I've explained your misreading of OR above already.

We have multiple other sources in addition to the SPLC. Nobody has argued against attributing anything from SPLC, so I'm not sure what you are arguing against here.

This isn't an article about the Democratic Party. If you want to know whether Democrats believing in GRCT should be included in the article on the party, feel free to discuss that on the respective talk page.

I don't care what conclusion you would come to, because it doesn't matter. Wikipedia reflects what RS report on, not how it's editors interpret data from those soyrcy. Cortador (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually you don't have plenty of sources that discuss the GOP and make the GRCT claim. You have many sources that say some right wing or racists etc believe this or this politician said something associated with the the GRCT. Basically most of the sources are oblique rather than direct which is what we would need here. The reason to discuss the SPLC is obvious. It shows how the survey and the reported results don't align. You are wrong to claim Wikipedia "reflects what RS report on". WP:V specifically says that just because something is in a RS doesn't mean it automatically gets included here (see ONUS). How can we decide if something should be included when dealing with such a large topic like this? Well one of the best ways is look to see what summary sources view as important to include about the topic. I'm sure you would agree that we can find many facts/details about the GOP topic that aren't included here (results of various local elections or even various congressional elections). It's clear you want this material included but given the very few sources that directly tie this topic to the GOP the argument to do so is weak. Springee (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing excluding information that is verifiable but doesn't add to the article (which is fine per Wikipedia policy) with excluding information that is verifiable based on disagreement with the source - which in this case isn't even SPLC - it is USA Today. You have attempted slandering SPLC before (like above where you claimed they are "manufacturing controversy to generate donations"), but even Wikipedia's consensus regarding the reliability of changes, there's other RS reporting on the poll. Cortador (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea that the SPLC drums up controversies to generate donations is hardly my OR [1]. What you fail to see is that just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be included in an article. This is why we keep mentioning summary articles, they, more than editor opinions that something has enough coverage, can show that RSs view the topic as an important part of the overall topic, not just tangentially related (as many of the provided sources support). Anyway, it's clear neither side is convincing the other. Perhaps we should let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You are free to bring up whatever accusations you are making again SPLC - which, as I have stated before, is not directly cited - on the sources noticeboard. Until consensus there changes, it remains a generally reliable source.

"Summary sources" aren't a requirement, they are a barrier you are trying to erect to gate off additions to the article. Cortador (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy says that summary sources "can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Of course if policy says something CAN be used it does not mean it MUST be used. But it would be helpful if you could explain WHY you don't want to use them and WHAT you plan to use in order to establish WEIGHT and BALASPS. TFD (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have provided plenty sources above that confirm that GRCT has become mainstream in the GOP. If you think "summary sources" are needed on top of that, the onus is on you to explain why, not on me. Cortador (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:V "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

You have failed to show how major an aspect of the topic it is in reliable sources.

Also, what do you mean by "has become mainstream?" Do you mean that is what most Republicans believe or that the party refuses to condemn extremist organizations that espouse it? Articles are supposed to be clear. TFD (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There's multiple RS reporting on the issue regularly. Steady and reliable coverage is sufficient for inclusion. "Mainstream" - a term used by at least two sources directly - means that it is a common believe within the party. What else would it mean? Cortador (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Actually you don't have plenty of sources that discuss the GOP and make the GRCT claim. You have many sources that say some right wing or racists etc believe this or this politician said something associated with the the GRCT."

You've found them all? I haven't had time going back though articles from when Trump was still president over 4 years ago...How many are there?

Did you find more historians, sociologists and political science professors on top of the half dozen or so I already listed? DN (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No need to reprint what I just wrote. I am not a Democratic Party leader who has difficulty with short term memory.

Your first source at 23:30, 7 March 2024 says, "“Biden’s conduct on our border is by any definition a conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America,” he went on to say in Greensboro, North Carolina. “Biden and his accomplices want to collapse the American system, nullify the will of the actual American voters and establish a new base of power that gives them control for generations.”

"Similar arguments have long been made by people who allege Democrats are promoting illegal immigration to weaken the power of white voters — part of a racist conspiracy [theory]." (AP March 2 2024)

This source does not say Trump or Republicans in general espouses the conspiracy theory. Even if it did, it would not be a reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. Journalists are not experts on sociology or political science but are our best source for what happened today.

Your third source is about Ramaswamy, who got 0.5% of the vote in the Republican primaries.

Instead of deciding what we think should be in the article, looking for sources and posting whatever we think might support our position, we should first determine what is considered important in reliable sources. Just because they do not place the same emphasis on information and opinons that we do does not mean we ar wrong. But it's the only objective test. If we all adhered to that, we could avoid most talk page discussions.TFD (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a NO...So we don't know how many sources say GRCT has been, or is being used by the Republican party, at least in part, although according to RS their current presidential nominee is still using it in his 2024 campaign.

Yet somehow, without knowing how many sources say the GOP (at least in part) uses GRCT, some editors here are surprisingly certain that it's not enough...Or, it's an extremely BOLD assumption that flies in the face of multiple reliable sources and existing expert opinions.

It also sounds like we are placing new specific parameters on this RfC that are not listed in the RfC question. AFAIK, this RfC is not about whether the ENTIRE GOP supports GRCT, just whether it is DUE for inclusion somewhere in some form. However, newer citations seem to be leaning closer to encompassing the party as a whole (see new citations below). If we need clarification, let's get some.

I think the first source I actually posted was from Britannica which says "...key aspects of replacement theory came to be accepted by nearly half of Republicans and by a third of all Americans by 2022. Some Republican politicians endorsed the theory as a way of appealing to far-right members of their party and of demonstrating, to some degree, their continued loyalty to Trump." I forgot to number it though.

Has anyone else included these?...

Most notoriously, Donald Trump has become a fan of “great replacement” talking points. In the last week many of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have called the president a white supremacist. But Trump is far from being alone, and in recent years the idea has caught fire among more and more mainstream Republicans. (Aug 2019)

Donald Trump’s fascistic rhetoric about how immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country, as well as the GOP’s embrace of the “great replacement theory,” are repellent to many Americans. (Feb 2024)

A few years ago, the idea that a rootless, cosmopolitan elite was attempting to replace America’s white majority through lax immigration enforcement was a far-right conspiracy theory. Today, it is something approaching Republican orthodoxy. This rhetoric is incomprehensible unless one posits that by “illegals,” Republicans really mean “recent nonwhite immigrants.” Undocumented immigrants cannot vote by definition. And evidence for widespread voter fraud among such immigrants is nonexistent.

A host also asked the RNC co-chair during her interview about the racist "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, to which she asked if its validity was "even up for debate."

If the far-right, or Trumpist faction, is not at least part of the GOP, that seems like news to me. If there are any dubious claims being made here, the least of which might be that GRCT has been playing some part within the GOP's strategy over the years and therefore might be worthy of some form of inclusion in an article about the Republican party. DN (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be sucking up a lot of oxygen and not getting very far. I'd suggest that everyone interested in this question simply vote in the poll above so we can move forward one way or the other. MonMothma (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@MonMothma You claimed (or rather agreed with) that GRCT is espoused by individual GOP politicians, not by the party. I've provided sources (see list under the collapsed "Refs") that link endorsement of GRCT specifically to the party, not just individual members. Please take that into consideration. Cortador (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

They've already made up their mind because "it is not really a part of the Republican Party so much as a belief among some Republicans, politicians and supporters."....Which has nothing to do with what reliable sources say. DN (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent other editors' arguments which is disruptive. The argument against inclusion is based on weight, which is policy. The article is supposed to provide due weight to each aspect of the topic that it receives in reliable sources on the Republican Party.

As I said, the Republican Party is a huge big topic and there is extensive material about it that does not merit weight. New York Mayors Walker, La Guardia, Lindsay, Guiliiani and Bloomberg for example were national figures but that does not guarantee inclusion.

Note btw that Cortador provides an EB article about the GRCT to justify inclusion. But the relevant article would be the EB article about the Republican Party which does not mention GRCT at all. Do you think that the editors of EB are part of a massive conspiracy to whitewash the Republican Party? TFD (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

False accusations are also disruptive, and should be relegated to personal talk pages (but probably shouldn't be made at all). DN (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You linked to a post by another editor. If you think that their post that they agree with another editor is a false accusation, you need to take it up with them. Personally, I don't think it is, but leave it to the two of you to sort out. TFD (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting any arguments. MonMothma agreed with the previous commenters, who stated that the GRCT "not really a part of the Republican Party", but about individual GOP politicians - yet we have multiple RS that do, in fact, confirm adoption of GRCT by the party, not just individuals. Additionally, as DN pointed out, the RfC isn't about that specifically - it's about whether GRCT should be mentioned here or not. Your weight argument is no counter to that because that wasn't the argument the commenter made.

I have no idea what "EB article" not mentioning GRCT you are talking about. The articles I listed below Refs all explicitly mention GRCT. Cortador (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont think your sources are really all that strong to be making such a statement of fact. For example, what you cite as Yahoo News here is actually a Rolling Stone article, and WP:RSP says Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politics. The Guardian piece here says in recent years the idea has caught fire among more and more mainstream Republicans. Which yes points to a wider acceptance among Republicans, but doesnt actually say that it is a part of the Republican Party itself. The Reuters piece is specific to Trump, Newsweek is not the best source generally, and the Vox piece says "Today, it is something approaching Republican orthodoxy." referring to the belief espoused by some Republicans that immigration policies are intended to dilute their base's voting power. I dont think that quite supports the idea that the GRCT is Republican orthodoxy, and in fact the examples it give are not that. It says Mike Johnson, the GOP speaker of the House, has espoused a version of “the great replacement” theory, albeit one shorn of explicit racial content, which isnt quite GRCT. All in all, I dont think you actually have sources that demonstrate that this is a part of the Republican Party. And I dont think a collection of news sources really shows much weight for an article on a political party that is the subject of reams of actual scholarship. nableezy - 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy The source I cited (below the Ref bracket) explicitly for the claim that significant parts of the GOP have embraced GRCT are NPR, The Guardian, Washington Post, USA Today, PBS, and ABC News. I cited neither Newsweek, nor The Rolling Stone, nor Reuters. Cortador (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I'm referring to the citations from DN. Going over those articles I am seeing similar issues. The NPR cite says "Replacement" theory began in white supremacist circles, but has since moved more mainstream on the political right in this country and among many Republicans, explicitly or implicitly., that again says that it is something espoused by many Republicans, but not that it is part of the Republican Party. The Hill says that it is common among a majority of Trump voters, which again isnt quite the same as saying that it is part of the party itself. nableezy - 16:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@NableezyThank you for your reply. Those aren't the sources I'm referring to. I'm referring to the ones under the bracketed out Ref section. They confirm that significant elements of the party have embraced GRCT. Cortador (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I must be missing something obvious, can you give a timestamp I can search for to see those sources? nableezy - 22:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy Here you go. 13:36, March 13. Cortador (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That was what I was replying to in my second comment here. I can expand further, the Guardian cite has Republican orthodoxy in its headline, which isnt part of the source we consider, while it does say in its body In recent years the lie has gone from far-right fringe to Republican party mainstream. That is close enough, but is still a news source making an exceptional claim. PBS supports it is used by some Republicans, not that it is a part of the party itself, WaPo supports its usage by some right wing figures of note like Carlson and Gaetz, and that that the party has increasingly been embracing GRCT, but that doesnt really quantify anything for us, if it went from 0 to 3 people then it likewise has been increasingly embraced. I still dont see how these support that this is a tenet of the party itself, but the Guardian comes closest. I think it belongs in the articles on these individuals, but I still dont think it belongs here. nableezy - 23:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an exceptional claim, or at least it doesn't fit what the exceptional claims section lists. Even if it was, guidelines merely states that such a claim would require "multiple high-quality sources". All the sources I used are generally reliable. Even if you believe that these sources only confirm that some Republicans believe in GRCT, I fail to see why that information should be excluded from the article at all. Cortador (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the article is about the party itself, not the politicians and supporters. nableezy - 15:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Politicians and members make the party. There's very few believes consistent across all of the party. Cortador (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

But there is a party platform and there are things that are widely described as tenets of the party itself. nableezy - 20:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is a prerequisite, or that it must be some type of official platform or plank of the entire GOP? I think Snow Rise made an important distinction when they addressed this possibility earlier in their discussion with MonMothma...

• However, I also want to point out that when you go on to say "However, if someone proposed to add a sentence stating that the Republican Party as an entity supports the GRCT, that would be unacceptable unless there was some mention of it in a GOP platform or some other GOP document.", that is absolutely and without question not how inclusion on this project is determined, and would be unambiguous WP:Original research. It is not the place of our editors to scrutinize the conduct and actions of a subject to analyze whether or not some value or belief ascribed to that subject is an accurate representation (whether we are using the official statements of the subject or any other measure).

Also, I think it has become clear there is some confusion as to whether or not the intent of this RfC is to include an unclear amount of context in WIKIVOICE without attribution in an undetermined section. For all anyone can tell this could open the door to editors trying to argue that it is somehow lead-worthy, which I myself would sternly disagree with at this point.

In terms of immigration policy, I don't see many sources saying this repackaging of GRCT is necessarily out of line with the hard-line stance that the GOP has taken in the past, only that expert sources have expressed concern at the evolution of this mainstream stance to adopt a more fringe tactic pushed by the extreme right, however I disagree this somehow belongs in the immigration policy section. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake on the Rolling Stone source by Tim Dickinson. The raw collection I pull from is extensive (30+ citations) and is constantly being reorganized. I'm busy IRL and forgot Yahoo just reposts articles from random sources.

You mentioned articles within the realm of scholarship. Did you read any of the ones listed so far, before you voted? Pitcavage, Cas Mudde, Philip Gorski, Hemmer, Rosenthal etc...? Or look at the polls from PRRI and UMass Amherst Actually, I'm not sure if I linked Amherst yet. Anyway...Cheers. DN (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to ask if you knew of any RS that says "GRCT is not a part of the Republican Party", scholarly or otherwise? DN (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The NPR article quotes the national director of the ADL as saying, "And then you have theoretically mainstream Republican politicians repeating some of this stuff." Some Republicans repeating some of this stuff is not the same as saying significant parts of the party have embraced the GRCT. Significantly none of them say there is an international conspiracy to undermine Western civilization by bringing in non-white immigrants, which is what the GRCT says, according to the SPLC.

Cortador, the ""EB article" not mentioning GRCT" is the Encyclopedia Britannica article about the Republican Party. You in fact brought up EB as a source. Although the EB article about the GRCT mentions the Republican Party, its article on the Republican Party does not mention the GRCT. In order to persuade me to include the material you need to show it has due weight. One way to do this, to which for some reason you object, is to see whether articles about the Republican Party discuss the GRCT. The reality is that they do not. Therefore you need to provide another method of showing weight. Why should we mention this and not for example the election of a Republican dogcatcher in Lackawanna, NY? TFD (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I cited three articles by NPR, and you cherry-picked one quote from one article. I never brought up Encyclopedia Britannica. The only time I mentioned it is in response to Springee bringing it up.

I have brought up several articles that confirm adoption of GRCT by the GOP, and all you have in response is a single quote from one of them that you don't agree with, and critique of another source that I never cited as one. Cortador (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think this information has Wikipedia:Weight for inclusion? TFD (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have done so above. What viewpoint do you think is not represented? What sources cover this viewpoint?

Also, you have yet to explain why you think tertiary sources are needed, why you falsely claimed I cited sources I didn't cite, or what your issue with the sources I actually cited is, cherry-picked single sentence aside. Cortador (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you think this information has Wikipedia:Weight for inclusion? Please reference the section of that policy thta is relevant.

Note that the onus is on editors who want to include text to show why it meets due weight. The onus is not on editors who object to inclusion. TFD (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll cite the first paragraph of the section you linked to here: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

I have not seen evidence that RS have published a viewpoint differing from what I have claimed. The onus is not on me to find hypothetical viewpoints and RS that cover them. If you feel that whatever additions I (or anyone else, rally) propose to be added leave a significant viewpoint, you are free to bring up whatever viewpoint that is, and back it up with RS. So far, I have not seen RS denying that significant elements the GOP endorse GRCT, should that be a viewpoint you feel is being left out here. Cortador (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Note the words "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Why do you believe that any viewpoint about the GRCT is prominent in sources about the Republican Party? TFD (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Because there's sources that talk about GRCT in relation to the GOP. You haven't answered my question: which viewpoint do you think is no represented? That is what that section you linked to is about. Viewpoints on a topic in RS, not whether a topic is covered in RS to begin with. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not explain my understanding of the policy clearly. The policy "requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." But views on the party and the GRCT are not significant to the topic. We know that because very, very few sources about the party discuss it.

Balancing aspects, which you cited, explains it more clearly, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. [Information] related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

So my question is. why do you think the GRCT is a signifcant or major aspect of the topic of the Republican Party?

TFD (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

"Cortador, the ""EB article" not mentioning GRCT" is the Encyclopedia Britannica article about the Republican Party. You in fact brought up EB as a source."

TFD, I was the one that cited Britannica. Please stop making accusations and follow WP:AGF. DN (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an understandable mistake and no reason why anyone would see it as an accusation. Since you brought up the EB article, do you feel any shame or embarrassment in doing so? Then why should Cortador? TFD (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Which viewpoint do you think is not represented? You still haven't answered that question.

Mentioning of GRCT/GOP belong into this article because it has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, the "which viewpoint" question in response to someone citing WEIGHT is a disingenuous argument. You might have thought it was a legitimate argument when you made it on 6 March but my response noting that it is common for Wiki editors to use WEIGHT when BALASP (a part of NPOV that TFD already mentioned) should have put an edit to this line of tendentious argument. Springee (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If an editor names a section, links to it, and cites it (which is what TDF did), I expect them to be talking about that section. I'm not going to playing guessing games about what policy an editor is talking about when they cite an entirely different policy. Cortador (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Asking as you are doing is TEND. If you want to be pedantic about a common editor miscite you should state why and should instead note why you are asking an otherwise pointless question. Springee (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think expecting someone who copy-pasted part of a policy section to actually talk about is "not maintain[ing] an editorially neutral point of view", I can't help you. Or did you not mention WP:TEND but some other policy, and expect me to, again, know which one that would be? Cortador (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned TEND because that fits your line of questioning. Springee (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

TEND is about disruptive editing, not about expecting people to refer to the policy from whose page they are copying. Cortador (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, TEND is about disruptive editing. That's why I mentioned it with respect to what you are doing. Springee (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you did not. Above you cited that policy as one against pedantry, and now you claim you meant disruptive editing because you, once more, neglected to read the policy you were citing. Cortador (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would point out that WEIGHT refers to presentation as opinions while BALASP relates to presentation of facts. But they are similar in that facts and opinions should only be presented in articles if they feature prominently in literature about the sources.

Saying that one opinion has greater acceptance or sole acceptance over another is not a reason for inclusion, per weight. If it were, the article could include the tens or thousands of opinions expressed over minor aspects of the Party, for example, why a Republican candidate won or lost the race for dogcatcher in Duxbury Vermont in 1928. TFD (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How many sources cover the GOP in the context of dogcatcher in Duxbury Vermont in 1928? How does that number compare to sources covering GRCT in the context of the GOP? Cortador (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional citations, if anyone is still interested. Please point out any duplicates that should be removed or struck, but im fairly certain we are close to 30 sources that include comments by historians, peer-reviewed opinion polls and news articles that span years of journalism and research that continues to this day.

Randall Balmer Republican-dominated state legislatures have nevertheless used the big lie as a pretext for limiting access to the ballot box, but one of the more persistent conspiracy theories is the so-called replacement theory, which has gained traction in some precincts of the Republican Party. SantaFeNewMexican Aug 2022

Heidi Beirich, PhD Just for context, research on the insurrectionist movement out of the University of Chicago looked at the people who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and they pointed to two things that those people tend to believe. One is the “great replacement” conspiracy theory — this white supremacist idea that’s often antisemitic, that Jews are replacing white people in their homelands with people of color, immigrants, refugees — but the other thing they tend to believe is QAnon. Trump knows this makes up part of his base. He knows, or at least people around him know, that it’s a force in the Republican Party. I think those things are motivating this activity as well. Politico 2022

James Risen The Anti-Defamation League called for Fox News to fire pundit Tucker Carlson last year because he espoused the “great replacement” theory so aggressively and so often, but the racist trope has now become normalized within the Republican Party. The Intercept January 2022

Miles Taylor (security expert) Look no further than how Republicans have pushed the conspiracy theories of QAnon, the 2020 stolen election myth and, chillingly, the “great replacement” lie that hangs over the tragic events in Buffalo. An Associated Press poll in December found that nearly 50 percent of Republicans agree to some degree with the sentiments of the “great replacement theory” NBC News May 2022

That conspiracy, known as “replacement theory,” has a long history at the fringes of American politics, reverberating for decades within the underground worlds of white nationalism and white supremacy. But it gained a recent mainstream foothold under former President Trump, whose “Make America Great Again” campaign launched with a blanket attack on Mexican immigrants, won legions of followers across the country and remains the single most animating force in the GOP even more than a year after Trump’s departure from public office. The Hill May 2022

Whether for ratings or votes, these ideas are now central to the Republican Party’s political messaging: that they are the one thing holding the country back from total chaos; that voting for Democrats will inevitably lead to policy shifts that will, in quick succession, lead to the downfall of the white race. This is the brunt of the political message that half of Republican voters have adopted, thanks in large part to the efforts of figures like Carlson and other Republicans: Ideas that were once shunned are now the foundation of the party’s platform; the best way to turn voters out in November is to ensure that they’re scared out of their minds. The great replacement theory is here to stay. It’s practically a plank in the GOP platform. The New Republic May 2022

Collin Bossen "It is becoming a trend: More and more Republicans have been signing on to “great replacement theory.” Because this worldview posits various versions of a nefarious liberal scheme to replace native-born Americans with non-White outsiders, it’s often analyzed through a racial prism. The “great replacement” nonsense is yet another example of exactly that sort of derangement, and this mental habit is becoming dogma in the GOP. WaPo Op-Ed Sept 2021 cited by Political theology, discovery and the roots of the ‘great replacement’

The massacre by a white supremacist gunman of Black shoppers at a Buffalo grocery store has drawn renewed scrutiny of Republican figures in the US who have embraced the racist “great replacement theory” he is alleged to have used as justification for the murders. In a study of the history of great replacement theory in Republican circles, Vice notes that it “isn’t new to American politicians”. In 2017, the Iowa congressman Steve King, a fierce Trump loyalist, said in a tweet: “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” The Guardian May 2022 "Currently, white replacement theory has been mass popularized and normalized, perhaps chiefly by the American political commentator Tucker Carlson. It is rapidly moving to the center of the mainstream narrative of America’s Republican party." Jason Stanley The Gaurdian Op-Ed May 2022

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) DN (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are you providing additional sources? The issue is whether the topic is sufficiently covered in sources about the Republican Party to merit inclusion. Note that there are a lot of sources about the Republican Party and listing a few dozen about the GRCT is a tiny fraction of the totality of reliable sources. Lincoln alone has had 15,000 books written about him. There must be literally (I mean this in the literal not figurative sense) millions and millions of sources on the party. How do you determine which information is significant? TFD (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln is also mentioned in the article 30+ times and has entire paragraphs dedicated to him and his presidency. What's your point? Cortador (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

My point is that if an aspect of the t has 15,000 books written about them, it has weight for inclusion. If only a few sources have mentioned it, it doesn't. In between are thousands of aspects of the topic not all of which can be included due to space, but may have had extensive coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the threshold then? Cortador (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not know what the threshold is. That's why I use "summary sources" to determine what experts think is important. In any case, since you are trying to persuade us that the threshold is met, you shouldn't have to ask me what the threshold is, you should already know and be ready to tell me. TFD (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

And yet you are convinced that somehow, this topic doesn't meet it. The threshold is the sources I provided. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Cortador asked how many sources cover the GOP in the context of dogcatcher in Duxbury Vermont in 1928 compared with ones that cover the GOP and the GRCT. Probably not many. OTOH, there have been 19 Republican presidents of the U.S., a similar number of VPS, numerous Republican governors of New York, Massachusetts and Texas, mayors of New York, speakers of the House of Representatives,and high profice party machine bosses such as D. C. Stephenson, all of whom have had entire books written about them.There are also over GOP 30 gevernors and over 50 senators and a number of high profile members of Congress, all of whom received more new coverage. We cannot put in everything, because it would take up thousands of pages. TFD (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we put in everything. That's called a straw man argument. DN (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

IOW you cannot or will not answer the question.

This article grows every time there is a new event. The November 2024 election will be added and if the Republicans return to power there will be a new section on their new administation. But there is a limit to what can go into the article because there are limitations on size.

You have provided no criteria for determining what belongs in the article. Instead, you counter with RANDOMLINKS: STRAWMAN, WEIGHT, NOPERSONALATTACKS, RELIABLESOURCES, etc., without ever explaining how any of them relate to the issue.

TFD (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have also reponded to this on your talk page (BTW). DN (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the current lead in the article, As of 2024, Trumpists are the dominant faction within the GOP. When we speak of Trumpists, some also refer to them as part of the MAGA movement. We have an entire section on the Trump era, not to mention the Trumpist faction. We also have a section called the Gingrich revolution.

"In just the past year, Republican luminaries like Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and Georgia congressman, and Elise Stefanik, the center-right New York congresswoman turned Trump acolyte (and third-ranking House Republican), have echoed replacement theory. Appearing on Fox, Mr. Gingrich declared that leftists were attempting to “drown” out “classic Americans.”" NYT May 2022

I'm still listing sources for a number of reasons. One of them being there are so many of them over such a long period of time. It is already about halfway through the 10 year test. I'm also adding them with context for those those with limited access and time to more accurately and efficiently address and discuss. My apologies for taking up so much space or if it is not appreciated, but hopefully it improves participation and perspective.

I am of the view that whether or not the Trump wins in Nov is irrelevant, per WP:CRYSTAL, and the odds are that for the next 7-8 months (minimum) there will likely be more articles and research about the Republican party's MAGA-version of GRCT. There's over a dozen or so fairly notable experts (IMHO) that are paying attention to this trend in the GOP with regard to their respective fields, including professors, historians and political scientists like Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt, Sara Kamali, Joseph Lowndes, Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Mark Pitcavage, Cas Mudde, Philip Gorski, Samuel L. Perry, Nicole Hemmer, Sophie Bjork-James, Kathleen Belew, Larry A. Rosenthal, Jason Stanley, Heidi Beirich, Joseph Chamie, Clarence Lusane, Adam Serwer etc..etc..etc...Some of these scholars have suggested that GRCT also fall in line with other aspects of the MAGA/Trumpist agenda, such as restricting abortion, voter fraud, and loosening gun laws.

• Britannica The MAGA movement is also known for having an antagonistic relationship with mainstream news media, which are thought by a majority in the movement to be biased against MAGA views, at best, and to be lying on behalf of the movement’s enemies, at worst. This belief has resulted in a vulnerability among MAGA members to false news stories and particularly far-fetched conspiracy theories circulated by MAGA-supporting media outlets and repeated by MAGA leaders. Examples include charges that Democratic former president Barack Obama is not a native-born U.S. citizen (“birtherism”), that Democrats’ immigration policies aim to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants (see replacement theory), that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump by Democrats through massive voter fraud, and that the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, in which a mob of Trump supporters attempted to halt Congress’s certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, was actually staged by left-wing forces...In the aftermath of the election, there was a rush to understand and respond to the new political power that the MAGA movement represented. The media ran numerous articles and television reports analyzing the development and makeup of the movement. Within the Republican Party, Trump became a kingmaker, his endorsement all but necessary to anyone who wished to win a Republican primary election for a major office (see Republican politicians all over the country have repeated the GRCT USA Today May 2022)...The MAGA movement remains a powerful force in American politics. In late 2022 an estimated 4 in 10 Republicans identified themselves as “MAGA Republicans.” Shortly after the midterm elections of 2022, Trump declared his candidacy for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. In view of the strength of the MAGA movement, other candidates for the Republican nomination have been forced to adopt strategies (see Why is Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy doubling down on conspiracy theories? BBC Dec 2023) that limit direct or serious criticisms of Trump and emphasize their acceptance of at least some of the extremist views of MAGA members.

(Edits in bold are duplicate sources I've added that show relevance to the context in the tertiary source)

• As racially conservative whites became a majority within the GOP, the party's primary system and the influence of right-wing media further pushed Republican leaders towards white grievance politics. Donald Trump capitalized on this sentiment, using white identity politics to gain support from Republicans who felt their status was threatened. His presidency further radicalized the GOP, leading to the widespread adoption of his tactics and the marginalization of any of any significant anti-Trump voices within the party. The "great replacement theory", a white supremacist belief that a conspiracy is underway to replace white Americans with immigrants, gained traction with Trump supporters and was amplified by right-wing media figures like Tucker Carlson. This narrative has been linked to acts of white supremacist terrorism and reflects the deep entrenchment of white resentment politics in the Republican party. (bottom paragraph) Tyranny of the Minority by Harvard political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky in their 2023 NYT best selling book "Tyranny of the Minority"

• NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump is seizing on his party’s frustration with the recent surge of illegal crossings at the southern U.S. border to churn up fears around another top GOP concern — voter fraud. In the final stretch before Iowa’s caucuses next Monday, the former Republican president has repeatedly suggested that Democrats are encouraging migrants to flow into the country illegally in order to register them to vote in the 2024 election. The unsupported claim, which Trump and other Republicans have carted out in past election years, is resonating with voters who agree that security is lacking at both the border and the polls. Experts say it also can be damaging, giving undue traction to false stereotypes and extremist ideologies such as the racist “great replacement theory.” Meanwhile, public confusion around border policy leaves room for false claims to spread, said Jared Holt, a senior analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based think tank that tracks online hate, disinformation and extremism. He said false noncitizen voting claims over the years have helped build support for a more sinister conspiracy theory about a grand plot to diminish the influence of white Americans by replacing them with minorities. “It’s sort of a tongue-in-cheek way of pushing the great replacement theory, but in a way that has been understood to be less morally repugnant or perceivably more defensible,” Holt said. “I don’t think you have to scratch very far below the surface to understand what is really being said.” AP News Jan 2024

• Joel Rose The word invasion has a long history in white nationalist circles. For years, it was used widely by supporters of the "replacement theory" — the false conspiracy theory that says Jews or elites are deliberately replacing white Americans with immigrants and people of color. Until recently, you rarely heard it from Republican officeholders or candidates. In this election cycle, it's moved squarely into the mainstream..."Before these ideas might have been seen as outliers. But now, it is really troubling," said Vanessa Cárdenas, the deputy director of America's Voice, an immigrant advocacy group that's been tracking political ads. It's found dozens of ads that use the word invasion by Republicans campaigning all over the country. NPR Aug 2022

• Republican lawmakers claiming immigrants are part of a “great replacement” of White voters has been in the news for months. “Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the No. 3 House Republican, and other GOP lawmakers came under scrutiny . . . for previously echoing the racist ‘great replacement’ theory that apparently inspired an 18-year-old who allegedly killed 10 people while targeting Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo,” reported the Washington Post (May 16, 2022). “The baseless conspiracy theory claims that politicians are attempting to wipe out White Americans and their influence by replacing them with non-White immigrants.” The immigration group America’s Voice has tracked election-year ads and found inflammatory rhetoric about immigrants from Republican candidates. “Almost all the Republicans running statewide in Arizona have made ‘replacement’ and ‘invasion’ conspiracies a central part of their campaigns,” according to an America’s Voice report. Forbes Oct 2022

• Dr. Sara Kamali: The “great replacement theory” is one such baseless belief that is playing a role in the anti-immigration rhetoric that is central to the 2022 strategies of many Republican candidates who are running for seats at all levels of government. The Conversation Sept 2022

• A fear of an “invasion” of people of color has also been a longtime Republican talking point that has gained prominence during the Trump administration. The New York Times analyzed right-wing media—including Fox New shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight—and found “hundreds of examples of language, ideas, and ideologies that overlapped with the mass killer’s written statement.” President Trump and officials in his administration have used it, and Republican members of Congress have used similar racist language. Below are some examples we found. Mother Jones Aug 2019

• Versions of the theory have been promoted by Fox News' Tucker Carlson and Republican members of Congress, most notably House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York. Most frequently, arguments about replacement theory are framed in terms of voter power, with Republicans arguing that Democrats want to use immigration to dilute Republican votes. Business Insider May 2022

• As majorities of Republicans express belief in the tenets of the far-right white nationalist "great replacement" theory and Democrats fail to lead on immigration, analysts and voters said worries over surging prices, gun violence and more are crowding out a vital issue for much of the country. USA Today June 2022

• It may not be immediately obvious how the fight over abortion rights is tied to the “great replacement” theory — the debunked conspiracy theory promoted by some Republican politicians who claim that Democrats support more immigration to “replace” white American voters. But the explanation for, say, an alleged gaffe that overturning the constitutional right to an abortion is a “historic victory of white life” or a concern that not enough white babies are being born in the U.S. can be found in the history of the anti-abortion movement. Fivethirtyeight July 2022

Please notify me if there is any duplication of previous citations, so I may strike. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Republican Party (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Completely Random Guy

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 06:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Completely Random Guy: Since you nominated this, an NPOV tag has been added to the Immigration section. Given that it pertains to an ongoing RfC, this probably makes this a quick-fail under criterion 3. I'd be open to trying to find a way around that, however, if not for a different criterion, #1: It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. One of those criteria is Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. In addition to the NPOV tag addition, I see a 16kB removal from the article yesterday, a failed verification tag addition two days prior, a big change to how factions are handled in the infobox the day before that, edit-warring on the 6th and 7th, and an endless drumbeat of additions of developments about the party.
  I'll be frank, stability here is something beyond your or my control, and I don't think this article will be close to passing that criterion until... well, until either American politics becomes a lot calmer, or until the Republican party ceases to exist. It's a noble effort to get this to GA, but I'm not sure it's in the cards for you. I'm going to leave this open for a little bit in case you have any questions, comments, or concerns, but I do intend to fail this under quickfail criteria 1, 3, and to a lesser extent 4 (edit-warring). But again, thank you for your effort, and sorry to be the bearer of bad news here. Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.