Talk:Republican Party of Chile

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republican Party of Chile article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chile Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic literature (e.g. Ariel Becerra, Consuelo Campos and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser) classifies the party as right populist rather than far-right.

Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, the current stable wording ("right-wing") should remain pending source comparison and consensus here. Carigval.97 (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a source that says the party isn't far-right (along with another that notes that it has various far-right elements) cannot prevent the use of journalistic sources describing it as far right: why all the sources that describe the party as far-right have been removed, and an entire part of the "ideology" section has been removed even though it wasn't even talking about that? ToxinDemon (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid evaluating sources based on perceived editorial leanings and instead focus on source type and scholarly weight. Peer-reviewed academic literature carries more analytical authority in ideological classification than journalistic descriptors. If the majority of academic sources describe the party as right-wing populist, per WP:WEIGHT that should be the primary characterization, with other descriptions attributed in the body.

It is very important to distinguish between the personal positions of prominent individuals and the official positions of the party as a whole. While José Antonio Kast has been a central figure in the party’s history and public image, not all of his personal views are formally codified as the party’s platform. Treating Kast’s individual stances as if they automatically define the party’s ideology risks conflating a leader’s rhetoric with the collective platform and policy commitments of the organization.

Reliable sources note internal evolution and debates within the party on value-based and political issues, including divergences that led to the departure of figures such as Johannes Kaiser and the creation of the National Libertarian Party. Such dynamics suggest internal differentiation rather than a monolithic ideological identity. Therefore, ideological classification in the article should reflect the party’s official platform as described by independent analysis, rather than primarily the views of any single leader. Igallards7 (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...and again, why was every source that says the party is far-right removed, even considering the presence of a source that notes many such elements in the party? Ditto for an entire section about the party's ideology. ToxinDemon (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Right-wing to Far-right HoopaRoopa (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source clearly classifies the party itself as far-right. The remaining references concern Kast personally or electoral dynamics, not the party’s formal ideological classification. Even Kast’s own article notes pragmatic shifts and strategic moderation, which cautions against equating individual rhetoric with the party’s institutional ideology.

Per WP:WEIGHT, a single journalistic descriptor cannot override the prevailing academic framing. The issue is already properly addressed in the “Ideology” section; the infobox should reflect the dominant scholarly characterization. --Carigval.97 (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth reiterating that the term “far-right” has not been removed from the article. It remains in the “Ideology” section, where it's contextually appropriate and properly attributed to specific media sources. That section also reflects that several academic specialists either question or don't adopt that label in their analytical classification of the party.

The infobox, however, should summarize the dominant scholarly characterization rather than foreground a contested journalistic descriptor. --Carigval.97 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no clear consensus on this talk page regarding the inclusion of «far-right» label, and this characterization has been explicitly disputed since 2021. Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV, contested labels should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice without clear agreement and strong sourcing.

In contrast, the characterization of the party as right-wing consistently across reliable sources and is not subject to the same level of dispute. Per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia. In this context, it's more appropriate to use "right-wing", while attributing more contested labels such as far-right to specific sources where they are used.--Carigval.97 (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I see it exactly as the opposite. In the Spanish Wikipedia, there has been consensus for years, because it is most consistent and more prevalent the use of the "far right" rather than "right" label, as you claim. In fact you have provided no sources. The note on the Spanish article has several references from books, academic articles and news articles consistently dubbing the party "far-right". I think it should be labelled as such (retiring these which are minor and label it as "right wing" only).

Several media outlets, institutions, and research papers that identify the Republican Party of Chile as a far-right political party include:

• Chilean media and institutions: El Mercurio,^[1] Diario Financiero,^[2] La Tercera,^[3] Como tienda, se han mostrado negacionistas del cambio climático.^[4] EMOL,^[5] Radio Bío-Bío,^[6] Centro de Estudios Públicos,^[7][8] CNN Chile,^[9] El Mostrador,^[10] El Desconcierto,^[11] The Clinic,^[12] Ciper,^[13] El Ciudadano,^[14] and Radio Universidad de Chile.^[15]
• International media: The Washington Post,^[16] BBC,^[17] elDiario.es,^[18] El País,^[19] El Mundo,^[20] Euronews,^[21] Europa Press,^[22] El Salto,^[23] Público,^[24] Ara,^[25] and La Vanguardia.^[26]
• Research papers: El Partido Republicano: el proyecto populista de la derecha radical chilena, by Consuelo Campos Campos, Revista uruguaya de Ciencia Política (2021),^[27] and The arrival of the populist radical right in Chile: José Antonio Kast and the “Partido Republicano”, by Camila Díaz, Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, and Lisa Zanotti, Journal of language and politics.^[28]

Bedivere (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these 28 (!!!) sources into the article and changed the denomination back to "far-right". Bedivere (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: The issue here is not whether sources exist that describe the party as “far-right”. It is clear that such sources exist. The problem is that you restored that label in Wikipedia’s voice (lead and infobox) without establishing consensus on this talk page, despite this being a long-standing and ongoing dispute (see discussions since 2021).

Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS, contested changes to stable wording require prior agreement. Simply adding a large number of sources and then reinstating your preferred version does not resolve the dispute.

Moreover, the source list you added does not justify presenting “far-right” as the primary and unqualified classification in the infobox:

Many of the sources are journalistic descriptors, not analytical classifications.

Several refer to José Antonio Kast as an individual, not necessarily to the party’s institutional ideology.

The terminology is not uniform (“ultra”, “extrema derecha”, “derecha radical”, etc.), which are not automatically equivalent for infobox purposes.

Relevant academic literature (e.g. Rovira Kaltwasser and others) uses more specific categories such as “radical right” or “populist radical right”, which complicates a blanket “far-right” label.

Under WP:WEIGHT, academic literature must be represented accurately and proportionally, not selectively reduced to a single label when the classification is itself debated.

Given this, the compromise wording “right-wing to far-right” better reflects the range of reliable sources and complies with WP:NPOV. More specific or contested labels can and should remain in the body with proper attribution.

Replacing that compromise with “far-right” in Wikipedia’s voice, while the matter remains disputed, is not consistent with policy. Please seek consensus here before making further changes to the lead or infobox.-- Carigval.97 (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed these sources? Really? I will report this to admins. Bedivere (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove valid content; I reverted edits that I considered problematic in terms of sourcing and due weight. In any case, the “far-right” characterization remains in the infobox with its corresponding sources, which contradicts the claim that I am attempting to remove it.

You also removed a substantial number of sourced references without clear justification. Disagreements over the sufficiency or interpretation of sources should be addressed through discussion and consensus, not by dismissing opposing edits as vandalism. Carigval.97 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You removed 27 sources and claimed my edits were vandalism. There's no possible discussion without an apology, at least. And by the way, stop using AI to respond. Bedivere (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't removed your 27 sources; my edit restored a prior version during the dispute.

Even, your sources were reinstaled.-- Carigval.97 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and now I didn't use AI in that response Carigval.97 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]