I made the mistake of stopping there to comment before finishing the article, so I've gotten several replies to this effect; You were the first, so I'll respond

I made the mistake of stopping there to comment before finishing the article, so I've gotten several replies to this effect; You were the first, so I'll respond to yours. "Endorsing" might be too strong a word, but they're certainly highlighting it. None of the issues the article author (User:HaeB) has with the study's classification really manage to rebut it. They bring up a 2012 study (pointing out its methods were dubious) - but that was over a decade ago, and before the reforms to NPOV enforcement as the article and paper define them. The author says it may not "generalize to other countries", but that just means we're talking specifically about American "conservatism" (and "liberalism"). Likewise, there's the anecdote about applying the general principles to the Republican Houses of Congress, where anti-Trump is the fringe, but the comparison there only really holds with the implicit admission that in Wikipedian politics, non-liberals are the fringe among the people making the decisions.