Talk:Factions in the Republican Party (United States)

message: Security Oriented
This faction of the Republican party emerged after the September 11th attacks. This group includes people who, regardless of other social or economic views, are very alarmed at threats to the USA. This current has usually been satisfied with President Bush's policies, but recently has criticised him regarding the issue of illegal immigration from Mexico. They probably support gun ownership rights for self-defense.
As it stands this seems to be another faction which seems to exist more in the mind of the observer then in reality.
Now I will readily admit to the existence of "Security Moms" but these are largely traditionally Democratic voters who have adhered to President Bush in light of 9/11 and are thought to be some of the same "Soccer Moms" who voted President Clinton in for two terms but have had to place "Women's Issues" in the backseat given their more pressing concerns for the phyisical safety of their families in the face of terrorism.  It is generally believed that as the threat of terror decreases or as the Democrats gain credibility in dealing with it, the Security Moms will revert back to their Democratic voting patterns.  Given that most of these women are probably still registered Democrats, they could not be said to represent a Republican faction anymore than the Reagan Democrats could.
There does not seem to be any faction of Republicans devoted to security above all else.  This does not mean that tensions do not exist.  For instance Republican libertarians (and what the article is calling neo-libertarians) hate most provisions of the Patriot Act as much as Democrats do.  They just have to hold their nose because they agree with their Republican compatriots on so many other issues. Carambola 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security Oriented 

message: This section really needs to be cleaned up.  The definition of liberal is too vague and is fact dehistoricized.  If you used liberal to describe Teddy Roosevelt you might be right then and now when discussing his desire to take very, very, aggressive measures to restrain big business.  But this proposal by Teddy Roosevelt in his 1906 State of the Union Address would hardly meet the definition of liberal but would instead warm the heart of NRA members everywhere: 
" We should establish shooting galleries in all the large public and military schools, should maintain national target ranges in different parts of the country, and should in every way encourage the formation of rifle clubs throughout all parts of the land. The little Republic of Switzerland offers us an excellent example in all matters connected with building up an efficient citizen soldiery."
If you are going to use the modern definition of liberal then you need to apply it consistently.  The vast majority of Republicans would certainly object to party icons Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt being described as liberals, and it would not be productive to try and explain the difference between a nineteenth century liberal/early twentieth century liberal and a mid twentieth to early twenty first century liberal or for that matter, between a nineteenth/early twentieth century conservative and twentieth/early twentieth century conservative.
Furthermore, 'progressive' positions on racial and gender equality have become as much conservative as they have liberal.  The debate is no longer whether say, racism is wrong but rather to what extent the government should try to adjust for latent racist tendancies in society by using quota systems or affirmative action. 
You can certainly write an excellent section on liberal Republicans but clear in what one means and if one intends to credibly go back farther than Neslon Rockefeller then one needs to do some research.  
As a final note, one might ask whether liberal Republicans even exist anymore or if they do, whether they are not actually mislabelled as moderates.  Is Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island a moderate or a liberal or simply a moderate liberal.
**good points and I tried to clear up the section. "Liberal" in US politics means pro-New Deal and sates from the 1930s. Rjensen 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberals

message: There is a recent study  that broke the parties into factions, commissioned by the Washington Post, Harvard University, and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. This would be a good foundation for describing "factions".
 AdamRetchless 14:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some objectivity 

message: Why is this tag on this page?  I believe it should be removed because nobody here seems to think it's not NPOV. --Quasipalm 19:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I merged Neoliberals and neolibertarians -- the article does not really distinguish them.  A few more names would help. Should CATO and think tanks be mentioned here? Rjensen 21:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: This is an old term, but would now seem to have contradictory meanings. It was originally used to distinguish small town and small business Republicans from the "Big Business" Wall Street faction, implying that the Main Streeters were more socially conservative whereas the Wall Streeters were just interested in "getting business off of our backs" — lower taxes and less regualtion for business with fewer social concerns.  Now, groups like the Republican Main Street Partnership are attempting to redefine "Main Street" as being more socially moderate, far from the Christian right.  Would like input on whether this should be integrated into the article, and if so, then how.  Rlquall 20:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main Street " Republicans 

message: This articles needs to be referenced properly. What books reference what claims? Arbusto 08:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact almost all the material is common knowledge to people who read the press. The listed books cover all the groups as well, and each book has an index that aids the user. Putting page numbers in is unnecessary for people who have the bnooks and unnecessary for people who do not have the books. Rjensen 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not how citing works. What claim is being used by what book? Arbusto 17:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. "Common knowledge" does not apply here, and removal of the 'sources' tag should be treated as vandalism from here on. --InShaneee 19:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, people who read the media are familiar with the material. If someone needs more help on a specific point, please ask, rather than demand help on all 400 points in the article. Rjensen 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter. Wikipedia policy on sources is VERY clear on this issue. --InShaneee 20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but as it stands, the Religious Right section needs to be changed.  Rick Santorum, thankfully, is no longer a Senator.  I shall leave the decision of whether to remove, replace, or relabel him to wiser heads than mine.
What about economic librilism?
*Their support for a large national debt and increased government spending aligns them more with supply-side economics than with fiscal conservatives. SteveSims (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santorum 

message: It's nice to see someone gets it right.  Paleoconservatives are the silent majority, they are not a minority, they are the majority.
*Not really. Look at GOP governments expanding debt/spending/the size of the government since Reagan. Anybody who still thinks libertarians are a major faction in the Republican Party hasn't been paying attention for the last thirty years. SteveSims (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To the unsigned poster above: I didn't know Chronicles had such a large subscription base. By the way, which libertarians falsely identify themselves as paleocons? And please, sign your posts by adding four tildes. Thanks. Twalls (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarians falsely identify themselves as Paleoconservatives 

message: This false statement reflects badly on Wikipedia's credibility. The claim is incredible, and needs to be either cited or deleted by the original claimant or someone in the republican party. It is common knowledge that neoconservatives (Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfield to name a few) had important positions in Reagan's administration and were charter members of PNAC, which advocated the use of US military might to promote American-style democracy around the world. The PNAC website is currently out-of-business (June 6 2008), but these facts are easily verified by a google search. It is possible that the PNACers all joined Operation Chaos and as dinos voted for Hillary Clinton ... then it might be fair to call them democrats, or maybe they were democrats before they were republicans?  Anne E.
::No offense Anne, but you really need to do your homework.  This isn't some stupid liberal or conservative blog - its an academic article about a political subject, and just because you are offended by the implication, that does not mean it is wrong.  In fact, neoconservatives are in fact former cold war democrats who converted into the republican party when the democrats began opposing war and turning into a more pacifist political ideology.  They came to the republican party as a way to pursue their foreign policy ideology, because to them it was a transcendent issue that was more important than party identity, or social policy.  Now, many modern neoconservatives were never democrats, and were raised intellectually within the republican party and conservatism, but that doesn't change the intellectual heritage of neoconservatism (its given the moniker "neo" for a reason), which is extremely democratic, and the fact that their modern worldview has little interest in domestic policy, and is more of a single issue theology than anything else.  Do some reading before you complain.  69.137.154.10 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many Neoconservatives Were Formerly Democrats??? 

message: The Religious Right should be noted as be fascistic as it has advocated or supported fascistic views such as modern corporatism spurred by heavy militaristic government spending (war profiteering in Iraq), extreme bigotry towards minorities (opposition to human rights for LGBT), tolerance of human rights abuses (guantanamo bay, secret prisons, water boarding, other torture) and other polices.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.48.39 (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: God, would you people PLEASE for the love of all that is holy quit the fire breathing, pick up a book and read about the difference between "republican" and "divisions of the republican party"???  The religious right has absolutely nothing to do with Guantanamo, Iraq, torture or water boarding.  You can say the republican party is responsible for this - but this article is about the individual factions within the party, and there is nothing about the religious right that supports those ideologies - they belong to another faction of the republican party - the neoconservatives.  This is an academic article about a political subject, seriously - PLEASE for the love of god take your ideological agenda and take it to a blog.  This is an article intended to allow people to study the ideological beliefs of the numerous wings of the republican party, and there is no room for such loaded pejoratives as "fascist" (by the way, spell it right if you want to appear intelligent). That's just completely ignorant and shows you have no interest in learning.  69.137.154.10 (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: May I remind you that this is not a forum, and that wikipedia is not a place to push you POV.  That being said if you wish to positively contribute to the article, please do so, if you are here to push your POV please help improve Wikipedia elsewhere. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Right is Fascistic 

message: Should this be in the Historic factions group?  I will be moving it to the active factions group.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderates 

message: I think this page should be rewritten on a different basis.
I don't think that there are identifiable factions in the Republican party. There are obviously major disagreements, but I don't think that there is much correlation between the people who are less conservative (or whatever) on X and the people who are less conservative on Y.
For instance, George Bush. Clearly very right-wing on foreign policy. Holds rightwing views on abortion, gays etc. On the other hand, clearly didn't believe in cutting government spending: which would obviously be a right-wing position. Was more conciliatory than any high-ranking republicans (and some democrats) were towards immigrants. 
So is he a moderate or a conservative republican? Whichever answer we give would imply some misleading things about his policy positions on some topics. "He's a conservative republican and they want to cut spending... errr..."
"moderate republicans support stem-cell research... oops."
I think it should be represented as binary scales, where your appearance as "liberal" or "moderate" on one scale doesn't imply liberal-ness on another scale. Examples:
'neoconism vs. isolationism'
'nativism vs integration'
'big-gov conservatism vs fiscal conservatism'
'security vs civil liberties'
'moralists vs libertarians'
and so forth. This would expunge the poisonous waffling about "overlap", a problem that constantly bedevils wikipedia. I mean, if these terms overlap almost all the time, they're next to useless, aren't they? BillMasen (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change emphasis of page? 

message: The article is self-inconsistent.  Like any very popular leader, Ronald Reagan embodied the idea of overlap, appealing to multiple factions and avoiding identifying too closely with any one of them.  This is reflected in the discussion of the Reagan coalition in "Overlap"; he was mostly a fiscal conservative and a national security hawk, but expressed some views associated with the socially conservative wing of the party (and some views that were more socially liberal).  But later in the article he is classified (wrongly, I would argue) as a social conservative.  Rather than "fix" the article I am just pointing out the inconsistency in case someone else would like to try to fix it.  Larry Siegel (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifying Ronald Reagan 

message: It should be noted that virtually all paleoconservatives are traditionalist conservatives, yet not all traditionalist conservatives are paleoconservatives.  Paleoconservatives emphasize their Old Right (1933-1955) roots whereas most traditionalists were originally a mix of the Old Right and the first New Right (1955-1964) centered at National Review magazine.  Paleoconservatives embrace many traditionalist conservative forebears such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, the Southern Agrarians, and the Distributists, however they do not tend to emphasize the central place of Edmund Burke and the New Humanists like mainstream traditionalists do.  This is why I created a separate category for traditionalist conservatives, since most are unknown except within the conservative intellectual movement (I mean does anyone really think that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter and their followers know of former Modern Age editor George A. Panichas or Claes G. Ryn of the National Humanities Institute?).  The most noted traditionalist conservative politicians are former Michigan Governor John Engler and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, both of whom openly acknowledge their debt to traditionalist conservative godfather Russell Kirk as influencing their thinking.
On a side note some paleoconservatives emphasize the role of race in their politics, such as former white nationalist paleocon thinker Samuel T. Francis and American Conservative film critic Steve Sailer.  Virtually all mainstream traditionalist conservatives reject white nationalism and any hints of racism whereas most paleoconservatives have tolerated it. NPWest 04:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditionalist conservatism and paleoconservatism 

message: The Old Right (1933-1955) was that loose coalition of individualist (now known as libertarian) thinkers and journalists, Midwestern Republican politicians, and others who opposed FDR's New Deal and early entry into World War Two.  Their most prominent representative was Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio (whom modern day libertarians and paleoconservatives embrace as a forebear) as well as Col. Robert McCormick of the Chicago Tribune.  With the rise of Eisenhower and his "Modern Republicanism" as well as the death of Taft and the founding of National Review, the Old Right died out by 1955.
The First New Right (1955-1964) was centered around those contributors and editors at National Review who were interventionist as opposed to isolationist and who were strongly anti-Communist.  Their politics tended to be what National Review writer Frank Meyer called "fusionist" (libertarian economics, traditionalist social views) and they rose to prominence with Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona.
The Second New Right (1964-Present) formed in the wake of the failed Goldwater campaign by early supporters of Goldwater.  More populist than the National Review New Right, the second New Right consisted of direct-mail icon Richard Viguerie, antifeminist Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips, and Religious Right leaders Rev. Jerry Falwell and Rev. Pat Robertson.  The New Right dovetailed their efforts with the Religious Right as both groups rose to prominence in the 1970s and championed causes such as ending abortion, gay rights, pornography, bringing back prayer in schools, stopping the Panama Canal from being given to Panama. NPWest 04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Right and the First and Second New Right 

message: Bloomburg is not a republican as this article states he is an independant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth maker (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYC mayor 

message: It seems to me that there are no "moderate" republicans. Any republican politician who deviates once from the "conservative" line on any subject, or shows any kind of emollience towards the democrats, or slightly-less-than-absolute dedication to the conservative program, is called a "moderate" by republican activists. That is, on the occasions when they don't rant and rave that he's one step away from Trotskyism.
The ideologically fractious left is complicit in this misunderstanding; any small crack in the granite facade of US conservatism is a sign of hope that it can get something done, which is usually impossible in the face of republican unanimity. 
I can't be the only person to think that the Repubs are more ideologically united than the Dems, surely? BillMasen (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say that I know the last three. But Snowe and Collins have voted against most of Obama's agenda, and got villified for voting for the one thing they didn't oppose (stimulus). As we speak, the Repubs are being hammered by their own voters, and "moderate" pols are being unseated; conversely, the far left has had little success in turfing out Dem incumbents, many of whom really are in the middle of politics (I don't believe in the Golden Mean; this doesn't in itself make them more praiseworthy). BillMasen (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  myth of Moderate Republicans 

message: Donald Trump should be mentioned in this article, but where ?--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Trump 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Factions in the Republican Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120021551/http://www.rlc.org/2010/06/25/anti-gay-platform/ to http://www.rlc.org/2010/06/25/anti-gay-platform/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the sections describing the various "wings" or "factions", there are long lists of various current politicians names, who are alleged to be members of those factions.  In almost no cases is there any source cited.  Who says so-and-so is a "moderate", a "conservative", a "libertarian", or whatever?  Based on what criteria?  Is there an authority somewhere who assigns membership to a "faction"?  Who is that authority and why isn't the authority cited?  Or is it by consensus? Whose consensus would that be?  If there were some studies cited from reputable political scientists, for example using statistical clustering of votes or positions of the various politicians, I might buy it, but there isn't anything like that.  
And why are only these politicians classified?  Even if we only include Republicans important enough to have Wikipedia articles about them, there must be hundreds if not thousands of Republican politicians, alive and deceased, whose names could be listed with just as much justification as the currently listed names.  Why aren't they all classified?  We have a few Republican governors listed; why not all of them?  We have a few Republican representatives and senators. Why not all?  We have Pence. Where is Trump, of all people? Why is the classification of the particular politicians in the article notable? The article does not say, cited or not. Are we going to have the article be a "faction directory" of the Republican party, and have Wikipedia editors wandering through, adding their opinions as to the faction of whoever-someone-feels-like-adding?  And who is going to keep it up to date, as Republican politicians change their stripes?
These lists are potentially a disservice to the politicians themselves, who might not agree with the classification, as well as to voters, who might be misled into trusting (or not trusting) a politician because of how Wikipedia has classified him.  Classifying politicans doesn't seem like the business of an encyclopedia, and every uncited inclusion of a politician in one of these lists needs to go. Person54 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the sources? 

message: This was added to the article today, and I reverted it because of lack of citation.  I realize this article already has plenty of uncited material, that is possibly original research.  But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and while there are certainly people in the GOP whom others would characterize as extreme conservatives, there is no citation here to suggest that any authoritative source regards "Extreme Conservatives" as an organized, or even coherent faction within the GOP.  Putting Abraham Lincoln in this so-called faction, along with the mentioned names, seems also to be somewhat idiosyncratic.  
Those conservatives who hold extreme radical views are known as, the Extreme Conservatives.  They are a hybrid of Christian right and Paleoconservatives, but have many traits that are associated with neoconservatives, in that they fully support the military with high military spending, declare martial law on those who are are unconstitutional and who are not Christian, and free trade.   However, like paleoconservatives and the Christian right, extreme conservatives also opposes globalization, and were most critical of all other conservatives in that they are not conservative enough.   Members of this type include the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, Oklahoma doctor, Tom Coburn, Maryland lawyer, John R. Bolton, and Christian TV personality, Pat Robertson.
Person54 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Extreme Conservatives

message: Speaking of uncited material, I'm going to start removing all uncited "lists" of faction members in this article pretty soon, as I "threatened" a few weeks ago.  I'm going to give it another month or so for people to step up and provide citations for the names in the lists, or all uncited names are going to be removed. I think that means that the lists will basically disappear because none of the names are cited, or at most a couple.  Apparently, we are relying on "common knowledge" here, which as we all know is a faux pas on Wikipedia.  So last call for citations, everybody.  Person54 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited Material 

message: This article has no alternative right section, which seems somewhat insane. I personally added it, but it got reverted for unknown reasons.
Don1182 (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not work like that. It needs to be related, sourced, suitable and many times consensus is needed. Simply adding this section after personal gusto is not the way.--Joobo (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the alt-right not a section of the GOP? I'm confused on what you are exactly disputing. All of the information added fits under these guidelines. If the libertarians have a section, then the alt-right should have one.
Don1182 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Right

message: Some "Republicans" like commentators Ana Navarro and Bill Kristol are fiercely anti-Trump and most of her political stances are different from the Republican Party, should the "Anti-Trump Republicans" add as lists?Paul Lincoln (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say not. That doesn't qualify as a faction as far as I can see. thorpewilliam (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Trump Republicans

message: I have always wondered about this sentence; "On the issue of school vouchers, conservative Republicans split between supporters who believe that "big government education" is a failure and opponents who fear greater government control over private and church schools." It's because even with all the divides out there, I don't ever see the divide here, I only see conservatives support school vouchers. Perhaps somebody could give examples of conservatives on both sides of this issue? J390 (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. School vouchers are a typically conservative/GOP policy, I don't see such a divide. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's been there a while, but the section should be retouched. The only "divide" on this I could possibly say I ever saw was George Bush signing Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind with minimal conservative activist support, and I've seen no conservative praise it or not support vouchers for fifteen years. J390 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  School vouchers 

message: This article should include the Trump faction of the GOP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trumpism 

message: There's a few issues here. The first is the lack of neutrality. The second is the contention over whether there is or isn't a proper "Trumpist" wing. Several supposed Trumpists mentioned, including Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, fall solidly into the conservative wing of the party, discussed in the article already. Others, such as Boebert and Taylor Greene, may well be described as "Trumpists" or forming their own, more radical faction. My suggestion would be to either completely redo the section or to remove it and integrate some of the information in it to the rest of the article. I've already made some minor edits to the section. Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of this. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you do. Carlstak (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Josh Hawley falls solidly into the conservative wing of the Republican Party? Surely you're joking. Even the editorial board of The Kansas City Star, where Hemingway honed his craft, and historically hardly a bastion of liberalism, says of Hawley: "Those of you in the Senate who understand what he did, in full possession of the facts and the consequences of twisting them, must do more than censure his treasonous behavior. He'll still be the poster boy of the radical right, but if we're going to keep our democracy, there has to be a penalty for being the ringleader of those encouraging overturning an election." Hawley is a radical in bogus populist garb. Carlstak (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

text: As you say, it might be better to add a new Qanon sub-faction to the Trump faction. On some measures, it's a majority of the Republican base   JQ (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trumpist" section 

message: I propose to remove the "Neutrality disputed" tags on the Trump and anti-Trump factions. Only one user objected, and the only ground put forward (apart from disputes about citation, which have been responded to) was that "there is no such thing as a Trump faction". In the absence of any explanation, I don't think that can be regarded as a serious grounds for dispute.JQ (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The template documentation page says, under the heading When to remove: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." I don't see where any of the tag defenders has explained what "neutrality issue" they have with the sections. Thorpewilliam's comment, "There's a few issues here. The first is the lack of neutrality..." is not an explanation of what the issue is, and this is typical of all the tag defenders' comments—mere hand-waving that doesn't address whatever specific neutrality problems they claim are here. All I get from them is that they seem to think the term "Trumpist faction" is itself non-neutral, without explaining why, which behavior itself is typical of Trumpists—that's how they operate. Carlstak (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Dispute

message: The reason I say this is because Trumpism isn't really an ideology. And if you would describe Trumpism, it would fall under right-wing populism and not as its own thing. Trump has also ben described as a right win populist, so this change would make since. 
if you support this change instead of rewriting it, I would just revert the undo on my edit that changed Trumpism to rightwing populism.Zyxrq (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trumpism to Rightwing populism. 

message: I removed the small section on traditionalists on the grounds that there is no faction within the Republican Party that calls itself that. The label is obsolete. 
I have tagged the sections on paleoconservatives and business conservatives for the same reason. Are these actual factions in the GOP? Who within the GOP calls themselves by these labels? Perhaps the answer to each question is "yes," but the current text is less than persuasive. 74.67.6.88 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Do all of these so-called factions really exist?

message: The user Toa Nidhiki05 consistently rolls back edits by users to keep the page from being updated and changing and moreover provides limited feedback as to the reasons for doing so. For instance, I made an detailed edit today and provided extensive commentary as to why I made the edit before I published it, and within hours Toa Nidhiki05 simply said “This is not helpful.” The user needs to explain and justify that and stop edit warring—even if the user believes they are correct. Anyone else experienced this? Aunger67 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit isn't helpful, correct. It uses British English instead of American english, introduces extremely tenuous claims (Ron DeSantis being a "far-right" faction member, conservatives being right-wing and not center right, and the lack of a centrist wing at all). It's bad, and that's why I reverted it. This article is already a mess, and your edit does nothing to help that. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe this, than edit the parts you don't like--reverting the entire article is gatekeeping behavior. For instance, if you believe Ron DeSantis is not far-right, than remove him from that section and place him elsewhere...if you believe conservatives are centre-right, state that. Also, your note about British English is incorrect--Wikipedia articles are titled that way and that is why the so-called "British" form is used (political science refers to it as Centre-right and Centre-left, and so does Wikipeida--NOT "Center-left" and "Center-right"). Aunger67 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be a new editor here, but I'd advise you to follow WP:BRD and use American English on American articles. Your insistence on using British English gives me the idea that you might not have the firmest grasping of American politics (nobody here uses British spelling). Toa Nidhiki05 19:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gatekeeping 

message: Would it be possible to include a "paleocon" faction ? Considering that the  Neoconservatives are designated as a faction in here, I consider it reasonable to insert  Paleoconservatives as a faction as well. JayBirdtyper (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Paleoconservatives have always been a wing outside the party, not inside it really. There's no formal lobbying body internal or externally, no caucuses... nothing, really. Toa Nidhiki05 16:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information on factions 

message: I noticed that there is a section in the Democratic party factions page that discusses the Democrat's voter base. Should there be a part on this page also discussing voter base of the Republican party? JayBirdtyper (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voter base 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: What is up with the constant churn in placement of images in this article? This seems disruptive. Carlstak (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: What happened to the section with the liberal faction of the Republican Party? BlueBlurHog (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: BlueBlurHog, in answer to your question, please see my series of edits dated November 8 of last year. MonMothma (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

text: They seem to have fallen into the moderate and Rockefeller categories. DN (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Republicans 

message: Hi there! This is the recommended post on the talk page about racial factions. It is necessary to add that section, since there were three uncategorized factions of the Republican Party, all three  of which were defined by race. I still see it necessary then to create a separate section, since they are alone otherwise. 108.40.120.49 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Factions 

message: This page suffers from serious photograph overkill. Most of the politicians listed in factions appear to be entirely arbitrarily selected, and four is far too many. This page should reduce the number of photographs by at least 50%, and likely more. Toa Nidhiki05 06:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The groups of four photos shown for each faction section are unnecessary and a distraction from the text. Being arbitrary, they give undue emphasis to the persons selected, and they have been the cause of constant turnover. The article would be substantially improved without them. Carlstak (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I would support that as well DN (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, I've gone ahead and removed them. Toa Nidhiki05 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary photographs