This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Big tent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I came here hoping for some history. How did the term "big tent" become a common term for a political party? Anybody know? Alexbook ( talk) 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
How are the Republicans not a big tent Party?
Yes, indeed this thing needs a lot of citations. I take particular issue with this sentence: "The Republican Liberty Caucus and similar groups aim to shift the US Republican Party's "center of the tent" towards Goldwater-Reagan ideals." That's a bogus statement and it has no citation to back it up. Reading through, I see plenty more. In the end, whether or not a party is a big tent party is a matter of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.240.233 ( talk) 13:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this article needs breaking up in the examples area to give it more structure and increase it's readability. Perhaps by country or continent? TinTin ( talk) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This article didn't used to be a stub. I used to link to the previous, longer version often for its in depth explanation with examples. It was a great article imho and it's a shame it's all gone now. I'm trying hard to understand why, but to me it defies explanation.
Can someone explain what happened? Did it offend someone somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.0.199 ( talk) 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This article should be ideally titled Catch-all party rather than Big tent - Big tent is a term more exclusive to American politics, while Catch-all party is a more general 'world' title suitable for a global Wikipedia project.-- Autospark ( talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Recent edit has been made by removing "Single-Issue Litmus tests" mainly because parties and political movements can be both single-issue and catch-all/big tent. Reproductive Health Movements can be good examples where members have diverse viewpoints and other advocacies (like those progressives, liberals, socialists, centrists, and others who are for and are ok with it) but at the same time united under one objective which is to have Reproductive Health legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.42.200 ( talk) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus - I would have relisted here but the discussion has been stale for a week so its a good time to close. Explanation - The requested title change has basically resulted in a WP:ENGVAR as the suggested title is common in some parts of the world and unheard of in others. I would note that some !votes were cast without an explanation and they have not been taken into consideration per WP:NOTVOTE. Now coming to the rationales suggested by the editors, there was not much verifiable evidence presented by either side. The only evidence was a Google Books hit count which is considered unreliable per WP:SET (not only for notability but also for page titles). Further, there is good policy based rationales on both sides for both supporting and opposing the move. Hence, per the below discussion, I believe that there is presently no consensus either to support or oppose the move. ( non-admin closure) Yashovardhan ( talk) 17:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Big tent → Catch-all party – Big tent is almost an American politics-exclusive term. A 'Catch-all party' may better apply in order to give a worldwide perspective. HapHaxion ( talk / contribs) 20:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Brexit party should be included. If it is there should be some evaluation of their claim to being a big party.
First, they identify as a single issue, big tent party which is abit oxymoronic in my opinion. Big tent parties aren't founded over a narrow policy position but usually exist through a historical bond or new political idea binding together a wide range of perspectives.
Second, the only evidence of 'big tent-ness' is the inclusion of Claire Fox as an MEP candidate, who is supposedly representative of the Brexit Party's left wing members. Looking at her personal wikipedia page, this really doesn't wash. She is a FORMER Communist, who has been affiliated for the past two decades with the libertarian SpikedOnline.
There is a difference between a big-tent party, which typically sits at the centre and accommodates centre-left and centre-right viewpoints, and a radical populist party, which focuses on a narrow policy position and incorporates exclusively extremists from the left and right (Claire Fox was involved in a lawsuit concerning her denying the Bosnian genocide) [1]
The Brexit party should either be removed from the big-tent party article or it should include some evaluation of whether it really is a big tent party - mention the fact that its only 'left-wing' MEP has been described as a "corporate libertarian" [2]
References
Last year the journalists who run London's Frontline Club considered inviting Fox to speak. Vulliamy insisted she apologise to the camp victims first, but Fox refused.
In the section "Other examples", all of the parties mentioned above seem to be listed again, which is not logical. I would rename it into "List of examples". Another way might be to remove the already mentioned parties. -- F.Blaubiget ( talk) 09:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Having two sections with similar titles and similar info is awkward. Orangehaggis ( talk) 13:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The article is good in that it reliably demonstrates that news media often place political parties into this category. But it seems difficult to determine whether the news media are consistent in what they think the category means, because there isn't much of an explanation or definition.
Can there really be such a thing as a "big-tent" party in a meaningful way? I mean, aren't ALL political parties "big-tent" on certain issues, and aren't they ALL "small-tent" on the issues that unite the party? Isn't that just how party politics has always worked?
I suspect that the whole idea of "big tent" is simply the result of starting from a very limiting and narrow definition of "politics", and I think that might be why there isn't a very specific definition in this article. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Big tent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I came here hoping for some history. How did the term "big tent" become a common term for a political party? Anybody know? Alexbook ( talk) 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
How are the Republicans not a big tent Party?
Yes, indeed this thing needs a lot of citations. I take particular issue with this sentence: "The Republican Liberty Caucus and similar groups aim to shift the US Republican Party's "center of the tent" towards Goldwater-Reagan ideals." That's a bogus statement and it has no citation to back it up. Reading through, I see plenty more. In the end, whether or not a party is a big tent party is a matter of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.240.233 ( talk) 13:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this article needs breaking up in the examples area to give it more structure and increase it's readability. Perhaps by country or continent? TinTin ( talk) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This article didn't used to be a stub. I used to link to the previous, longer version often for its in depth explanation with examples. It was a great article imho and it's a shame it's all gone now. I'm trying hard to understand why, but to me it defies explanation.
Can someone explain what happened? Did it offend someone somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.0.199 ( talk) 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This article should be ideally titled Catch-all party rather than Big tent - Big tent is a term more exclusive to American politics, while Catch-all party is a more general 'world' title suitable for a global Wikipedia project.-- Autospark ( talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Recent edit has been made by removing "Single-Issue Litmus tests" mainly because parties and political movements can be both single-issue and catch-all/big tent. Reproductive Health Movements can be good examples where members have diverse viewpoints and other advocacies (like those progressives, liberals, socialists, centrists, and others who are for and are ok with it) but at the same time united under one objective which is to have Reproductive Health legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.42.200 ( talk) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus - I would have relisted here but the discussion has been stale for a week so its a good time to close. Explanation - The requested title change has basically resulted in a WP:ENGVAR as the suggested title is common in some parts of the world and unheard of in others. I would note that some !votes were cast without an explanation and they have not been taken into consideration per WP:NOTVOTE. Now coming to the rationales suggested by the editors, there was not much verifiable evidence presented by either side. The only evidence was a Google Books hit count which is considered unreliable per WP:SET (not only for notability but also for page titles). Further, there is good policy based rationales on both sides for both supporting and opposing the move. Hence, per the below discussion, I believe that there is presently no consensus either to support or oppose the move. ( non-admin closure) Yashovardhan ( talk) 17:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Big tent → Catch-all party – Big tent is almost an American politics-exclusive term. A 'Catch-all party' may better apply in order to give a worldwide perspective. HapHaxion ( talk / contribs) 20:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Brexit party should be included. If it is there should be some evaluation of their claim to being a big party.
First, they identify as a single issue, big tent party which is abit oxymoronic in my opinion. Big tent parties aren't founded over a narrow policy position but usually exist through a historical bond or new political idea binding together a wide range of perspectives.
Second, the only evidence of 'big tent-ness' is the inclusion of Claire Fox as an MEP candidate, who is supposedly representative of the Brexit Party's left wing members. Looking at her personal wikipedia page, this really doesn't wash. She is a FORMER Communist, who has been affiliated for the past two decades with the libertarian SpikedOnline.
There is a difference between a big-tent party, which typically sits at the centre and accommodates centre-left and centre-right viewpoints, and a radical populist party, which focuses on a narrow policy position and incorporates exclusively extremists from the left and right (Claire Fox was involved in a lawsuit concerning her denying the Bosnian genocide) [1]
The Brexit party should either be removed from the big-tent party article or it should include some evaluation of whether it really is a big tent party - mention the fact that its only 'left-wing' MEP has been described as a "corporate libertarian" [2]
References
Last year the journalists who run London's Frontline Club considered inviting Fox to speak. Vulliamy insisted she apologise to the camp victims first, but Fox refused.
In the section "Other examples", all of the parties mentioned above seem to be listed again, which is not logical. I would rename it into "List of examples". Another way might be to remove the already mentioned parties. -- F.Blaubiget ( talk) 09:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Having two sections with similar titles and similar info is awkward. Orangehaggis ( talk) 13:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The article is good in that it reliably demonstrates that news media often place political parties into this category. But it seems difficult to determine whether the news media are consistent in what they think the category means, because there isn't much of an explanation or definition.
Can there really be such a thing as a "big-tent" party in a meaningful way? I mean, aren't ALL political parties "big-tent" on certain issues, and aren't they ALL "small-tent" on the issues that unite the party? Isn't that just how party politics has always worked?
I suspect that the whole idea of "big tent" is simply the result of starting from a very limiting and narrow definition of "politics", and I think that might be why there isn't a very specific definition in this article. TooManyFingers ( talk) 16:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)