This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Republican Governance Group 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm looking for a source for a Tuesday Group member list (or any kind of official documentation of the group). Anyone? · rodii · 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So I've been trying to update this page with any information I can find, and I cannot find anything. They are not listed in the list of all Congressional Member Organizations for the 116th Congress, as maintained by the House Admin. Committee. (Here - [ in PDF form]) I did find a group called the Republican Governance Group which lists Reps Brooks, Katko, and Upton as its officers. These are the members currently listed as the officers of the Tuesday Group (TG). My question is, did the Tuesday Group dissolve itself and re-from as the Republican Governance Group (RGG)? The TG was referred to in an earlier thread as secretive so is it likely that they would not have announced their dissolution and re-incorporation as the RGG? JerseyThroughandThrough ( talk) 19:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Only 'liberal' is in the source. Some politicians are relatively more liberal than the Blue Dogs. [1] I honestly believe that TG should write "liberalism" not "conservative liberalism" on infobox. However, it is controversial, and since the '80s, the mainstream Republican Party has been conservative, so it has been partially written as 'conservative liberalism'. Is there any evidence that TG is 'liberal conservatism'? I don't know why they change the phrase "conservative liberalism" to "liberal conservatism."-- Storm598 ( talk) 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Moderate to liberal Republicans, such as those in the Tuesday Group (formerly known as the Tuesday Lunch Bunch), ...
Now, since you can't edit war any more IR2017, are you willing to actually discuss this? Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
No. You're blocked as well. Don't play the victim card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IR2017 ( talk • contribs)
There is a dispute as to what the WP:STATUS QUO version of the article is, so I have reverted back to a version from 4 May, before the multiple edits by multiple editors which cam after. There can be no doubt that this represents a STATUS QUO version. Some of the edits made in the meantime may well have been productive, but it's best to err on the side of caution, and get a consensus on this talk page for all suggested changes. I have requested full protection of the article to encourage such discussions. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Caelton: My dog would decline. When I tired to revert to May 25, it was the same as the last edit. Hopefully y'all can agree on a status quo ante. Eheu! -- Deepfriedokra (talk)
The three sources given to support "Conservative liberalism" in the "Ideology" parameter of the infobox do not, in fact, support that at all.
Our article Conservative liberalism, which is wikilinked in the entry, defines it as "a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or simply representing the right wing of the liberal movement." However the sources do not directly support that, as they are required to do. None of them mentions "conservative liberalism". What they do say is this:
ts as well as liberal-leaning Republicans running for open congressional seats", "'With any of these moderates, that’s constantly an issue. You’re subject to attacks from the right and the left when you’re in the middle'", "GOP centrists"
(Incidentally, the citation from The Hill is from 2007, which in politics may as well be the Middle Ages.)
Clearly, despite the two passing references to liberals, these citations are not referring to "conservative liberalism". The ideological standpoint to be drawn from these citations is clearly "Moderate" or "Centrist". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Moderate to liberal Republicans, such as those in the Tuesday Group (formerly known as the Tuesday Lunch Bunch), had but forty-five to fifty senior moderate to liberal mambers, ...
Given the discussion above, I propose that once the full protection has been lifted from the article:
The problem concerning the RGG is that it's not really an ideology-based group at all. Both "Centrism" and "Political moderate" as defined in our article are ideologies based primarily on relative political position, and are not strong ideological beliefs. This makes them appropriate to describe this basically non-ideological group.
I'm hope that we can agree on this, or that further discussion will alter the proposal in a way that it can be agreed on, and that we don't need to hold an RfC, which would delay things for, potentially, another month. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Republican Governance Group 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm looking for a source for a Tuesday Group member list (or any kind of official documentation of the group). Anyone? · rodii · 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So I've been trying to update this page with any information I can find, and I cannot find anything. They are not listed in the list of all Congressional Member Organizations for the 116th Congress, as maintained by the House Admin. Committee. (Here - [ in PDF form]) I did find a group called the Republican Governance Group which lists Reps Brooks, Katko, and Upton as its officers. These are the members currently listed as the officers of the Tuesday Group (TG). My question is, did the Tuesday Group dissolve itself and re-from as the Republican Governance Group (RGG)? The TG was referred to in an earlier thread as secretive so is it likely that they would not have announced their dissolution and re-incorporation as the RGG? JerseyThroughandThrough ( talk) 19:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Only 'liberal' is in the source. Some politicians are relatively more liberal than the Blue Dogs. [1] I honestly believe that TG should write "liberalism" not "conservative liberalism" on infobox. However, it is controversial, and since the '80s, the mainstream Republican Party has been conservative, so it has been partially written as 'conservative liberalism'. Is there any evidence that TG is 'liberal conservatism'? I don't know why they change the phrase "conservative liberalism" to "liberal conservatism."-- Storm598 ( talk) 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Moderate to liberal Republicans, such as those in the Tuesday Group (formerly known as the Tuesday Lunch Bunch), ...
Now, since you can't edit war any more IR2017, are you willing to actually discuss this? Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
No. You're blocked as well. Don't play the victim card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IR2017 ( talk • contribs)
There is a dispute as to what the WP:STATUS QUO version of the article is, so I have reverted back to a version from 4 May, before the multiple edits by multiple editors which cam after. There can be no doubt that this represents a STATUS QUO version. Some of the edits made in the meantime may well have been productive, but it's best to err on the side of caution, and get a consensus on this talk page for all suggested changes. I have requested full protection of the article to encourage such discussions. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Caelton: My dog would decline. When I tired to revert to May 25, it was the same as the last edit. Hopefully y'all can agree on a status quo ante. Eheu! -- Deepfriedokra (talk)
The three sources given to support "Conservative liberalism" in the "Ideology" parameter of the infobox do not, in fact, support that at all.
Our article Conservative liberalism, which is wikilinked in the entry, defines it as "a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or simply representing the right wing of the liberal movement." However the sources do not directly support that, as they are required to do. None of them mentions "conservative liberalism". What they do say is this:
ts as well as liberal-leaning Republicans running for open congressional seats", "'With any of these moderates, that’s constantly an issue. You’re subject to attacks from the right and the left when you’re in the middle'", "GOP centrists"
(Incidentally, the citation from The Hill is from 2007, which in politics may as well be the Middle Ages.)
Clearly, despite the two passing references to liberals, these citations are not referring to "conservative liberalism". The ideological standpoint to be drawn from these citations is clearly "Moderate" or "Centrist". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Moderate to liberal Republicans, such as those in the Tuesday Group (formerly known as the Tuesday Lunch Bunch), had but forty-five to fifty senior moderate to liberal mambers, ...
Given the discussion above, I propose that once the full protection has been lifted from the article:
The problem concerning the RGG is that it's not really an ideology-based group at all. Both "Centrism" and "Political moderate" as defined in our article are ideologies based primarily on relative political position, and are not strong ideological beliefs. This makes them appropriate to describe this basically non-ideological group.
I'm hope that we can agree on this, or that further discussion will alter the proposal in a way that it can be agreed on, and that we don't need to hold an RfC, which would delay things for, potentially, another month. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)