Talk:Big tent

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Politics: Libertarianism High‑importance

	Politics portal 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).

Philosophy: Social and political / Continental / Modern / Contemporary High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Continental philosophy
	Modern philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

History?

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)[reply]

Republicans

How are the Republicans not a big tent Party?

Are you talking about now, or 10-20 years ago? Then, they clearly were. Now, the tent sure is shrinking. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article lists the Democratic Party because it has many wings. So what? So does the Republican Party. Ron Paul, John McCain, James Inhofe, and Olympia Snow represent very different philosophies and very different wings. --66.30.240.233 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

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)[reply]

breaking it up

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)[reply]

There used to be a lot more to this article. What happened?

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)[reply]

Check the article history. There have been no substantial reductions in the article. There have been some substantial expansions, some of which have been rapidly deleted because they lacked citations and expressed personal opinions. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

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)[reply]

Totally agree with Autospark. --Checco (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single-issue and Big tent parties

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)[reply]

Requested move 15 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. The proposed title is not a common phrase and doesn't mean what this article is about. --В²C ☎ 23:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support How is WP:ENGVAR an issue? This is a WP:COMMONNAME issue. AusLondonder (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence whatsoever that "catch-all party" is a common name for this concept at all. --В²C ☎ 18:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cambalachero (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to see the tiniest shred of evidence that "catch-all party" is a even common name for this concept -- ESPECIALLY outside Britain -- let alone more common. Or even that "big tent" is "almost an American politics-exclusive term" -- especially considering that the UK example in the article itself actually refers to "Gordon's big tent". --Calton | Talk 01:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Interesting discussion with no evidence. — AjaxSmack 00:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – a more general term (catch-all, if you'd prefer) for the article title makes sense.--Autospark (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am confused and undecided. What about having two articles: "Big tent" and "Catch-all party"? --Checco (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-This is English Wikipedia, which means that it isn't being read very often outside Great Britain, Ireland, and North America. The term "big-tent party" is something I learned in school. Until today I have never heard of a "catch-all party." I think that the former is thus more recognizable to the general reader. Display name 99 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I support renaming this article "Big tent party." Display name 99 (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose seems to be a WP:ENGVAR issue. No evidence that it is indeed the proposed name is indeed the more common name. As such, no reason to move. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current name clearly fails WP:RECOGNIZE. A big tent sounds like something you camp in if you have a sizeable family, not a political term, and WP:ENGVAR doesn't trump WP:CRITERIA. At the very least, if the move to "catch-all party" is not made, it should be renamed to big tent party, that would be better than the current name. — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a tricky one. "Catch-all party" is in common use, but it appears to be less known in Canada and little known in the U.S., countries where "big tent" is the usual term (Canada:[[1][2][3][4][5]]; U.S.[6][7][8][9][10]). In Australia as well, "big tent" appears to be nearly as common as "catch-all" ([11] vs. [12], and sources like[13][14][15]), so it's unlikely to cause confusion for readers there. As such there's a bit of a WP:RETAIN issue; we shouldn't switch to a form that won't be easier to recognize in some varieties of English, and will be harder to recognize for others.

Perhaps we could split the difference with a broader term such as "Politics of inclusion", which is (1) a neutral, descriptive title (2) perfectly clear for any reader, and (3) something that's used in a wider variety of countries and contexts.[16][17][18][19][20] The intro would just need to be written to something like, "The politics of inclusion is the practice of incorporating people with diverse viewpoints and backgrounds into a political party or movement, and thus appeal to more of the electorate. Parties that embrace such a practice are known as big tent or catch-all parties."--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to oppose the alt suggestion of "big tent party". It's just not WP:COMMON enough to be a good alternative; it gets only 800 Google Books hits compared to 70k+ for "Big tent" politics. The common phrase is "big tent" and "big tent politics" goes beyond just the party structure. In fact, "big tent politics" is a more common phrase than "big tent party".--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, when we can't agree on A (Big Tent) or B (Catch-all party), we should not choose a compromise C (politics of inclusion) which is even less commonly used. --В²C ☎ 22:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if Americans really do commonly say "big tent" and no altnernative is suitable then it may well be the best of a bad lot. It sounds really odd to outside ears, and I wouldn't associate it with politics at all. But then again I wouldn't expect us to have an article on big tents either, as opposed to any other kind of tent, so it's not like the article is keeping any better topics out of the limelight. — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty intuitive. First time I heard it, I got it. There's room for everyone... it's a big tent! --В²C ☎ 23:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Brexit party

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]

Strongly support the above – the Brexit Party is a right-wing (or further right) populist/nationalist, anti-immigration party in the UKIP/BNP mould. It is not "big tent" in the sense of having left and right wings; the sense that it is a broad-based party purely comes from its own self-descriptions, and are not here to act as public relations for political parties. Certainly describing Claire Fox as some kind of leftist is very misleading due to her affiliation with the right-libertarian organ LM/Spiked Online. My preference would be to remove any mention of the Brexit Party from the article.--Autospark (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Outfoxing Nigel". Private Eye. No. 1495. 3 May 2019. p. 10. 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.
^ Monbiot, George (2003-12-09). "George Monbiot: Invasion of the entryists". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-08-04.

"Other examples"

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)[reply]

Agreed. Having two sections with similar titles and similar info is awkward. Orangehaggis (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons and analysis?

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)[reply]

[1] "Outfoxing Nigel". Private Eye. No. 1495. 3 May 2019. p. 10. 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.

[2] Monbiot, George (2003-12-09). "George Monbiot: Invasion of the entryists". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-08-04.

[1]

[2]