Talk:Big tent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

History?[edit]

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)

Republicans[edit]

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)
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)

Citations[edit]

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)

breaking it up[edit]

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)

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

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)