Talk:Big tent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated High-importance)
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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


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?

Are you talking about now, or 10-20 years ago? Then, they clearly were. Now, the tent sure is shrinking. (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. -- (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


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 (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 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Article title[edit]

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)

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

Single-issue and Big tent parties[edit]

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 (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)