Talk:Squad (U.S. Congress)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

Please ADD Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (IL-3) as a Member of The Squad. Sources are available below. Rep. Ramirez was endorsed by Squad Members Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, and Senators Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren in her first primary. Ramirez also committed to numerous Squad priorities including Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. Other sources available below.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/progressives-dark-money-midterms-squad-democrats https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/greg-casar-summer-lee-delia-ramirez-house-progressives-1389261/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/progressives-midterms-maxwell-frost-delia-ramirez-summer-lee-greg-casar.html https://www.deliaforcongress.com/endorsements 1997chicago (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please clarify where the information should be implemented in the article. Also, the Rolling Stone article, for example, does not state that she joined the Squad, but only intends to do so if elected. The latter is already covered in the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Rashida Tlaib appears to have confirmed that Ramirez is a part of the Squad in a fundraising email: https://twitter.com/TOteroCA/status/1773220581724324145 94.173.75.153 (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Political positions" section

Many of the political organization in the US have a "political positions" section. Even though the Squad is not a massive political entity, they still share some common political views. Because of this, I've added a political positions section to this page. I have aimed for neutral positioning, and followed Wikipedia's rules about BOP. I am sure I have missed a few common political views, so add them if you see them necessary. Uncodeable (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia trying to still remain neutral?

This run-down of The Squad is incredibly politically charged and multiple people I have spoken with agree. 108.50.240.215 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree that the coverage here is extremely politically charged, it seems like they're portraying politicians who are even a bit critical of the establishment as "far-left", even AOC who has aligned herself with Biden and Harris "the" moderate Democrats, as many sources report on Destroyerbirb (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: "far left" --> "leftist"

The term "far left" has a pejorative flavor, strongly implying that the Squad's positions are WP:FRINGE, that is, so far out of the mainstream that they can be dismissed as irrelevant. Despite the fact that US-based RS have used that term for them, their views would be considered mainstream in many parts of the world, where words like "socialist" (as in "Democratic Socialist") appear in names for major political parties. It would be consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:GLOBAL to change "far left" to "leftist" in the lead sentence and anywhere else. NightHeron (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for "leftist"? That actually strikes me as more pejorative than "far left". It's not our job to opine on whether they're mainstream or outside the mainstream in my opinion just follow the reliable sources. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I recommend we describe them as simply left-wing, as actual far-leftists like Marxist-Leninists consider the Squad too moderate. LavaringX (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, do you have reliable sources for simply "left wing"? We have Politico, NYT, WSJ, Punchbowl, and WaPo all describing them as "far left":

• McHugh, Calder (January 4, 2024). "The Squad under siege". Politico. the Democratic "Squad," the group of far-left House members
• Caldwell, Leigh Ann; Meyer, Theodoric; Dent, Alec (2024-06-25). "Analysis | Bowman's primary resurfaces Democratic divisions". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-06-25. Bowman, a member of the far-left 'Squad,' has
• Barkan, Ross (2023-02-22). "'The Democratic Party in New York Is a Disaster'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-06-25. Jamaal Bowman, a Westchester County congressman and a member of the Squad, the prominent group of far-left members of Congress, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.
• "Bowman slams AIPAC in final debate with Latimer". Punchbowl News. Retrieved 2024-06-25. Bowman is embracing underdog status in his competitive primary against Westchester County Executive George Latimer, who is seeking to be the first mainstream Democrat to knock off a member of the far-left Squad.
• Sotomayor, Marianna; Caldwell, Leigh Ann (2024-08-05). "Why St. Louis voters might ditch Cori Bush". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-08-07. a second member of the House's far-left "Squad"

We need to stick to how reliable sources describe them. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You absolutely need your heads checked if you think the Democratic Party has anyone who remotely fits "far left" as a descriptor. Don't threaten everyone with a good time... Last time I checked, AOC wasn't a Marxist. 80.3.213.26 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You just cited a whole bunch of neoliberal rags. "Far left" is absolutely an absurd term to describe squad. Davidod87 (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's like the way the MAGA people refer to the Democratic Party as "communist". Just plain dumb. NightHeron (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how "Progressive" isn't a good enough catch all. The fact it's been left as "Far left" and locked is blatant bias Widdletizz (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Left-wing would be a correct term to define The Squad. –yeagvr · ✉ 21:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Appears we now have four proposed descriptions of the Squad's ideology: far-left (status quo), left wing, leftist, and progressive.

I see there are some reliable sources that use different variations of all of these so it really comes down to somebody who wants to change it from the status quo compiling these and building a consensus one way or the other. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that left-wing most accurately describes The Squad as a whole, both relative to the Democratic Party and international politics, while 'leftist' may have a pejorative tone, 'far-left' would be inaccurate and 'progressive' would be too vague, as many establishment Democrats have adopted the label of progressive while maintaining political positions distant from those of The Squad. 72.53.100.164 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Citing status quo when you changed it from progressive to far-left and then saying far-left is the status quo is definitely odd.

Every edit you've made on this page has involved you changing it from progressive to far-left. This feels like a more slowed down and extended version of edit warring to me. If you want to stick to the status quo, then leave it how it was aka "progressive"

Therealteal (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm standing here with @Therealteal, it's best to leave it as a progressive grouping

@72.53.100.164 I understand where you're coming from but the purpose of labels in the first place is supposed to be fairly vague as they cover politicians with different views, it's used as a camp, so yes the Squad is most commonly described as progressive, and while other, different, politicians are described as progressive too while maintaining different policies, that doesn't take away from progressivism being the core value of the Squad. Another argument I made above is that not all members have held their "leftist" views that they were elected on (AOC being an example) so to call the group leftist when some members being "left" is up for dispute amongst political commentators is not encompassing all members enough. In effect, "progressive" being vague suits the group in the very nature of the group - it's a grouping of people with very different views and positions that rarely agree with one another nowadays, so using anything but a vague term would be removing some members Destroyerbirb (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Far-left is blatantly wrong, even by Wikipedia's standards (which are too broad in my opinion) "far-left" is equatable to "left-wing extremism", and "far-left" politics (again, based on what Wikipedia says) involves people who are to the "left wing of communist parties" or "some forms of authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, and Marxism", etc etc, none of which are really represented by "The Squad". Even the label of "leftist" is a bit iffy considering that key members like AOC have been kicked out from the leftist US party the Democratic Socialists for giving up leftist policies in favour of the policies of Biden and Harris (which, mind you, even by American standards is more and more right wing). I would strongly suggest a previous edit which described them as "progressive", as that's more consistent across the views of the Squad.

Here's BBC calling the Squad a "progressive" group, not even mentioning the word "left" or "leftist": ..."two fellow members of the "Squad" - a group of progressive Democrats..." [1]

Here's CNN describing the group as having a "progressive base", it claims the group is trying to move the Democratic party "leftward" but emphasises "progressive" over "leftist" [2]

Red Flag, an Australian group, notes that while the group used "leftist" wording, that they've been "pulled right" towards the Democratic's party standard, disputing the "leftist" and especially "far-left" label [3]

Politico describes it as a "progressive bloc", and like a few other sources it doesn't refer to the group as "left" either [4]

Just like Politico, AP also refers to the group as "a group of progressive lawmakers" while also not even mentioning the word "left" in their article when referring to the Squad [5]

Newsweek probably does the biggest blow to the idea that it's a far-left group, they the Squad as "a progressive group of Democrats", cites Thomas Gift who says that moderate Democrats are distancing themselves from the far-left while describing they key member of the Squad, AOC, as being "mainstream" (bad wording from the article but it's saying that the Squad has gone mainstream, they're losing their power because of their progressive activism while also further distancing themselves from those who are "far-left" etc etc), and then it goes on to say that AOC has lost her place as the leader of the Squad with Ilhan Omar taking her place (while being just described as a "rallying point for the left") [6]

All of these are the top results from Google by the way, you must have purposefully dug deep to find these "far-left" descriptors of the "Squad" because generally speaking even "left" doesn't show up in some articles, all just call it a standard "progressive" grouping.

Responding to @Dcpoliticaljunkie, your first article from Politico doesn't seem to represent Politico's general stance on the group (with the source I provided from Politico being published later), but it also calls it a "progressive wing", giving credence to the progressive label as well, the second article calls one of its main members (AOC) as a liberal (which is a label so opposed to "far-left" it's hilarious) while being nothing more than an "analysis" piece from Washington Times (reflecting the newspaper's pro-business stance under Bezos' ownership, making it biased coverage), the third article is from New York Times which has other articles calling it a "left-wing" or a "progressive" grouping instead of a far-left one (with it being important to mention that the NYT has been moving steadily right and is famous for biased coverage), the fourth source from "Punchbowl news" is explicitly against "the Squad" candidate Jamaal Bowman even blatantly lies about him supposedly saying that "the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in Israel were 'propaganda'" despite the source they cited not making that claim, and the last source is again another Washington Post "analysis" article.

Once again I will state I think the appropriate action is to call it a "progressive" grouping, especially with the changing stances of a few members and media outlets calling it "progressive" over "left" and definitely over "far-left". Destroyerbirb (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

100%

I'm intrigued to see how on earth there's an actual justification for "far-left" ever being added on there. The way this has been handled screams of bias. Widdletizz (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Understand you find it "blatantly wrong" but we have reliable sources describe it as such. I agree with them -- I don't think there's a further left grouping in the U.S. Congress so they are, by definition, the furthest left and therefore "far left". That said, you have found reliable sources that also describe it as progressive (once again, I agree). We should have both. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I've edited it to include both. Noting that while I re-added I skipped Newsweek (which is not considered reliable) and BBC, which is not American so not helpful in describing where a US politician sits in our context. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all none of your sources describe *how* it's far-left, just *states* it is, which is bad journalism and not good enough for a valid description of the group, unlike the sources provided (which even include some of your own sources) that describe as a progressive group fighting for progressive social causes or just progressive causes more generally

"Far-left" as a term doesn't describe how "left" you are in a congress, nor is that how the political spectrum works at all. Even in terms of the overton window (something completely different to a political spectrum, by the way) AOC's current views align well with the moderate Democrats who rule the party as compared to someone like Bernie Sanders who isn't the most left wing person but is a more progressive actor than the likes of AOC or other members. "Far-left", even on Wikipedia, has a definition, and you going against that definition and literally all descriptions of it shows you using a classifier that is completely unsuited for the group. Again I pointed out the biases and reliability issues with your sources, then even provided some of the same sources you did (and their more recent articles) to show them saying the exact opposite. Adding to that, BBC being an outside source is beneficial as it's not forced to look through things in an American lense (despite Britain also being very right wing itself), which means it can catch on biases that American sources can't. Also, Newsweek is indeed a reliable source, for example the "Media Bias Fact Check" website puts it at the same position as the Washington Post, which you cited twice

What we've got here is many people who disagree with the classification of the group as far-left versus a single one who is citing a few articles that go against the general concensus, ignoring articles which go against the "far-left" term in favour of the "progressive" term or straight up rejecting them at times, all while showing a fundamentally problematic understanding of the very terms you're using

You've failed to show why they're a far-left group, "furthest left" has never been a qualifier for "far-left" nor even being a qualifier for being "left-wing" in general, and your sources haven't proven why the classifier holds either (just saying they're "reliable" is an appeal to authority, also a blatant lie as they have a strongly biased editorial range and have a long history of spreading misinformation and/or factual errors, only sometimes correcting their errors, they never explain why that label was given to them, hence those sources are invalid)

I will revert it back to my edition, don't turn it back to "far-left" (and definitely don't make it look like a compromise like you tried to do) unless you can find sources which explain why they're a "far-left" group. Again, many have brought up the point that "far-left" is a pejorative, and the news outlets you're using are by no means an exception to those who use it as such Destroyerbirb (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

With due respect, status quo applies until there's a new consensus (WP:QUO).

We don't have a consensus here. What we have is some inexperienced editors POV pushing. I would like to remind you that this is not a WP:FORUM to discuss the issue -- we reflect what reliable sources say and your dislike of a source or describing it as "bad journalism" does not make it so. Further, your inexperience shows by your insistence that Newsweek is reliable when Wikipedia consensus is that "Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable" per WP:NEWSWEEK. We follow Wikipedia consensus on reliability, not personal judgements.

Further, your suggestion that my insistence we follow reliable sources is an appeal to authority, also a blatant lie as they have a strongly biased editorial range and have a long history of spreading misinformation and/or factual errors, only sometimes correcting their errors, they never explain why that label was given to them, hence those sources are invalid is not what the relevant Wikipedia policies require. All sources used in the status quo are considered reliable on Wikipedia.

The only other experienced editor in this discussion @Yeagvr suggested "left-wing". Please do not WP:DISRUPT by editing to your preferred version until there's a new consensus including experienced editors. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - I don't think "progressive" is a useful description but not objecting since you have provided reliable sources for it (even if Newsweek is not one). A bit of a WP:WEASEL word. Left is much more meaningful (with AOC already mentioned in the American left article. Probably a good idea to include the Squad there as well. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on the edits done by everyone except you, everyone agreed the term "far-left" is used as a pejorative, so you assuming your position as the "status-quo" does not apply, with other editors noting that the term "far-left" as used by these newspapers as a pejorative violates WP:NPOV

Also I checked WP:NEWSWEEK and it said that the ownership hasn't been clear since 2018 and that the articles need to be investigated "on a case to case basis" with there not being a concensus on Newsweek, and in this case proper journalism is followed and clickbait terms are not used, therefore this specific article by WP:NEWSWEEK terms is deemed reliable

Also, I did not say that your "insistence we follow reliable sources is an appeal to authority", I'm saying the manner you used it in is as such, stating that, because your cites of choice agree with your view your view must be put forward despite other cases being presented to you, including from those very same sources. Adding to that, it should be noted that on the discussion page for Washington Post, blogs (like the ones you cited) should be analysed on a case to case basis, in both cases that you've provided they've failed to describe what makes the grouping "far-left" therefore its use as a pejorative is the only acceptable interpretation, hence your main sources (the Washington Post blogs) by Wikipedia rules don't apply

The reason that "progressive" applies better than "leftist" or "left" is because the group in itself is ambiguous, with different members of the groups having different views and aims. AOC being mentioned in the American Left article isn't really a justification for calling the group as a whole "left" since the main two reasonings for classifying AOC as a "left member of the Democratic party" (her former Democratic Socialist membership and her policies being "to the left of Obama") don't apply, AOC being kicked out of the Democratic Socialist party because of her "betrayal to the left" (their words not mine) and also her advocating for Kamala Harris' policies which are significantly to the right of Obama Destroyerbirb (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)