Talk:Congressional Progressive Caucus

message: Dennis Kucinich stepped down as co-chair but he's still a member, so I've restored him to the list.  I've also made some other changes based on the membership list on the Caucus website.  Nancy Pelosi was a member but is no longer; according to this article, she's stated a policy of not belonging to caucuses now that she's the party leader. JamesMLane 08:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members 

message: While Bernie Sanders certainly self-describes as a socialist, calling him "the socialist Congressman" in the introduction (and in context of founding the caucus), feels off to me, and insufficiently encyclopedeaic.  I have changed it to "the independent (and self-described socialist) Congressman", as a compromise (because I do think that it is germane to the topic).
Notapipe 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "socialist" description of Bernie Sanders 

message: Comments on their ideology. Two fallacies in this group's wording: progressive & fairness. Redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who have not developed the skills to adequately support themselves, is not progress & not fair. Economic growth isn't helped by taking money from the people who create value & giving it to others. For one thing, it takes away incentive to better yourself. Free enterprise is based upon rewards & liberty. The many regulations are detrimental too. Their principles sound good, but the Congressmen don't have much idea on how capitalism operates. Some basic economic & business courses would help. Republicans mess things up. Both parties need to reform or we should have a viable third option that adheres to the Constitution & limited government.
Scottit68.180.38.41 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: There is a map of districts represented by Blue Dog Democrats but I notice there's not one for the Progressives. Why is this? And could we have one made?--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did one, and it's in the House members section, though it's kind of underwhelming, perhaps deceptive, because most CPC members represent urban (and therefore small) districts. The Homosexualist (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I mistook MS-2 for MN-2. It is fixed now. —the Homosexualist (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Districts Represented by Progressive Caucus Members 

message: Hillary Clinton has been recently taken off the Former Members List of Progressives.  It had been noted that she had to resign when made Secretary of state.She has been removed and, other former members and the reason for resignation have not. Only Hillary. She is a Former Member of the Caucus.. -- 19:21, 2 December 2010 User:Codeblue2
:I do not think she was ever a member.  Do you have any source that says she was?  TFD (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  HC 

message: Could someone please add a section comparing ideologies of other groups in the Democratic Party such as the Blue Dog Democrats?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.227.12 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain the difference between the CPC and other caucuses, like the Blue Dogs 

message: , can you please explain why you are bulk deleting without edit summaries, and can you and  please explain why you are edit warring over this content without either of you including edit summaries? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep deleting the entire "Former members" section and then re-adding it? You've done it 4 times now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I have reverted exactly once in this article because "section blanking". That's not edit warring by any standard. Please explain what lead you to this claim, since I don't understand where the accusation came from. Granted, I should have left a summary along the lines of "Rv. section blanking", but that does not add up to an actionable (or even reproachable) offense to current policy, especially since the reason for reverting seemed clear enough (see ClueBotNG's edit summary). You response is eagerly awaited. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only trying to spur a discussion about the content and referring to the fact that you reverted without including an edit summary. No offense intended. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case "can you and Kleuske please explain why you are edit warring over this content" is worded very strangely and does not reflect that intention. For some strange reason I do take offense when I'm accused of edit warring. Be a bit more careful, since WP:AGF is policy and edit summaries are not. Kleuske (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Well, AGF is actually a guideline, not a policy, and I didn't violate it by accusing you and JDPEG of collectively engaging in an edit war. After all you were reverting against each other without edit summaries. In fact, asking a fellow editor why they did something is the very essence of AGF. I accept your explanation, so perhaps we can move on? If not, I suggest we take this discussion to user talk, as it's not doing anything to improve Congressional Progressive Caucus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So why exactly were you beating up your wife edit warring in this article? Do you think that question is ludicrous, since you didn't? Well, those were my sentiments, too. Frankly, I don't care whether or not you "accept my explanation" for something I did not do.  Since no apologies seem to be forthcoming, I see no point in continuing this "discussion". Kleuske (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Ah, since you just repeated your accusations of edit-warring against me, we're now in WP:ASPERSIONS territory, aren't we? Still no policy, but ArbCom stuff, but still frowned upon, unless I'm very much mistaken. Kleuske (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Kleuske (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by JDPEG 

message: Wondering if that's cause enough to list one position as center-left (left-wing can be kept since there is a source along with it). Articles like these seem to describe several members of the caucus/the caucus itself or its ideology as center-left. Also seems like every-time the same left-"progressivism" is used outside the US, it is described as center-left as well. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 21:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion articles aren’t reliable sources of fact. Toa Nidhiki05 22:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've seen a few articles describing progressives and caucus members as [[center-left]] 

message: So an editor has repeatedly added democratic socialism to the caucus' ideology section citing this article . The article states that the caucus has "over the years included a few friends of democratic socialism", that Bernie Sanders self-identifies as a democratic socialist, and that a former member (John Conyers) has worked with (but was not a member of) the Democratic Socialists of America. Since the article neither calls the organization democratic socialist, and only refers to one member as being a democratic socialist, it seems insufficient to be included. Also the article clearly states "the vast majority of CPC members are run-of-the-mill progressive Democrats". I've made my last revert until we can start a discussion about this issue (and maybe give the editor a chance to present a better source). Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus and avoid an edit war. Alexander Levian (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Support - I think the source is reliable enough to include democratic socialism as a faction of the CPC. Does it need to explicitly say they're democratic socialists? No. But regardless, there are some CPC individuals both at federal and state level that qualify for that. The paragraph before the mentioned paragraph states "The democratic socialist connections and tendencies that exist are no secret. The CPC was once led by US Senator Bernie Sanders, who has always identified as a socialist, and it is includes as a longtime member former House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, who (like former US Senator Ted Kennedy and the Reverend Jesse Jackson before him) has worked with groups such as Democratic Socialists of America to advance proposals for single-payer “Medicare for All” healthcare reforms." I think that paragraph is enough to consider democratic socialism a faction of CPC. Twwalter (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Does it need to explicitly say they're democratic socialists?" Actually yes. Anything else would be us inferring from the source what is not actually said. I fully support the article mentioning Conyers working with DSA and that one of the members identifies as a democratic socialist given that that's actually supported by the source. But how can we say one member (Sanders) being a democratic socialist and a former member (Conyers) occasionally working with the DSA counts as a faction? Alexander Levian (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but there are no members of the CPC at the state level, since its membership is limited to members to the two houses of Congress. Working with someone is not the same as sharing their ideology. Basically one member is a democratic socialist. The other problem is that the term has different meanings. And it is not a faction of the group. A faction implies a group of members who work together in order to influence the organization. One person of course is not a faction and there is no evidence that Sanders worked with anyone to change the agenda of the caucus. TFD (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Support per  Quidster4040 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask you the same question. How does one member (Sanders) being a democratic socialist and a former member (Conyers) occasionally working with the DSA counts as a faction? Alexander Levian (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Support--With the election of AOC and Tlaib and 2020 primary wins from Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman I support the add.Gnostic1980 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic socialism 

message: The External Link for the Official Website was actually to the Political Action Committee for the Progressive Caucus (which has an out-dated list of members). I've changed that link to the website for the Caucus itself (which appears in footnote 6), and added a new link to the PAC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rghm (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I have issues with the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the Senate. It's OK the presence of Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, but there are other senators (who had been elected as Representantives before being senators) considered as former members, but as actual members in their personal articles (Sen. Brown (OH),Hirono (HI) and Baldwin (WI). Which is the correct version? --Iai1992 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sanders is the only senator listed as a member of the CPC on its website. TFD (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate Members 

message: There are quite a few radical left-leaning lawmakers who support AOC and Bernie Sanders, who do not belong to social liberalism or classical liberalism in the context of international politics. Liberalism is generally an ideology that spans the center-right and center-left. For example, do you think the document that evaluates the moderate centrist faction of the Republican Party, TG, as liberal, and the CPC, the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party, as liberal mean the same thing? In the U.S., "liberalism" often refers to the entire force opposed to "conservatism," and there is no evidence that CPC is liberal in the international political context.--Storm598 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPC is not liberal. 

message: Looking at the history, repeated edits have been made clarifying that the caucus is center-left to left-wing, and these edits have all been deleted. I was wondering why these edits have been deleted? The ideologies of social democracy and modern liberalism are considered center-left ideologies. This is consistent across the wikipedia pages of other parties, where parties with these ideologies listed are classified as center-left (i.e., labour party). Wondering what the procedure is around these deletions Jcaplil (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: An editor changed the description as largest Democratic caucus saying the New Democrats is now larger. Both articles claim the membership of each group is 94 voting members. So why is the New Democratic caucus larger? Did they win a coin toss in Iowa? TFD (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Democratic caucus 

message: I don't think "abortion rights" is a more neutral term. Andre🚐 14:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's true. Agree with that. CrazyPredictor (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reproductive rights" or "abortion rights" 

message: According to the CPC website there are 101 members... We need to figure out why we have more members listed in the article. CarribeanUnicorn (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It changes every two years after congressional elections, of course...   The new House (118th United States Congress) was sworn in just a week and a half ago... AnonMoos (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup exactly. As long as there are additional sources other than the official page that back up the membership, we should reflect it on here. CrazyPredictor (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Caucus membership

message: The table listing members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is misformatted such that when sorted by CPVI it lists Representative Matt Cartwright as Non-Voting rather than the Delegate from Washington, D.C., Eleanor Norton Holmes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.224.241 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Misformatting