text:
Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

Political position
Why don't the American political parties have "political position" as a category in their info boxes? Like where it would say "center-left"? Almost all wiki pages about political parties in other countries have this category. 150.108.240.134 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 * It has been discussed before. Everyone has a different opinion on where various ideologies fit into the political spectrum. The articles already state party ideology in the info-box. There is no need to add where Wikipedia editors place these ideologies in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to these discussions? I am having trouble finding them and I don't think this is a particularly strong argument. American political parties should not get special treatment simply because a lot of editors have opinions on it - but my mind is open. Carlp941 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * nevermind - found em. I still don't buy the arguments posed, I find them quite off base. Plenty of big tent parties that have a similar character to the Democrats and Republicans have their political positions labeled.
 * but I can accept that there is no consensus for change for now. I found the attempts at change to be poorly thought out as well. I think people can get "center left" from the ideologies for the democrats and can get "right wing" from the GOP ideologies. Carlp941 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you name any other parties that have no control over membership or who their members nominate for office? In some states, such as Vermont, the party has no membership at all. Can you name any other parties that don't have members? Also, neither party has a statement of ideology. Also, primary elections run by government is fairly uncommon. TFD (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a non-sequitor. Unique party structures do not do away with a political position. Did the European Greens temporarily surrender their ideology by having open primaries for the 2013 European parliament elections? Did the French Socialists suddenly become non ideological because they started to hold open primaries in 2012? Of course not. Every political party has a unique context - they are still ideological and have a place on the political spectrum. Carlp941 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could someone revert the edit saying that the Dems are Centre-left? They have so many diverse factions and their economic policy certainly isn't Centre-left so this is inaccurate 101.119.138.41 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would definitely agree. There are a number of sources noting that the party has notable centrist and conservative/right-leaning  factions. While I don't deny that there are certainly some "social justice warrior" progressives in the party, they've become a big tent (even "conservative") party of anyone supportive of the constitutional status quo as opposed to the radical right (says The Atlantic ). If we're going to put a political position in at all, it should be "big tent" or "center" (since that's where the party "establishment" mostly is) with a note that the party has also has a substantial left-leaning faction and a somewhat smaller right-leaning faction. PtolemyXV (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC) PtolemyXV (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

political position 2
I think its REALLY REALLY important for a political party to state their political position! the Democrats are centre-left and it needs to be stated just like the Republicans being centre-right/right-wing. or is it different over there in the states? cause almost every party here on Wikipedia has clearly stated their political position except maybe for the CCP but duhh thats expected. requesting the admins to take necessary actions. Credmaster 20 (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 * This is an editorial discussion, Admins have no extra authority over the rest of us regular users when discussing editorial issues. Zaathras (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you define center left without referring to other positions in the political spectrum.
 * Also, is center left part of the center or the left, or is it midway between the two or does it just combine the two? TFD (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Center-left is defined here on Wikipedia. The entire first paragraph in the lead explains it without mentioning the word 'right', and the definition is supported with citations later in the article. Ray522 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your link begins, "Centre-left politics is the range of left-wing political ideologies that lean closer to the political centre." That's a clear reference "to other positions in the political spectrum."
 * Can you define center left without referring to other positions in the political spectrum? TFD (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My definition does not matter; that would be asking me to do original research. However, center-left is a compound word which requires understanding both parts of the word and that it is referencing a spectrum that is used in comparison. If the goalpost is now defining something on a spectrum without referencing other things on the spectrum, and the individual words that constitute the compound word, you will most likely never find a satisfactory answer. Ray522 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No original research "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Obviously we could not discuss article content without using editorial judgement. TFD (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if the political position was similar to the one used for the Republican Party, whereas that one says "Right-wing" with a citation noting center-right and far-right factions, maybe the political position for the Democrats could be Center-left with a citation noting center and left-wing factions? CY223 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes and note the far left factions too (everyone knows about the Republican party’s far right factions because it’s a very loud faction. but do to how quiet they are and the fact it’s not as big the Democratic far left goes under the rug.) 2600:8801:1187:7F00:355E:943C:4E4A:C550 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At that point your note is essentially "Republicans encompass all portions of the right and Democrats encompass all portions of the left", making it utterly pointless. It's almost like both are big-tent parties of the entire right and left. Toa Nidhiki05 23:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it’s pointless for American parties then what’s up with the UKs conservative and labour parties having political positions? They are also coalitions it’s almost like giving some of the european tent parties official positions makes it only fair you do the same of the American ones. or is America exempt from the rule again? Like it always is? 2600:8801:1187:7F00:D09E:8BBF:7C30:15D4 (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think American politics and European politics can be painted with the same broad brushstrokes, then you really don't know much about the topic. area. Zaathras (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The decision to include position in the political spectrum in the info-box has to stand on its own merits. TFD (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. The majority of the Democratic Party is centre-left, and has some centrist and leftist factions. Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by center left? TFD (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Social liberalism and moderate progressivism. Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Credmaster 20 The Democrats are quite big-tent as we have the New Democrats which most non-Americans would consider centre-right and they are one of the biggest factions of the party (I mean both Clintons and Biden were or are considered New Democrats at some point) and since there is such a divide between the New Democrat faction which controls the party's leadership and their more centre-left voter base. I would say the Democratic Party as it is big-tent. ReymunNobleJacinto (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What would stop us from putting in "center to left-wing"? Or perhaps "center-left, with centrist and left-wing factions"? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ideologies in Wikibox
The page currently has Democratic socialism as an ideology of the party, which I personally disagree with but I understand that No original research exists for a reason and that the term is much more frequently used in American discourse than Social democracy, which had previously been included in the wikibox previously.

However, the sources cited for the former ideology largely use the term Progressivism to describe the left flank of the Democratic Party and never mention either "social democracy" or "democratic socialism."

The other source from the New Yorker uses both of the latter terms, claiming that while Bernie Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist," he would be more reasonably described as a "social democrat." This could be used as evidence for the party having a social democratic faction around Bernie Sanders but more sources should probably be necessary for such a high-profile page.

So, either there needs to be citations to multiple sources that actually characterize the party as having a significant 'democratic socialist' faction, as having a significant 'social democratic' faction or of both.

Alternatively, the labels "democratic socialism" or "social democracy" could be removed from the ideology section of the page entirely because "progressivism" already covers, both in many sources and by self-identification, most of the party members/politicians that could be classified as either or both of the former two categories.

Thoughts? Enderdragonpig (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I've reverted the infobox back to "social democracy" for the time being while this is discussed. I do not support "democratic socialism" being in the infobox and would agree with stripping social democracy as a whole. Neither are terms commonly associated with the Democratic Party, while progressivism is. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, while social democratic policies are adopted by some in the party, progressivism is already description enough for this faction. CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The socialist/democratic socialist/social democratic distinction is arbitrary and depends on the writer. Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin for example were Social Democrats, while Tony Blair is a democatic socialist.
 * My concern is that these are not ideologies of the Democratic Party and the party itself has three factions: progressives, blue dogs and New Liberals. Their main proponents are Sanders, Manchin and HIllary Clinton respectively. But Sanders is not actually influential in the progressive caucus. Something like four out of eighty (and probably less) backed him when he ran for president. TFD (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Blue Dog/conservative Democrats don't even count as a faction any more, frankly. There's all of 10 of them in the house, or all of 5%, compared to 46% that are part of the CPC and 46% that are New Democrats. There are more Democrats in the Forethought Caucus than in the Blue Dog Coalition. Toa Nidhiki05 15:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They may be a small group currently, but considering the New Democrats, the Progressives, and the Blue Dogs are the three main Congressional Democrat caucuses. I think having Centrism/Third Way, Progressivism, and Fiscal conservatism as the three main factions makes sense. (You could even argue to include a tiny minority of Geo-libertarians due to the existence of the Democratic Freedom Caucus.) CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't. 10 members is too small to claim the party is "fiscally conservative". Also, the Democratic Freedom Caucus isn't a real organization or anything. It's just some guy's website. They used to have a page here, but it was deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the effects of Democratic Party ideology: - High Taxes - High cost of living - Increased crime - Higher numbers of homeless people - Open border These are just a few, but they merit mention TopShelf99 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Those are biased opinions of the opposition, not fact. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable and independent sources, including reputable polls, journalism articles, or studies that say that? Please provide such sources to make such claims. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with editors Enderdragonpig and EndlessCoffee54 about dem. socialism and social democracy. That should be removed. This is imporatant; "there needs to be citations to multiple sources that actually characterize the party as having a significant 'democratic socialist' faction, as having a significant 'social democratic' faction or of both." In general, Progressivism cover that pretty good. 109.93.181.18 (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Israel relations
The Democratic Party is much less supportive towards Israel than the Republicans. דולב חולב (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Do you have sources that say this, and if so can you provide links or citations? Also which parts of the Democratic Party--its voters, elected officials at the national level, President Joe Biden, etc. are much less supportive per your sources? Are your sources polls, journalism on the actions of elected officials, views by the Israeli government, etc.?
 * Note that the Democratic National Committee's main roles are fundraising and political organization (i.e. hosting the Democratic National Convention), not public policy or directly influencing elected officials. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Conservative ideology in the Infobox?
See section Democratic Party (United States) A conservative Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party with more conservative views than most Democrats. Until the 2010s, the Democratic Party had a large conservative element, mostly from the South and Border regions. Their numbers declined sharply as the Republican Party built up its Southern base.

After the 1994 Republican Revolution, the Blue Dog Coalition was formed as a caucus of conservatives and centrists willing to broker compromises with the Republican leadership. The Blue Dog Coalition has at times acted as a unified voting bloc, giving its members some ability to influence legislation.

The longstanding version omits this and it seems there is no consensus supporting mention of this ideology in the infobox. While I would agree conservatism in the democratic party is well documented historically, I also agree with Toa that it seems misleading to keep it in the infobox, especially in 2024. It's coverage in the article does not appear substantial enough to warrant it's inclusion there at this time IMO. DN (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 * To be honest, I support removing all of the factions from the Infobox as with all other political parties. That’s why articles have “Factions” (or similarly titled) sections. Listing factions is potentially misleading, and the Infobox is meant to be a brief summary.— Autospark (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Also see Conservative Democrat section "2000–present"... "The Blue Dog Coalition was reduced to eight members, the lowest number in its history. In 2023, Joe Manchin, described as the most conservative Democratic senator in the nation, announced he would not seek re-election in 2024 United States Senate election in West Virginia|2024...DN (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Support removing that section from the Factions section, and instead incorporating it into the history of the party and/or in the initial paragraphs about the history of the party's factions. I agree the Conservative Democrat faction has largely died out, but it's worth mentioning that the Democrat Party used to have a prominent conservative faction in the article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I agree with User:Autospark (the "factions" section should be removed from the "ideology" infobox parameter), while I oppose removing references to conservatism in the "factions" section of the article, if that is what User:JohnAdams1800 is talking about. The only ideology in the infobox should be "liberalism", with a links both to liberalism (not social liberalism) and, between brackets, liberalism in the United States (or modern liberalism in the United States). --Checco (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose both this, and any bracketed links with "American" in them. Keep the current three factions, and link "Liberalism" to Modern liberalism in the United States without an WP:ENGVAR-violating and utterly unnecessary bracket. Toa Nidhiki05 14:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Political position
I believe that 'centre to centre-left' is a fair and unbiased position. There are many sources which mention both centrist and centre-left ideologies in the Democratic Party. Any other position is very rare to be supported by a party member. Andrijator (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I concur with the above. Aficionado538 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is your definition of centre-left? (And don't just say it lies somewhere between center and left.) TFD (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Centre-left politics support government intervention to a state in which there is still a mixed-market economy, however with social welfare programs. The strongness of those programs varies in different ideologies, e.g. social liberalism and social democracy. Andrijator (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All major parties in Western democracies support this. The Democrats however are less supportive than right-wing parties in other countries. TFD (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. The previous RfCs on this topic haven't been particularly persuasive, especially when put into context of similar discussions of other political parties. The US isn't "special" in this regard. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The U.S. actually is special. It has two parties, neither of which have a statement of ideology or enforces ideological conformity. IOW you cannot be expelled from either party for any reason and you cannot be stopped from running under their banner. Furthermore, state governments are involved in the nomination process by running "primary elections." Can you name any other country in the world that has this system? TFD (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * how does that make it special? Lots of countries have unique political systems. Lots of parties don't state an overriding ideology and have factions. That's why we rely on secondary RS Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue with the US is that its media is incredibly insular so they make their own definitions of the political spectrum Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Every country has its own political spectrum. There is no "global political spectrum". There's maybe regional ones - like, say, in Europe, or to some degree the US and Canada - but there's no global spectrum. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed that other regions have different political spectrums with the centre being at the top of the bell curve, but there is a global one regarding ideology Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The position on the spectrum parameter is there to make cross country comparisons easy for the reader Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, WP:OR and my impression, but on the worldwide political spectrum, the democrats are centre-left to centre-right, and the republicans are right wing to far-right Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party is not, in fact, center-right. Toa Nidhiki05 14:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They certainly are from a European perspective. Economically they are centre-right. Socially idk, I’d say centre Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not even from a European perspective, but why is Europe even relevant here? Toa Nidhiki05 14:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The European spectrum seems to be used as the ‘global spectrum’ on Wikipedia when looking at other regions’ political pages. Neo-liberalism is centre-right in Europe, which the democrats champion. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've seen no evidence of this, but even if it was, they aren't a center-right party, and this article isn't about a European party. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First, Wikipedia is aimed at an international audience, not the U.S. specifically. Second, although Americans use the terms left and right, liberal and conservative, in a different way when describing their politics, academic literature in the U.S. uses internationally understood definitions, even when describing U.S. politics. So for example U.S. conservatism is normally categorized as a sub-branch of liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s good academics use internationally recognised definitions, I didn’t know that. Surely that makes it easy to put something in the political spectrum parameter? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When looking at the tax cuts for billionaires alone that democrats demand, they are larger than every other party proposal except the far-right republicans. 2603:8000:A301:1A0:510:AAFF:ABF:843B (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

See for example,"Liberalism and Modernity" in The Age of Ideology: Political Ideologies from the American Revolution to Postmodern Times (John Schwarzmantel NYU Press, 1998), p. 68: "Liberalism,in its broadest sense, was a philosophy or set of ideas that gave primacy to the idea of individual freedom, the freedom of the individual as the supreme social unit, untrammelled by interference from the state, other individuals or society as a whole." Conservatism is described as either "to deny modernity and return to a premodern society" or a "criticism of modernity and its features." (p. 64) Premodern means before 1500.

So there's a book from a U.S. academic publisher using the same terminology as people outside the U.S. The debate in the U.S. is not about whether or not to accept liberal principles, but how they should be applied. The term conservative entered usage when FDR used the term to defame his opponents.

TFD (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I would agree if it weren't for Trumpism which is illiberal, it seems liberal principles are wholly accepted among academics but not the population. I was under the impression conservative meant conserving/preserving tradition and generational commons to preserve perspective which make up an ethnic identity/nationality, so it's about managing change rather than opposing it. Trump is a regressive, not a conservative Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bigotry is very useful for lots of people, it props up their ego, there needs to be an alternative for individualist and egoist societies rather than just imposing liberalism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Position
Opening a new discussion on the political position of the Democratic Party. I am aware this has been discussed at length before. Maybe opinions have changed. I am opening this discussion as a consensus was reached on the Republican Party page to add a position! What are the communities thoughts? Can we reach a consensus now? Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, there was never a consensus to add anything on the other page. It seems like someone just added it. Regardless, I oppose changing consensus here. Toa Nidhiki05 23:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been no new reasons presented to use this field and new discussion basically covers the same old points. Terms for the relative placement of political parties in the political spectrum are subjective, inconsistent and contextually defined. TFD (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Political polarization in the United States over recent years may be indicative of increasingly contrasting political positions held by the two parties.
 * DN (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose a political position (i.e. center, center-left, left-wing, or far-left) for the Democratic Party (United States). The party is a big tent, and its elected members hold a wide range of views--from the Blue Dog Coalition to the the squad. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I support adding whatever the consensus of reliable sources say the Democrats' political position is. I find the reasons for excluding one to be spurious.
 * The main arguments I see against it are particularly weak. I'll put what I see as the arguments in italics, and my reasoning against them in plaintext.
 * US political system is unique - US parties don't have a typical membership or primary system. This is a non sequitor. Every political system is unique. There is no political system that exists that transcends positioning on the ideological spectrum. We place political parties all over the world with different political systems, ranging from European-style democracy to puppet parties under dictatorships. To change my mind on this - I would need to see a reliable source that says the US political system is so unique that our political parties defy the left-right spectrum.
 * US political parties are big tent parties with many factions. Another non-sequitor. There are big tent parties everywhere - and we nearly universally apply left-right labels to them on Wikipedia. The Justicialist Party, a party with a massive tent spanning the center right to center left - has the label center left. Bangladesh Awami League, labelled center, with a note about its labelling. The Brazilian Democratic Movement, labelled center to center right. Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), labelled right wing. The Institutional Revolutionary Party, labelled center to center right - despite being an explicitly catch-all party. ANO 2011, labelled center. The only exception I can find is the Five Star Movement, and that is because reliable sources label it as syncretic - not merely because it has many factions. I cannot find reliable sources that say either major US party is syncretic.
 * The ideological spectrum is context dependent and prone to bias. Okay? Isn't this what reliable sources are for, to account for bias?
 * So I'd like to ask those that oppose the change a basic question. Shouldn't we at least be seeking out what reliable sources say about the political position of these parties? Let's see what they say, and try to follow them?  Carlp941 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some political parties are formed for reasons other than ideology. some hold their members through patronage. Your party comes to power and you get government housing and a job. Or, a group of fascists, conservatives, liberals and communists set up a separatist party, believing they can sort out left-right politics once they achieve independence. The fact that some Wikipedia editors think they can map these parties along the left-right spectrum isn't helpful. TFD (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The more we have been in this discussion, frankly the more confused I have gotten. I am not trying to cast aspersions or anything - I am genuinely confused. Is your argument that no parties should recieve a position on the left-right spectrum? Carlp941 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The field makes little sense for any party because position in the political spectrum is merely a judgment on where the stated ideologies fit into the system. So for example saying that a party is communist explains their ideology. Whether or not we then call the party left-wing, radical-left, revolutionary left, far left, etc. has nothing to do with how we perceive the party, but how we perceive its ideology. So there are countless arguments about this in articles about hundreds of different parties.
 * U.S. parties present a special problem because they have no stated ideologies or party discipline. If you show up at any mainstream party in Europe wearing an SS uniform for example, you will be denied membership. But both Dems and Reps would let you in. You could even run in a primary to  become nominated. TFD (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * this seems like dubious reasoning to me. so because US parties have to let anyone registered to that party run they dont have a political position? this falls under argument one for me, and i would need to see reliable sources that support your line of reasoning. Carlp941 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are providing an argument for inclusion and I am merely showing your argument's flaws. You say for example the two main U.S. parties are the same as parties elsewhere in the world, but in fact they aren't. TFD (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again... I need to see some reliable sources that say the US political system is so unique that our political parties defy the left-right spectrum..
 * I never claimed the two main US parties are the same as the world's - I merely claimed there are similarities that merit our consideration. Carlp941 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the American system there are two big tent parties, one of the left and one of the right. We need to be aware of potential bias however or illusions of bias and so for the two American political parties I would motion to place "Left-wing" for the Democrats, and "Right-wing" for the Republicans, however a more personally preferable labeling would be big tent or catch-all for both. Completely Random Guy (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a current discussion on this topic at the GOP article.[] As the US has just two major parties I think it makes sense to add "left-wing" here if "right-wing" is added to the other article.  Alternatively, it should be kept out of both articles. Springee (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party is by all means not a left-wing party. There is not a single big socialist politician in the party. Odideum (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's demonstrably false. Toa Nidhiki05 12:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree here partially. The Democratic Party does have some notable "socialist" politicians such as Bernie Sanders and AOC, however we need to be careful here. What these two advocate is more along the lines of European social democracy, which even itself is considered a socialist movement, however the least radical kind. The two openly identify as democratic socialists, and not social democrats, and I am unaware if they know what they are actually advocating for or if there is a more radical side to there beliefs hence why they identify in that way. Either way there are "big socialist politicians" within the party. Completely Random Guy (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an article about an American political party, not a European one. Whether they would be socialists in Europe is fairly irrelevant; Sanders and the 8-10 DSA-affiliated Democrats in Congress are definitely, unequivocally considered socialists in the United States, and define themselves as such. That being said, 8-10 isn't an especially large number - but it's as large or larger than, say, the Blue Dog caucus (which itself has trended left in recent years). Toa Nidhiki05 13:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Socialism is strongly defined and what you call "socialism in Europe" is the true understanding of socialism. American politics are more right-wing than the European ones, hence the misunderstanding of the meaning of socialism. Absolutely no politician in Democratic Party advocates for a planned economy or anti-business policies. Odideum (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an article on a European political party, and Europe is not the center of the world. In fact, Europe is, frankly, irrelevant to the American political system, which evolved separately from Europe. To overweight Europe in a page about American political parties is, frankly, ridiculous.
 * Regardless, by your standard, most European socialist parties aren't socialist, either - even if they define themselves as socialist, are understood to be socialist in their countries, and are members of the Socialist International. Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that Bernie Sander is aware of his own beliefs. The problem understanding socialism is that some see it as a basket of policies rather than a belief system. When local utilities in the UK fell into disrepair by the end of the war, Labour nationalized and rebuilt them with public money at a time when private capital was unavailable. It was a specific policy developed to solve a specific problem. It doesn't mean that nationalization of local utilities is part of socialist doctrine.
 * In any case, there is no socialist caucus within Congress, just a handful of self-described "democratic socialists." They caucus with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. TFD (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding a position, whatever is determined by the sources. — Czello (music) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should I reach out for a third party opinion? I still haven't seen the old consensus presented, this discussions seems to have stalled out, and I'd like this closed out, if possible. Carlp941 (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding a position that is cited Completely Random Guy (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding a position that is backed up by sources. I believe the center position that was previously added using the Manifesto Project Database was a good source. BootsED (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The center position is not backed up by the source. I've looked at the datasets, and they show the GOP and Democrats as opposites on a left-right scale on economic, social, and right-left axis. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A better source is probably needed. However, (WP:OR) I don't believe calling the Democratic Party left-wing, which is also what the Green Party of the United States is labeled as is accurate. I think to Americans the Democrats are left-wing, but for an international audience and among scholarly works they are broadly centrist with some left-wing elements. But again, a better source is needed for this. BootsED (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer we gather sources before trying to decide a consensus; at the very least, the Manifesto Project indicates the two parties as direct opposites, not one being on the right and the other the center. Deciding what we want to say and then finding sources is the exact opposite of how consensus should work. I also question the logic of judging an American party by German standards or vice versa. Toa Nidhiki05 14:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Copying the image from the Database that Toa uploaded to Google Drive in a separate conversation about this topic on the Republican Party page. As the image shows, the Democratic Party moved towards the right in the 1980s and 90s under the Third Way, then moved back towards the left around '08. However, they still fall beneath the 25 score, meaning they are still center/center-left as a whole. BootsED (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Longer comment for those interested that I previously posted on the Republican Party page about the MARPOR score for the Democrats and Republicans:
 * According to the RILE score from the dataset, the 0 is pure centrism, while if you go up in the positive you're more right-wing and if you go down in the negative you're more left wing. Both parties are below a score of +/-50, so they're definitely not far-right or far-left. I assume the scale would go to +100 to -100 as we have a historical party, the State's Rights Party that is above +50. The table itself is not symmetrical but zoomed in, the y-axis at the top goes above 50 while below it does not. So the difference between the right and the left looks large, but if you look at the y-axis the Democrats are still closer to the center than the Republicans are.
 * I downloaded the dataset, and the Republicans as of 2020 are above 25 at 32.969, while the Democrats as of 2020 are just below -25 at -24.662. So obviously, the Republican Party per this dataset is definitely not "far-right" as they are still less than the 1948 segregationist State's Rights Party which was at 52.459; and they are definitely not equivalent to the Nazi Party which Wikipedia also states is "far-right." While it isn't in the dataset you shared, common sense would suggest the Nazi's would be well above +75. It would be disingenuous and a false equivalence to say that the Nazi's are a far-right party and that the Republicans are also a far-right party on both pages.
 * In that same vein, it would also be disingenuous and a false equivalence to say that the Green Party of the United States are a left-wing party and that the Democrats are also a left-wing party of the same sort. I believe the dataset you have should also list where the Green Party would fall on a left-right scale, and I would bet that they would be further left-wing than the Democrats at around the same place the Republicans are but on the left at around -30 to -40. Likewise, the Democratic Socialists of America are listed as left-wing to far-left, which if it is in the dataset, would most likely put them at someplace around -50 to -75.
 * So 0 to +/-25 would be centrist, +/-25 to +/-75 would be right-wing/left wing, and +/-75 to +/-100 would be far-right/far-left. Scores at the edges would be determined by what reliable sources describe them as. BootsED (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like center-left is the best descriptor, then? It's right on the line. Toa Nidhiki05 01:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree it averages out as Center-left as the New Democrat Coalition and Blue Dog Coalition page is listed as Center to Center-left whilst the Congressional Progressive Caucus page, it is listed as Left-wing. Mhaot (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't the center in the chart defined as the mid-way point between the Democrats and Republicans? In that case, the two parties would be center right and center left because they are closer to each other than either is to the fascists and communists at the two extremes. TFD (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what's confusing me. It clearly shows them as basically symmetrical on the spectrum, which makes sense as the broad parties of the entire left and entire right. Toa Nidhiki05 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this source is good as an additional reference rather than a primary one. I am not a fan of these scores own their own when better sourcing likely exists. I'd prefer a subject matter expert making a direct claim than our interpretation of the scores. I'll look up some more sources later.  Carlp941 (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds great Carlp941. I agree with your analysis. In this case, center to center-left, as some people have previously stated, would sound like the best descriptor. BootsED (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have sources establishing them as centrist? Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like there are 2 dominant positions in the talk page. They are:
 * 1) 'Centre-left'
 * 2) 'Center to centre-left'
 * Can we have a poll to determine which position fits the party better? Even if either position is chosen, the page can have a footnote to mention the position of factions within the party. Guotaian (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think from the citations that were cited it's abundantly clear center-left is the appropriate tag. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone starts an official poll I'll vote! Completely Random Guy (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support adding "Center-left" with citations Completely Random Guy (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The main article defines centre-left politics by grouping together social democracy, social liberalism, progressivism, and green politics. Do the Democratic Party's policies have any relation to these ideologies? I thought the party was more closely associated with Bill Clinton and his fiscal conservatism. Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dimadick
 * 1) Placing Green politics is as one of the most important criteria is questionable given for example the Australian Labor Party and Labour Party (UK) is still listed as Centre-left but not considered a green party which would be The Greens (Australia) and Green Party of England and Wales respectively
 * 2) It well known that Democratic Party is adhered to social liberalism and progressivism
 * 3) Even most New Democrats agrees and attempted to implement policies such as "Taxing the Rich more", Stronger Unions, higher Minimum Wage etc.
 * 4)Bill Clinton is a Third Way which synthesising a combination of economically liberal and social democratic economic policies but Australian Labor Party and Labour Party (UK) also adhered to Third Way at various times. Mhaot (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"Social liberalism" and American English
This article is in American English. The article is for an American political party. Adding a disclaimer of "American" on political ideologies is nonsensical. Anyone reading this article understands this is American - a piped link is more than sufficient, especially putting WP:ENGVAR into consideration. Toa Nidhiki05 05:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Are you talking about the info-box? Based on the source used, it refers to Modern liberalism in the United States, which is seen as half-way between Social liberalism and laissez-faire liberalism, while the term social liberalism generally refers in the U.S. to being liberal on social issues. Perhaps a better term could be found. TFD (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re absolutely correct. The correct term in American English would be “Liberalism”, and piping it the Modern liberalism in the United States article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"Majority" Ideology
As a result of CPC being a dominant faction of the democratic party, shouldn't Progressivism be in the Majority section when it comes to ideology? The New democrats and CPC also has about the same number of seats in the house of representatives so both should be represented Guotaian (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't a bad point. The caucus is undeniably the largest in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I take this point back because the CPC and the new democrats both are 'liberals' but the new democrats are third way while the CPC are progressives so progressivism should remain a faction Guotaian (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But I think we should remove social democracy because progressivism is basically social democracy Guotaian (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose because currently the New Democrat Coalition has slightly more seats than the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) currently, at 98 to 96. The two factions are basically evenly balanced, with 23 representatives in both caucuses. Also, the 2019 Pew Research poll found 47% of members identify as liberal/very liberal, 38% as moderate, and 14% as conservative/very conservative.
 * The Blue Dog Coalition has 10 members, and is the most centrist faction of the Democratic Party. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources that progressivism is an ideology? I have seen it described as such in far right sources, but not in reliable sources. As I understand it, the term is used to group people of different ideologies working toward common goals. So the current CPC has mostly liberal members along with some democratic socialists. TFD (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought the centrists were the majority in the Democratic Party? Thus the reason why progressives like Sanders or Warren, haven't won their party's presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The largest faction of Democrats in the House is the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is left-wing and progressive. The second-largest group is the New Democratic Coalition, which consists of basically everyone else - centrists, liberals, establishment, etc. They're both about the same size. There's also the moderate Blue Dog Caucus, which has about 10 members. Toa Nidhiki05 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2024
Add international affiliation in infobox (Progessive Alliance) GoonerNGA (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Discussed and rejected earlier at Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States). Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ideologies
I've been involved in a minor edit war so I've decided to bring it here. My suggestion is to change the piped Liberalism link (which links to Modern liberalism in the United States) to Liberalism (American) to avoid any confusion from international readers, and to remove Democratic socialism from the infobox entirely, as I've read the source cited and see no mention of a Demsoc faction within the party, only of an external demsoc organisation occasionally supporting the party. Open to discussion however. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral on the piped link change, In favor of the removing of demsoc. As much as it being a faction, there is no information in the body to back it up. And it appears to be just a few members of the House and Senate, not quite enough to be considered a faction. More or less just a group. Completely Random Guy (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Part of my reasoning for the piped link change is to match the Liberal parties of other nations such as the UK's Lib Dems, Australia's Liberal Party of Australia, & South Africa's Democratic Alliance (South Africa), another part is just to avoid the international readers' confusion like I said. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarify, I think you meant Liberal Party of Canada which is socially liberal and opposes the far-right not the Liberal Party of Australia which is liberal conservative and even in the past some of the politicians even hold far-right views Mhaot (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, I did intend to cite the LPA, but LPC is also a good example of a liberal party that specifies in plain text that its definition of Liberalism is unique to its country of origin. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to clarify it as "American" liberalism. This is an American political party - what, are people expecting them to promote German liberalism? Of course not. A piped link is entirely acceptable for that purpose here, and frankly, should be required under WP:ENGVAR, which requires pages to be written in the English language variety of the subject - in this case, American English, where "liberal" has an extremely clear meaning. I strongly oppose an unnecessary, space-wasting "clarification".
 * As for Democratic socialism - I'm indifferent, to a degree, as socialists broadly fall under the progressive label as well. However, sources do indeed refer to a faction of democratic socialists in the House at minimum. It's worth discussing, at least. Toa Nidhiki05 16:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given just how few demsocs are in the House (although I haven't seen any reliable sources about a faction of them for myself, but if you could provide some, I'd have a look), it seems WP:UNDUE to mention them in the infobox while the Blue Dog Faction (Fiscal conservatism) isn't. If anything, or if there must be 3 factions listed for whatever reason, I'd posit that fiscal conservatism should take Democratic socialism's place, since they are for sure more prevalent despite their dwindling numbers, but stripping the factions down to Centrism and Progressivism is still my preferred stance. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Blue Dogs are a dying caucus, while the DemSocs are actually gaining. If the DemSocs aren’t enough to be included, the Blue Dogs certainly aren’t, either. Toa Nidhiki05 16:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well as I've said, I've seen no sources so far describing a significant demsoc faction in the party, and I was just using the Blue Dogs as an example of a faction since it currently has 10 seats, and there's no mention of a full-on faction of demsocs in the article, nor the factions article, just that there's some demsocs present in the house loosely or explicitly associated with the DSA. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering a self-proclaimed democratic socialist got second place for the party's nomination twice and that there are multiple members in congress that self-proclaim the ideology as well, I'd definitely consider it a faction. Though social democracy should also probably be listed, and progressivism should definitely be there. TheXuitts (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My argument is that a) Bernie Sanders isn't a member of the party, just someone who Caucuses with them, b) the demsocs in Congress aren't an organised faction, just a couple of self-declared demsocs who ran largely unrelated to eachother. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sanders did not run on a demsoc platform. Instead of running away from the description (he had belonged to socialist organizations in the past), he adopted it and defined it. While he probably is socialist, his campaign and his followers were not. TFD (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, since most liberal European parties have the label "Liberalism (country's name)" the Democratic Party should as well. As for democratic socialism, I would remove it from the infobox. There is no politican in the Democratic Party that promotes most of demsoc policies. Odideum (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At the very least, there's absolutely no organised demsoc Faction, a few stragglers at most. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, other pages do not matter. Are any editors going to be confused into thinking the Democratic Party promotes German or British liberalism? Toa Nidhiki05 00:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's what the readers understand. Saying that both parties are liberal doesn't help readers to understand what differences exist. Democrats are more likely to use the redistributive powers of the state, while Republicans prefer the coercive powers. But there is no sharp division or disagreement. TFD (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I doubt editors will confuse them, as most editors of this page are from the United States. The term "liberal" in most countries generally refers to economic liberalism and classical liberalism. In Germany that includes the Free Democratic Party (Germany), which would be called libertarian in the United States. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this article is in American English, per WP:ENGVAR, and liberalism has exactly one meaning here. Clicking the piped link is enough to resolve any confusion. Toa Nidhiki05 04:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See Ian Adams,  Ideology Today, p. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been....The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone; how far should the state regulate or manange; and how far should government at federal or local level provide social security and welfare services?" Calling both parties liberal without qualification gives the false impression that there are no ideological differences between them. TFD (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Ummm did you reply to the right discussion? This is about removing the false/misleading label of "democratic socialism" from the party's infobox. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was replying to your original post at the top of this discussion thread: "My suggestion is to change the piped Liberalism link (which links to Modern liberalism in the United States) to Liberalism (American) to avoid any confusion from international readers, and to remove Democratic socialism from the infobox entirely."[15:59, 9 June 2024] I agree btw to removing democratic socialism entirely. TFD (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure what you meant to be honest. What was your position on changing the piped link and how does the quote fit in? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I didn't read your post correctly. I think the link should be to Modern liberalism in the United States rather than both Liberalism and Modern liberalism in the United States. Maybe you meant the ideology to read "Liberalism (American)" with a link to Modern liberalism in the United States. Did you know that your recommendation links to two articles? TFD (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm aware, I'm just confused what you meant by "Calling both parties liberal[...]". The practice of linking to both Liberalism and the article about Liberalism in the country of origin is in use in loads of articles, I just think it's an important distinction to make. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about the "Working Class" (Non-College) realignment since Trump's election in 2016.
This isn't an edit conflict, and I don't mind how we word it, but I wanted to reach a consensus on wording. The concept of the Working class in the United States as it relates to politics means workers without a college degree, not all people who are employed. My view is we should clarify that it's mainly White and Hispanic working class voters who have increased support for the Republican Party.

The Data: The Republican advantage for such voters is primarily among White voters, but has also expanded to Hispanic voters per the second and fourth sources; Democrats still win a majority of Hispanic voters nationwide. The majority of Asian American voters have college degrees, and the Democratic Party still receives the overwhelming majority of African American voters, regardless of educational attainment. I added a table from Issues in higher education in the United States for educational attainment by race.

In the demographics section, how should we word this sentence: "The victory of Republican Donald Trump in 2016 brought about a realignment in which many working-class voters voted Republican." .

This is the percentage of adults from each racial group who graduated with a Bachelor's degree in the years 2000 and 2016.

Israel section
I suggest a major change to the paragraph regarding Israel and the Democratic attitudes towards it. Whilst the Democratic party, as the article reads, was a stronger supporter of Israel historically, that's clearly not the case anymore and there are billions of sources citing this, which I will link below. Accordingly, I'd suggest the new look of the paragraph to focus on the young democrats' high hostility to israel and much higher sympathy towards palestine, the monolithic and rocksteady approach of the Republicans (who have become near zealously supportive of Israel) etc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/29/palestine-democrat-support-election-voters-israel/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/472070/democrats-sympathies-middle-east-shift-palestinians.aspx

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/12/democrats-generational-divide-remains-as-israel-battles-hamas-00121307

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/politics/polling-democrats-divided-israel-palestine/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/17/democrats-israel-polls/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-dogged-by-democrats-anger-over-israel-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-02-29/

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4710850-netanyahu-speech-boycott-democrats/#:~:text=A%20growing%20chorus%20of%20House,the%20conflict%20%E2%80%94%20demand%20a%20show

https://www.axios.com/2024/06/14/democrats-boycott-netanyahu-speech-congress

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4724502-khanna-says-he-will-not-attend-netanyahus-address-to-congress/

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/06/14/congress/democrats-netanyahu-speech-house-senate-boycott-00163554

Clearly, the present state of the section is outright false, and the democrats ARE NOT stronger supporters any more.

Any takers?? daruda (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 * @BootsED
 * @Muboshgu daruda (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I included your edit about parts of the Democratic base being more skeptical of the Israeli government as a result of the war. The party as a whole, however, still supports Israel. BootsED (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, the 'historically' sentence is still rather obviously untrue as they clearly do not support Israel more than the Republicans unwavering commitment to Israel. daruda (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. What source specifically says "the Democrats do not support Israel?" What is the text of your proposed edit? Your sources reveal that parts of the Democratic base are upset at the Israeli government and that several Democrats dislike Netanyahu and say they will boycott his speech, but they do not make the claim that the Democrats do not support Israel anymore. BootsED (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, though I would base it off the actions of elected Democratic officials, such as Biden. The college campus protests were denounced by Biden, and weren't affiliated with the Democratic party.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Center to center-left versus center-left
It appears a general consensus has been reached across the several talk page sections about the political position of the party, and that the consensus is the political position should be added to the page. However, there appears to be disagreement over whether the text should state "center to center-left" or just "center-left."

I have included several of the sources I've found about this topic below. Thank you Toa for trimming some of the other sources I found that were not as reliable as these (I included the The New York Intelligencer as it is a reliable source as per wikipedia).

Notelist

BootsED (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Support center-left, with centrist and left-wing factions. Some of your sources are older, before the Democratic Party lost its more conservative-leaning Southern faction in the 2010s, except for African Americans and some urban areas in the South. Sources:

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Center-left, the only stance with reliable sources. Our most reliable sources present the party as center-left, without qualifications; the most reliable presents it as a near opposite of the GOP. The center-left by definition includes both the center and left, making the clarification of "centrist and left-wing factions" utterly redundant. Also, re:Intelligencier - it's an opinion piece, and it's a wildly opinionated one presenting the Republicans as a fascist party. It's not reliable for anything other than Levitz's opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose, as has been said before, the party is way too much of a big tent to make a definitive position. Both major parties in the USA are big tents, the ideology section is a much better way to figure out what the party stands for. And to reiterate another point made before, the party is not on the left on the international scale. The only compromise I'd consider is Big tent (perhaps listing centrist and centre-left factions). GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support, as there are Big tent parties that has political position listed for example Liberal Party of Australia is considered a Big tent conservative party listed as Centre-right to Right-wing plus political position is mostly listed from the standards of the individual country (e.g. compare Conservative Party (Norway) listed as Centre-right and Republican People's Party classified as Centre-left even though the latter is more conservative). Mhaot (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Party is considered a broad church by its members, sure, but broad strictly on the right. The Democrats have factions to the left of centre and right of centre. Hence my "big tent" suggestion. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Democrats do not have any right of center factions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with @Toa Nidhiki05. The conservative Democrat faction has steadily declined in the 21st century, as Democrats lost power in the South. The Blue Dog Coalition has just 10 members (it peaked at 54 in 2009) and moved left in recent years, Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin became independents and won't run in 2024.
 * Bill Clinton would be considered a very moderate or Blue Dog Democrat by today's standards, not including his record on LGBT rights. Bill Clinton supported the death penalty, enacted a welfare reform law, deregulated the telecom and financial industries, and was lukewarm on labor unions (see my Vox source). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of the four sources above, Guardino and Snyder are largely irrelevant. They do not describe the party as centrist, they comment on its efforts to reach agreements with the right-wingers. Marantz is talking about moderates dominating the party, not centrists. Rae describes the party as both liberal and center-left, attributing this direction of the party to the influence of the civil rights movement. Levitz describes the party as centrist (not center-left), but also implicitly describes it as militaristic and imperialist. According to him, the party's goals include the maintenance of a "globe-spanning military empire". Dimadick (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am changing my support to center-left. I have found additional high-quality sources that I believe should put the question of whether the Democratic Party is "Center-left" or not to rest.

BootsED (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Agree @BootsED, political positions mostly takes into account the standards of the individual country (e.g. compare Conservative Party (Norway) listed as Centre-right and Republican People's Party classified as Centre-left even though the latter is more conservative). Mhaot (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose What's Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times defines center-left as "a variety of political forces, among them social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners." (p. 5) Others, including most editors in this conversation, may define it differently so for example by excluding democratic socialists. It's circular: if by center-left we include the ideology of the Democratic Party, it is center-left. OTOH, if we define centrism as liberalism, then the party is centrist. TFD (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is covered by the factions section only having centrism and progressivism, not democratic socialism, greens, and whatnot. The book also describes European center-left parties, which are generally more left than the American center-left, and which it acknowledges followed a different historical path than the American Democratic Party. While I was collecting these sources I came across another one that expounded on this point. I will have to find it again and add it here. BootsED (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Like @Mhaot said, political positions take into account the standards of the individual country and independent sources, and generally not international standards (which are hard to define). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party is an outlier in the book because it is the only major that does not have Marxist roots. While Marx was advocating the overthrow of capitalism, Democrats were building capitalism. However, it is the most left-wing of the two major U.S. parties, is identified with minorities and labor, and like Marxist parties it has moved to the center. In Europe however, liberal parties tend to occupy the middle ground between social democrats and conservatives.
 * While I understand that in some contexts, the Democrats can be seen as center-left, in other contexts, they can be seen as centrist or center-right. It is misleading to describe them as center-left without explaining what is meant. The footnote should say, "By center-left we mean socialist and green parties and, in the United States, the Democratic Party." TFD (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "the only major that does not have Marxist roots" The Democratic Party was founded in 1828, when Karl Marx was 10-years-old. Both the Democratic Party and the preceeding Democratic-Republican Party were populist parties which represented the American variations of classical radicalism.Dimadick (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party is not socialist or green. There have been many discussions over putting in "democratic socialism" or socialism as a faction of the party and all have failed. Why would we put a footnote saying that the Democratic Party is "socialist and green"? BootsED (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of Europe uses a multi-party system, while the English-speaking world uses first past the post voting, which by Duverger's law incentivizes two parties. If you want to compare the Democratic Party internationally, consider comparing it to the Liberal Party, Australian Labor Party, or Labour Party (UK) because those nations have two major parties.
 * Because of the party's size, environmentalist and socialist positions tend to be represented by say the Congressional Progressive Caucus, not individual coalitions. 2610:20:6B73:240:0:0:0:B096 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Democratic party began before the Communist Manifesto, and before the Civil Rights movement, was a combination of two coalitions --Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats, symbolized by Andrew Jackson (Tennessee) and Martin Van Buren (New York). See the article on Southern Democrats for their full history, while Martin Van Buren stayed loyal to the Union (he died in 1862).
 * Northern Democrats became pro-labor after William Jennings Bryan toppled the Bourbon Democrats in the 1896 presidential election, and continued with FDR's New Deal in the 1930s. Southern Democrats, which for nearly a century (1877 to 1964) became known as the Solid South, were obviously not a left-leaning coalition; it was reactionary and white supremacist, disenfranchising African Americans and poor Whites. User:JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

An additional source with more information on how the Democratic Party is further to the right than European left-wing parties, and how there is no strong socialist or equivalent "left-wing" movement in the United States. I think with this source, there shouldn't be any more confusion that there are "socialist" elements within the center-left Democratic Party, which I believe should satisfy TFD's concerns. BootsED (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I agree that the Democratic Party is not a Labor party like the UK Labor Party or Germany's SPD. Part of the reason is the Southern United States, which is heavily racially polarized--White evangelicals in the Bible Belt vote nearly as Republican (80-90%) as African Americans vote Democratic (85-95%). But a party can still be center-left without relying on organized labor, and instead be focused on issues such as abortion rights and environmentalism.
 * The party is instead comprised of well-educated White voters and racial minorities, particularly African Americans. It could be called postmaterialist among White voters, because educational attainment in the United States is highly correlated with income and wealth. I have three sources for this.   JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends what your definition of center left is. It seems like a term created in order to group European Socialists with Democrats. What information does it provide readers about the Democrats that the ideology box doesn't? TFD (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * TFD, the very Wikipedia page for center-left politics does not list European Socialists with the Democratic Party. Specifically in the lead of the page, "Centre-left politics are contrasted with far-left politics that reject capitalism or advocate revolution." I don't think people will be confused and think that the Democratic Party are socialists. Also, we have a lot of sources now that use center-left to describe the current Democratic Party. Pending some change in this, I think the argument for center-left is strong at this time. BootsED (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Current proposal
For a refresher for those confused with all the references listed and the addition and removal of some of them, this is currently how the political position and the sources used to describe it are proposed to appear.

Political position Center-left

BootsED (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Support, because it explains the Democratic Party as ideologically less cohesive (though the Republican Party in recent years has more factions) and center-left. The "Polarized by Degrees" source explains how the Democratic Party is center-left but differs from Europe's center-left because it relies more on the college-educated instead of organized labor. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Comment - I went ahead and added center-left as there's very clearly an overwhelming consensus for it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Support center left as the sole position. These sources are excellent. Carlp941 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Support (see sources and comments above). DN (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mixed oppose Change to "center to left wing" to encompass both the Blue Dog and New Democrat Coalitions, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Dhantegge (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really dislike this usage, it is ambiguous and confusing. What does it mean? That reliable sources have variously described it as "centrist" and "left-wing"? If so, why not have a footnote explicitily saying this with a list of sources? I would avoid "Left-wing" at all for the same reasons explained by TFD. Is it meant to describe the factions within the party, as you seem to imply here? Why not actually add a proper "Factions" parameter to the infobox as I tried to do years ago because users keep adding anyway an artificial Factions: parameter (as is also done here for the "Ideology" parameter in this very article) so we can list either official factions and/or ideological wings? In such cases, I would just put "Center-left", "Centrist", "Center-left", "Left-wing", or "Right-wing", and have a footnote explaining why the party as also been described the other way and the scholarly debate.
 * In the case of Democrats, I would go with "Center-left" as that is the more common indicator in the United States (or "Centrist" if we go by scholarly groupings as explained by TFD) and "Right-wing" for the Republicans to underscore their much more significant rightward case. Same thing for the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in the UK, as the Labour Party is a member of the centre-left European grouping whereas the Conservatives are members of the right-wing (not center-right) European grouping and also underwent a rightward shift. In all cases, I would just have a footnote concisely summarizing the debate rather than ambiguous and confusing "Center-left to left-wing" or "Center-right to right-wing". Same thing for "Ideology": in the case of Democrats, I would just list liberalism, linking to the "Modern liberalism in the United States" article, and have a footnote explaining the other ideological factions within the party and do it at an historical level not limited to recentism (after all, if we are going with the ambiguous "to", why not actually summarize the party's historical position on the spectrum and explain the reversal between the Democrats and Republicans from left-wing to right-wing and vice versa? That would be much better and clear than this ambiguous "to" usage), while finally creating a proper "Factions" parameter where we would list and link the Blue Dog Coalition, New Democrats, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the like. Davide King (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose As I mentioned earlier, these terms have no fixed meaning and therefore create ambiguity rather than clarity when used without context. Note that "What's Left of the Left" cited above defines center-left as the Democratic Party in the U.S. and social democratic parties abroad before saying the grouping is controversial. Can anyone explain what additional information this field provides beyond what is already stated in the ideology field? TFD (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support either "Center-left" (per the reliable sources and because it effectively acted as the center-left party in the United States) or "Centrist" (per TFD, who I think raises several important and interesting points and that I hope can be further discussed at Talk:Centre-left politics but that a footnote can address), with a footnote. Oppose any "to" wording usage, which is ambiguous, as I outlined above. While personally favouring "Centrism" (per TFD), I think the presented reliable sources are enough to support "Center-left". I also support the current footnote, and as long as it explains this, discusses the scholarly debate (I would add a summary of the whole evolution of the party and do the same for the Republicans), and reflects that, to quote TFD, "By center-left we mean socialist and green parties and, in the United States, the Democratic Party", I am perfectly fine and in full support of "Center-left (with footnote)".
 * Personally, I like "Centrism" because it represents the "Big tent", which I would not use because it is not a proper political position on the spectrum, of the Democratic Party, which is a liberal, not social-democratic, party. Internationally, even left-liberal parties, despite its ideological name, are centrists who effectivly act as the center-left parties, such as in Canada (with the social-democratic NDP as center-left) or the United States. But I would still group them as centrists because the centre is always moving, and just because they may not be equidistant between the Left or the Right, and thus be closer to the center-left, it does not mean they automatically became center-left just because the spectrum and thus the center moved rightward
 * At the same time, I think "a variety of political forces, among them social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners" does not necessarily exclude left-liberal, and thus I would include both democratic socialists (e.g. left-wing social democrats) and social liberals, rather than exclude one or both; I would group more radical democratic socialists as left-wing and closer to what was known as "Marxist centrism" (e.g. even many radical democratic socialists are in fact both reformists and revolutionaries, and even when advocating revolution, they see it more as a democratic revolution rather than a violent one). Also there is a fact to consider left-liberals as center-left, even in the United States: there was an early 20th century liberal, whose name evades me (never mind, I found him: it was Herbert Croly) who rejected the view that American liberal tradition was inhospitable to anti-capitalist alternatives. So even from a more left-wing perspective, American liberalism can be considered center-left. And that is why I also personally support "Center-left" as an accurate grouping for the Democratic Party.
 * As an addendum, I think that I believe must be discussed in regards to Center-left politics is its evolution, because it makes it appear as though anti-capitalism is only a far-left position when in fact it was taken by center-left social democratic parties in the 20th century, with the difference being that the center-left was more moderate and pragmatic, and attempted more to trascend capitalism through reforms rather than overthrow it by revolution. Thus, were the pre-World War II social-democratic parties left-wing or center-left, or did they become center-left in the post-war period? I always assumed they were center-left (like the modern center-left, they were more reformists than revolutionists) and that was changed was the political climate and the Overton window. Plus, were the revolutionary liberals far-left? The French Revolutionaries were not all far-left, and in fact far-left was used to refer to those further left of the Jacobins, like the Hébertists, and the Jacobins (revolutionaries) were left-wing. I think this should be clearer and discussed within the context of center-left politics, with a section expanding on the American context. Davide King (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2024
Political position should be Center to Center-left and political ideology should be Social Liberalism, Third Way and Faction: Progressivism 2600:1700:DB70:3750:64C4:DD0C:49A7:E7D3 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Discussions are ongoing literally right above this request. Join them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2024
This political party is listed as center-left. It would be more accurate to claim this institution is center-right.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746.amp 2603:8000:A301:1A0:510:AAFF:ABF:843B (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. your link does not mention the Democratic party or even the words center or right Cannolis (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024
“Please change Democratic Party to Democrat Party”.

Reasoning:

There is a Republican Party (not a Republic Party) which consists of individuals dubbed Republicans (not Republics) There is likewise a Democrat Party (not a Democratic Party) which consists of individuals dubbed Democrats (not Democratics). 2600:1006:B115:E801:51DE:FFA4:C67A:6D1B (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Incorrect, the party is called the Democratic Party. — Czello (music) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * More to the point, that's a pejorative epithet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Democratic Party (United States)


text:
Mohammad Hashem Cheshti

Mohammad Hashem Cheshti, also known with surname Chishti and as Ustad Hashem, was a contemporary classical musician and composer born in Kharabat area of Kabul, Afghanistan, who died in 1994 in Germany under unclear circumstances. Ustad Hashem was born and raised in a musical family, which originally came from Kasur in Punjab, but settled in the 19th century in Kabul as court musicians. Several of his close family members, including his brothers and his father are/were also famous musicians in their own right. Both he and his brothers appeared regularly on Afghan Television and Radio prior to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent wars. He accompanied regularly other famous Afghan musicians like Ahmad Zahir and Ustad Mahwash on his tabla.

He was the teacher and mentor of Ustad Mahwash, the first Afghan female master musician and Zuleikha, a US American dancer and artist. He mastered many different traditional Afghan instruments, but his greatest passion was for the tabla, his mastership of which was supreme. Following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan he had to flee his home country and emigrated to Germany where he died in 1994, killed by one of his former students for reasons unknown.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mohammad Hashem Cheshti


text:
Anyphaenidae

Anyphaenidae is a family of araneomorph spiders, sometimes called anyphaenid sac spiders. They are distinguished from the sac spiders of the family Clubionidae and other spiders by having the abdominal spiracle placed one third to one half of the way anterior to the spinnerets toward the epigastric furrow on the underside of the abdomen. In most spiders the spiracle is just anterior to the spinnerets.

Like clubionids, anyphaenids have eight eyes arranged in two rows, conical anterior spinnerets and are wandering predators that build silken retreats, or sacs, usually on plant terminals, between leaves, under bark or under rocks. There are more than 600 species in over 50 genera worldwide.

The family is widespread and includes such common genera as Anyphaena (worldwide except tropical Africa and Asia) and Hibana (New World). Only one species (A. accentuata) occurs in northwestern Europe.

Species in the latter genus are important predators in several agricultural systems, especially tree crops. They are able to detect and feed on insect eggs, despite their poor eyesight. They share this ability at least with some miturgid spiders.

Genera
, the World Spider Catalog accepts the following genera:

 * Acanthoceto Mello-Leitão, 1944 — South America
 * Aljassa Brescovit, 1997 — South America
 * Amaurobioides O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1883 — Africa, Chile, Australia, New Zealand
 * Anyphaena Sundevall, 1833 — Asia, Americas, Europe, Algeria
 * Anyphaenoides Berland, 1913 — South America, Central America, Trinidad
 * Arachosia O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1882 — South America, North America, Cuba, Panama
 * Araiya Ramírez, 2003 — Chile, Argentina
 * Australaena Berland, 1942 — French Polynesia
 * Axyracrus Simon, 1884 — Chile, Argentina
 * Aysenia Tullgren, 1902 — Chile, Argentina
 * Aysenoides Ramírez, 2003 — Chile, Argentina
 * Aysha Keyserling, 1891 — South America, Panama
 * Bromelina Brescovit, 1993 — Colombia, Brazil, Venezuela
 * Buckupiella Brescovit, 1997 — Brazil, Argentina
 * Coptoprepes Simon, 1884 — Chile, Argentina
 * Ferrieria Tullgren, 1901 — Chile, Argentina
 * Gamakia Ramírez, 2003 — Chile
 * Gayenna Nicolet, 1849 — South America, Mexico
 * Gayennoides Ramírez, 2003 — Chile
 * Hatitia Brescovit, 1997 — Ecuador, Peru, Colombia
 * Hibana Brescovit, 1991 — North and South America, Caribbean
 * Iguarima Brescovit, 1997 — Brazil, Ecuador
 * Ilocomba Brescovit, 1997 — Colombia
 * Isigonia Simon, 1897 — South America, Panama
 * Italaman Brescovit, 1997 — Colombia, Brazil, Argentina
 * Jessica Brescovit, 1997 — South America
 * Josa Keyserling, 1891 — South America, Costa Rica, Mexico
 * Katissa Brescovit, 1997 — Central America, South America
 * Lepajan Brescovit, 1993 — Ecuador, Panama
 * Lupettiana Brescovit, 1997 — Costa Rica, Caribbean, South America, United States
 * Macrophyes O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1893 — Mexico, Central America, South America
 * Mesilla Simon, 1903 — Colombia, Ecuador
 * Monapia Simon, 1897 — Chile, Uruguay, Argentina
 * Negayan Ramírez, 2003 — Chile, Argentina, Peru
 * Osoriella Mello-Leitão, 1922 — South America
 * Otoniela Brescovit, 1997 — South America
 * Oxysoma Nicolet, 1849 — Chile, Argentina, Brazil
 * Patrera Simon, 1903 — South America, Central America
 * Phidyle Simon, 1880 — Chile
 * Philisca Simon, 1884 — Chile, Argentina
 * Pippuhana Brescovit, 1997 — United States, Panama, Brazil
 * Rathalos Lin & Li, 2022 — China
 * Sanogasta Mello-Leitão, 1941 — South America
 * Selknamia Ramírez, 2003 — Chile, Argentina
 * Shuyushka Dupérré & Tapia, 2016 — Ecuador
 * Sillus F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1900 — Mexico, Central America, Brazil
 * Sinophaena Lin & Li, 2021 — China
 * Tafana Simon, 1903 — Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia
 * Tasata Simon, 1903 — South America
 * Temnida Simon, 1896 — South America
 * Teudis O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1896 — South America, Central America
 * Thaloe Brescovit, 1993 — Cuba
 * Timbuka Brescovit, 1997 — South America, Central America, Mexico
 * Tomopisthes Simon, 1884 — Chile, Argentina
 * Umuara Brescovit, 1997 — Venezuela, Brazil, Peru
 * Wulfila O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1895 — North America, South America, Central America, Caribbean
 * Wulfilopsis Soares & Camargo, 1955 — Brazil
 * Xiruana Brescovit, 1997 — South America

title: Anyphaenidae