Talk:Rockefeller Republican

Drift toward "a moderate or liberal Republican"

These recent edits, restore a political figure and a few organizations as belonging to this category. The edit summary of one of these edits cites Oxford Oxford English Dictionary which includes "a moderate or liberal Republican" as a definition.

I think this article's subject is a particular historical group or trend still alluded to in the lede:

members of the Republican Party (GOP) in the 1930s–1970s who held moderate to liberal views on domestic issues, similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller

... which I suppose might eventually be wiped to complete the transition, presumably after Thomas E. Dewey and Abraham Lincoln are added.

This drift toward making the article catch-all for Republicans denounced as "liberal" by certain political activists still seems like a BLP issue to me. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Capital L

Also, Liberal Republican (as capitalized in the current article intro) should not be capitalized. The US currently has no organized "Liberal Republican" party or movement separate from the existing GOP. The term Republican liberal would be preferable because it does not have this implication, and also helps distinguish from the Liberal Republican Party (United States), which was an actual US political party. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Individuals considered moderate or liberal Republican"--by whom?

This very subject heading seems to violate Wikipedia's standards. If an entry read, "Individual X is considered moderate," it would likely be tagged quickly for "weasel words" and removed if no one clarified who considered that individual moderate and produced a citation.

As it stands, this is a vague list of three Senators who voted against a signature Trump agenda item once, and two (Capito and Young) who have shown little "moderation," though I suspect that they're listed because they belong the Republican Main Street Partnership.

I suggest that for anyone listed here, there be some explanation provided in the entry for inclusion. If this can't be done, I suggest that the individual (and if necessary, this section) be removed. Mgllama (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Kennedy/Stevens

Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens can not be on the same list as having the same ideology because they never did. Stevens joined the Court as the most conservative member and pretty much did not change any of his views; his views simply became the most "liberal" as the Court lurched sharply conservative. Stevens was on the left of the Court by 2000; Kennedy was firmly in the middle of the Court and substantially to the right of Stevens. If Stevens and Kennedy are BOTH considered "Rockefeller Republicans," then you have to add Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the list as well, as they are ideologically between Kennedy and Stevens. The solution is to remove Kennedy, because he is not a Rockefeller Republican; he's a Reagan Republican. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Rockerfeller Republicans aren't Liberal Conservatives

Liberal Conservatism - "Liberal conservatism incorporates the classical liberal view of minimal government intervention in the economy, according to which individuals should be free to participate in the market and generate wealth without government interference"

Rockerfeller Republicans are more economically interventionist - "They espoused government and private investments in environmentalism, healthcare, and higher education as necessities for a better society and economic growth in the tradition of Rockefeller. They were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements such as highway projects." ..... "they favored balanced budgets and were not averse to raising taxes in order to achieve them. Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush once called for Congress to "raise the required revenues by approving whatever levels of taxation may be necessary". A critical element was their support for labor unions and especially the building trades appreciated the heavy spending on infrastructure. In turn, the unions gave these politicians enough support to overcome the anti-union rural element in the Republican Party. As the unions weakened after the 1970s, so too did the need for Republicans to cooperate with them. This transformation played into the hands of the more conservative Republicans, who did not want to collaborate with labor unions in the first place and now no longer needed to do so to carry statewide elections."

They were more liberal in the American Sense. Liberal in Liberal Conservatism is a different concept from the American one.115.70.195.167 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. WP:RS that support your opinion would be infinitely more useful. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of Supreme Court justices

I noticed that Supreme Court justices were included. I do not question the editor's intent at all, but I am curious if this is the place to list Supreme Court justices given that their rulings are not directly tied to a particular party or ideology? Yes, we know that they have ideologies and that their rulings tend to reflect a certain perspective of judicial philosophy, but I am not sure that those judicial philosophies could be accurately described as "Rockefeller Republican." For example, Anthony Kennedy is regarded by most experts and professional court-watchers as a "moderate" or "moderate conservative" justice, but I do not know if that is in the same political faction context in which this page finds itself. I'm not going to change it, but I wanted to raise the question.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@SeminarianJohn: the bottom line is how the majority of reliable sources describe them. I know of none that describe Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, or Stevens this way. More to the point, not one of sources provided in the article ever mentioned them as Rockefeller Republicans, so they have been removed. That left the section empty, so I removed it. Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and concur with your decision to remove it. It may have taken a couple years but I think that removing that section is an improvement. I have never heard of Justices Kennedy and O'Connor referred to as "Rockefeller Republicans" or even necessarily as 'moderate Republicans.' They were considered fairly conservative Republicans who handed down moderate rulings from the bench.SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Mitt Romney and Rob Portman are not Rockefeller Republicans

They may speak out and take action against Trump but they are conservative in every other fashion stop adding them on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiSantis19 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Mitt Romney yes was critical of Pres. Trump but that is not why he is a Rockefeller Republican. He was governor of the 2nd most Liberal State and in the 2012 Obama-Romney debate they found agreement between the 2.--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

John McCain, Adam Kinzinger (and others listed here) are not Rockefeller Republicans

McCain may have been at times a thorn in the side of the two most recent Republican presidents - George W. Bush and Donald Trump - but he was never a Rockefeller Republican. Prior to the Bush II administration, McCain was a vanilla down-the-line conservative, except possibly on the issue of Campaign Finance Reform (see Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, AKA "McCain-Feingold"). He supported the impeachment and removal of President Bill Clinton (see https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/). He was consistent pro-life (see https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18632802). His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union ("ACU"_ was 81 (see https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-john-mccain-a-maverick/). That's much higher than your typical Rockefeller Republican - Chris Shays for example had an ACU rating in the 40s (see http://acuratings.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/05/2007guide.pdf), and John Chafee's lifetime rating was in the 20s (see https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/53342/john-chafee?categoryId=&type=F,R,E,E,E&p=2).

Same goes for Adam Kinzinger. He was first elected in 2010 with backing from Sarah Palin (see https://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/palin-backs-three-house-challengers-035161) and Americans for Prosperity (a "Tea Party" group backed by the Kochs) (see https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2011-feb-06-la-na-koch-brothers-20110206-story.html). Perceptions that he's a "moderate" or even a Rockefeller Republican seems to stem from his opposition to Trump, not because of any kinship with the Rockefeller Republicans in terms of either ideology or style. Tettyan (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

John E. Sununu is likewise not a Rockefeller Republican. While he broke with his party on a few key issues, he also retained the support of the conservative Club for Growth throughout his career in the House and in the Senate. Tettyan (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand McCain and Kinzinger (definently kinzinger) but John sununu goes a little to far for me. He was a rockefeller republican

I would suggest that a reliable source should be provided for each "Rockefeller Republican" on the list. In a sense, Wikipedia is a reflection of what exists in published sources. If a reliable published source can be cited, describing someone as a "Rockefeller Republican", then they belong on the list. If not, then not. To merely add someone because you (or I) think they are a Rockefeller Republican is basically a kind of "original research," which is contrary to Wikipedia rules. - Kzirkel (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tettyan and Kzirkel:, exactly. Not only "a kind" of original research, but very definitely OR. And it goes a lot further than that, because of BLP, and ArbCom sanctions. See the section below. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest for John McCain adding him but just like for Rudy Giuliani add a considered Rockefeller Republican until such and such year because McCain believed in some liberal ideas like Free trade and he lambasted some conservatives like talk radio hosts and instead of supporting a ban on abortion he voted against it, and at the end of his life (2013 - death) h actually supported gay marriage and supported transgender rights. He also supported some liberal economic policies. McCain also supported DACA and in his book The Restless Wave, he said that we shouldn't build a wall on the southern border. He also supported the Americans With disabilities act which barely any Republican voted for. As a compromise I think we should add him to the list of former Rockefeller Republican Senators but add considered one until whenever he was considered a regular conservative to please the ones who think he wasn't a Rockefeller Republican. But in my opinion based on his later life and life before 2006 he was a moderate Rockefeller Republican. --General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source (journalist, biographer, etc) which called McCain a "Rockefeller Republican"? If it pertained to a certain period of his career, maybe add that. - Kzirkel (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@General Dwight David Eisenhower:, it is not up to editors here to conjecture about who is, or isn't, a Rockefeller Republican; we use the majority opinion of reliable sources to determine that, keeping our own opinions out of it. Govtrack is entirely irrelevant for the purpose. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The Adam Kinzinger yes is a sort of opinion but John McCain isn't an opinion he did everything I have said he did, and I thought of a solution to please the ones who think he was and the ones who weren't again, just like Rudy, we could put a (considered one until such year) because during most of his time in congress and only was a little more center-right in the last few congressional years. If you read my no. 1 source, which I acknowledge I cannot present it to anyone because I d not know how to (new here so I'm still learning the rules), which is a primary source. He did it because that is what he said on the campaign trail, he tried to get the vote to stay there and serve the people of Arizona (though I cannot remember exactly what he stated). He did support free trade and even liberal social issues at the end of his life. I am not gong to reveal my primary source mostly because I really don't know how to. Though I cannot cite a specific source that said he was a Rockefeller Republican, then again most sources don't say "Rockefeller republican", they say moderate republican, there are plenty of sources that say he was. Also he fought the Bush tax cuts, stated that the Trump tax reform bill was "far from perfect", and was (again) a moderate during most congresses mostly until 2007 where he had to cozy up to the establishment of the GOP to win the nomination, even though he knew he wasn't going to be that.--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You said,

Though I cannot cite a specific source that said he was a Rockefeller Republican...

Then that's the end of it. Everything you added after that, doesn't matter. What you think, what I think, what any editor thinks, is entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. It's about what the reliable sources say, not us. Period. Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding section for celebrities who were (Center Left to Center Right) Republicans

We should add them, but only the politically active ones like Frank Sinatra who I would consider a Kennedy Republican because he had this awkward relationship with him (you know what I mean with the song High Hopes) but he switched to the Republican side after 1972.--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

General Dwight David Eisenhower, I see that you are new here, welcome! (I left you a welcome message on your user page; check it out.) It's nice that you've jumped right in to editing here, and being BOLD is definitely encouraged here. On the other hand, there are a lot of policies, guidelines, and other editing recommendations that help guide volunteer editors here in how to best write a reliable online encyclopedia, and it takes a little while to assimilate them. One of them is called "No original research", which basically means, everything we write here has to be supported by published material in WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources. The best way to demonstrate that, is by the inclusion of well-written citations to the sources you used. It also means, that we can't include anything based on our own say-so, even if you are a domain expert, wrote the definitive book on a topic, or teach graduate classes in it at a top university. Everything has to be sourced. The flip side, is just adding stuff you believe, or that you and a bunch of other editors believe; that's completely forbidden.

Because of this, adding someone like Frank Sinatra to the article, because you "would consider [him] a Kennedy Republican" is also completely forbidden. Otoh, it may be easy to get him included: all you have to do, is find a reliable source (a published book, newspaper, or magazine; some websites; no blogs, social media, or YouTube with rare exceptions) that documents Sinatra as a "Rockefeller Republican", write up a citation for it (see {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, and {{cite web}}), and create it as a footnote for the material you want to add. But until you have done that, please do not try to add Sinatra (or anybody else) to this article. What we, as editors, consider or believe to be a Rockefeller Republican is out of bounds for the article, and is something to be avoided even in discussions, because it's just a waste of time and doesn't lead anywhere. If they are not in the source, they cannot be added. It's just as simple as that. Mathglot (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no I was just pitching an idea, nothing else. I'm perfectly fine that it can't be, it was just asking if we could add that.--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Original research in officeholders section

There is a massive amount of original research in the #Current officeholders section that needs to be addressed. I started going through the names in the section, checking the U.S. Senators first. There are five sources for the three Senators in the list. I checked each source for mention of 'Rockefeller Republicans', and tagged any that didn't support it. As it turned out, none of the sources support the inclusion of those three Senators. I spot-checked a few of the Governors, U.S. reps, and Mayors, and didn't find 'Rockefeller' mentioned in any of the handful I checked. Rather than check and tag each of them individually, I added an {{Original research}} banner to the section, linking to this discussion.

I suspect that none of the fifteen current officeholders listed in this section belong here, as none of them are Rockefeller Republicans. The WP:ONUS of inclusion here is on the editors who added them. Per our WP:Verifiability policy:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

These officeholders are all living people, and thus any assertion about them is also subject to WP:BLP policy, stressing WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I am issuing this formal challenge: each name in the section must have a proper inline citation attached to it that supports their inclusion, or it will be removed. Bear in mind that this topic is subject to ArbCom Discretionary sanctions, and any source added must be of impeccable reliability, and must explicitly support inclusion of the officeholder. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So, I found 1 source for susan collins of maine that (I'm pretty sure) states that she is a Rockefeller Republican, I didn't have tie to read the entire thing so could somebody do it and check my work?https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/526294-the-magnificent-moderation-of-susan-collins — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The subtitle of the article explicitly calls it out as an opinion essay, and not necessarily the view of The Hill. Very unlikely that passes the bar for WP:RS, especially given the ArbCom sanctions in effect requiring explicit assertions in sources. If you think this meets the bar for a reliable source, you can raise it as an issue at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added a section below in which I do cite RS, as well as lesser-known publications that support the RS, that refer to Susan Collins as being among the Rockefeller Republican tradition. They each specifically refer to Rockefeller Republicans and then directly refer to Susan Collins among others, several of whom are themselves already included in the former office-holder section using the same or very similar RS. SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've gone through this section, subsection by subsection, removing unsourced or insufficiently sourced items. As there was nothing left, I've removed the section header as well. If anyone would like to work on sourcing this section so it may be readded, ping me and I'll restore it here to the Talk page, so you can work on it here. Lmk, Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, becaue I was sort of rushing through from getting notified from emails. Thanks for reviewing the source--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we keep the Current office holders blank for now because I am looking but I can't find a source that indicates them being a rockefeller republican that isn't an opinion piece.--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear what is considered original research so I know if my sources are original research.General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

General Dwight David Eisenhower, by keeping it blank if you mean leaving the section header there with nothing under, you could do that, just add a template {{Empty section}} under it (and maybe use the |reason= parameter to explain why). As far as your questions about original research, since that's a more general question not specifically related to Rockefeller Republicans, please see your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

ya that is exactly what I meant by keeping it blank--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Making Compromises for some of the Disputed office holders on the list

How about instead of trying to deleting and adding (I a partially responsible for that action), we make compromises for the disputed Rockefeller Republicans and settle those issues, because there are people (including me) who want different people on the list. One reason is because we get different sources, my sources tell me that some of these people are moderate Republicans. We need to compromise on those and try to make a compromise, so then we can all agree which ones are Rockefeller Republicans ad which ones aren't, because right now, we don't. You can argue Justice Kennedy wasn't or McCain wasn't (or vice versa) but we can't just keep arguing and deleting (partial blame is on me), so I think we should compromise on people like J. McCain, or M. Romney, or A. Kinzinger, or E. Stefanik, or A. Kennedy, the list goes on and on so here we should compromise instead of delete and argue.--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

How about as a compromise so people with different views on who is who and what is what all the ones not everyone agrees with we put disputed like for John McCain, some people believe he was a rockefeller republican, some don't so to please both we add them to the list but after there office we put (disputed). I mean John McCain was a moderate on most issues up until 2007 and again from 2013 to his death, so to please the ones who think he was a rockefeller repubican we should add them to the list, but just so we don't side with side add disputed. We get info from different sources so we need a way to compromise.--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what wikipedia editors think. What matters is what reputable sources have written. If reputable sources (preferably multiple reputable sources) have explicitly written that "Jane Doe is a Rockefeller Republican", then that information should be added, cited, and quoted. Wikipedia is nothing more or less than a collection of sources. See WP:REPUTABLE - Kzirkel (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@General Dwight David Eisenhower: if your compromise involves substituting Wikipedia user opinion for what reliable sources say, or if you mean a compromise between Wikipedia user opinion and reliable source opinion, then I can tell you right now, it's not gonna happen. You need to get clear on this crucial point of editing here. If an experienced editor continued to add unsourced material to articles and had a pattern of doing so, they would run the risk of being WP:BLOCKED by an Administrator. You don't want to go there. Mathglot (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No I mean with sources Mathglot because my sources which again I cannot name because I do not know if you could say he was. not by opinion. I do mean with reliable sources. I should have stated this more clearly but when I said compromise, I meant until everyone who edits the article can agree on which source to use and agreed on if these people were or weren't. Though I do have to say after using newer sources I can tell you Sununu (john E), McCain, and Kinzinger weren't Rockefeller Republicans, they were moderate yes but not Rockefeller Republican based on Rockefeller, ON THE ISSUES not the website. Though I think we should see which sources are reliable because somebody on wikipedia could then just say Donald Trump or Marjorie Taylor Greene are rockefeller republicans, so which sources are reliable sources?--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@General Dwight David Eisenhower:, as for which sources are considered reliable, you can try various approaches:

• If you think it's reliable but are not sure, you can just WP:BE BOLD and add it; if another editor thinks it isn't reliable, they'll just remove it. At that point, it moves to the discussion stage. (See WP:BRD.)
• You can discuss here on the Talk page, and ask whether a source is reliable or not, and see what other editors think.
• You can raise a new section at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, and ask about your source there. Two caveats, though: don't raise a new question there without first checking the RSN archives, to see if this has been discussed and resolved already some time in the past. Secondly, discuss here first; you don't want to head to RSN for every source you find, or you'll wear out your welcome at RSN.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Original research in former officeholders section

I've tagged section Former officeholders as containing original research. I notice that GDDE has added some sources; two out of three are these are valid; good job. The other one (Jeffords) fails verification. Haven't checked the rest yet, but they need citations as well. Good job so far, keep on going. Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Too Many Personal Opinions Here

The "Current Officeholders" section has recently been removed. In the last few months, mainly due to Trump's second impeachment, there have been a lot of people adding and removing people for various reasons. While voting to convict Trump shouldn't automatically warrant an inclusion on this list, there are sources that describe Bill Cassidy and Mitt Romney as moderate/Rockefeller Republicans. In fact, Newt Gingrich explicitly called Romney a Rockefeller Republican in the 2012 Republican primaries. I think that this page should be the Republican equivalent of New Democrats, as both pages describe moderates in both parties. If someone has a reliable source describing them as a moderate/Rockefeller Republican, they should not be removed from this list. There are also sources describing Lindsey Graham and Rob Portman as moderates. Any Republican that was part of the Gang of 14 can also go on this list due to sources describing them as moderates. I would like to note that Joe Biden is included on the New Democrats page because he has a reliable source, despite the fact that a some people would not consider him a moderate nowadays due to his disagreements with fellow Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I am responsible for removing most or all of the "Current officeholders" section, because it was a bloated section full of original research. In the end, every single name in the section failed to satisfy one Wikipedia policy or another, mostly WP:Verifiability. Per article title policy, the "title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles". This article is called, "Rockefeller Republican", and it doesn't matter who calls someone a "moderate" Republican—even if it is a highly reliable source—because this is not the "Moderate Republican" article. (You are certainly free to create the List of moderate Republicans article, and add all of those names there.) But not here. If you have sources that decribe Bill Cassidy and Mitt Romney as "Rockefeller Republicans", then by all means, add them back in, along with citations to the sources. Anyone added back to the list who is not described by a reliable source as a "Rockefeller Republican" is subject to being removed again, because "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports^[2] the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Feel free to add names to the section that meet the WP:Verifiability policy; it would be nice to have the section back again, in some form.

While we're on the topic, the current section #Former officeholders suffers from the same problem, although less so, as some of the items are reliably sourced, and in no danger of being removed. But roughly half of it is unsourced, and subject to removal. Adding citations for those ones, would prevent them from being deleted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted those that were unsourced. Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

Shouldn't Charlie Crist be included among Rockefeller Republicans? At least while he was a Republican? Or should he be excluded because he did move to Independents and, then, to Democratic party?Goliath74 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It's very simple, really: he should be included if the majority of WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, WP:Reliable sources describe him as a "Rockefeller Republican", and excluded otherwise. Result: excluded. Mathglot (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn’t George H.W Bush be considered a Moderate Republican?

Bush Sr was pretty middle-of-the-road as president, especially compared to his son. Steelydanfan03 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent unsourced addition

Thanks for the recent good faith addition of 51 names in rev. 1055083642 of 19:36, 13 November 2021, each one with its own, separate citation added. Unfortunately, except in one case, none of the sources supported the officeholder as a Rockefeller Republican, and thus per WP:Verifiability has been removed. (The exception was the addition of Arlen Specter, which was properly sourced to WaPo/Rucker-2012, and has been retained.) Details of the removal:

List of names removed for lack of sourcing

The following names were added in rev. 1055083642, but were not supported by the source given: Collins: not supported by your Politico source; Murkowski: not supported by your NYT source; Portman: not supported by The Hill; Capito: not supported by wvmetronews; Governors: Scott: not supported by sevenday; Baker: masslive; Hogan: baltimoresun.com Sununu: wmur Cox: nyt; Reps: Katko: The Hill Gabarino: cnn; Reed: The Hill; Fitzpatrick: The Hill; Meijer: npr; Upton: republicanmainstree; Kinzinger: twitter (which is not allowed anyway); Beutler: columbian.com Kim: legislature.ca.gov Amodei: problemsolver; Mace: washingtonexaminer; Giménez: cnn; Salazar: republicanmainstreet Eisenhower: newrepublic; Nixon: archive.org Ford: usatoday Powell: usatoday Warner: usatoday Kirk: politico Brown: politifact; Heller: NYT; McCain: cbsnews KEPT: Specter: WaPo; Lugar: armscontrol Chafee: govtrack Gregg: Guardian Corker: NewYorker Kassebaum: kmbc; Hatfield: NYT Packwood: oregonencyclopedia Gorton: AP Campbell: NYT; Hutchison: star-telegram Abraham: steinreport Simpson: govtrack Durenberger: insideminnesotapolitics (also, it's a blog) Stevens: republicanmainstreet Danforth: TIME Scott: govtrack Mathias: Wikipedia (never use Wikipedia as a source for anything) Goldwater: WaPo (lol; Goldwater?!!)

Any name not supported by a reliable reference which identifies them as a Rockefeller Republican is subject to removal by Wikipedia policies, primarily WP:V and WP:SYNTH. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Blanked a dozen or so names cited to sources that do not back the assertions that they are Rockefeller Republicans. I left a warning in the edit summary of the last one because this keeps happening; it could be that if it doesn't stop we'll need to request semi-protection or some other measure; there is already an edit notice on the article when you preview, and there is a big notice about administrator sanctions above, so I'm not sure what else can be done. Please do not add names to the list without a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the assertion. If the source you want to cite for a particular politician doesn't say "Rockefeller Republican", then go find another source that does. Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Misstatements and unsupported material dropped from the lead sentence

I dropped misstatements and unsupported claims from the WP:LEADSENTENCE, both with respect to style (using "Liberal Republicans" capitalized, as if it were a political party, which it isn't (not in the United States, at least), rather than just liberal Republicans, a simple description that might be used about some politicians in news reporting. The source Stebenne (2006) was used to assert the claim that Rockefeller Republicans were "called" Liberal Republicans as if that was some kind of nickname or alternative party name—which it isn't—unlike the way G.O.P. actually is another name for the Republican party, . Checking that source, there is no support for the assertion previously in the lead sentence on the page given (p. 38) or on any other page in the book which mentions liberal Republicans (pages 37, 38, 79, 153, and 188).

It's true enough that Rockefeller Republicans held moderate-to-liberal views on some issues, and this is already well-sourced, and it's fine to make that statement. But the terms are not synonymous, and the converse is *not* true; i.e., it's not a fact that all moderate-to-liberal Republicans are Rockefeller Republicans. The term is a designation belonging to the past, and there are no Rockefeller Republicans now. Occasionally, the term is dredged up in connection with some modern politician, and there is one such still in the article (Chris Sununu) because a National Review opinion piece implied that he and others like him represented a "return to Rockefeller Republicanism" (or rather, posed a rhetorical question about whether they did or didn't), but that's a tenuous connection, and should probably be dropped per WP:UNDUE; a scan of the top 25 articles about Chris Sununu would very likely not find a majority of them (or any of them, I'd wager) referring to Sununu as a "Rockefeller Republican", so probably he should be removed as well. Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

There is a major discrepancy. Rockefeller Republicans are moderate to liberal in one section and center to center-right in another section. It should either be moderate to conservative and center to center-right or moderate to liberal and center to center-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCheckExpert (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no discrepancy. First, they are described as a "moderate or liberal Republican" which is not the same as a "moderate or liberal US politician", as Republicans are (and were) generally to the right of Democrats, so what is liberal or moderate for a Republican, would not necessarily be seen as liberal or moderate for a politician, generally speaking. But perhaps more to the point, they are described more subtly as having complex views which align sometimes more with other conservative Republicans, and sometimes more with Democrats (of that era). Describing them in the Infobox, which is by its nature a broad-brush description without room for long explanations or subtlety as "center" or "center-right", is accurate in the context of US politics as a whole, and even more important, aligns with what the reliable sources describe them as. Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources needed

I deleted the Whiggish claims inserted by Luke Phillips in a blog. "Google Scholar" shows that he has not a professional or expert. WP:NEWSBLOG states: "Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." the writer is a graduate student who has not published on the issue and does not footnote the statement. indeed he wrote merely one sentence on the issue (he wrote: " As a result, starting in the 1960s, the last of the Whiggish Republicans—then known as the Rockefeller Republicans, and including in their number George Romney and Jacob Javits—fought a losing battle against the newly ascendant “conservative” populist wing of the Party, while conservative Democrats in the Whig tradition, like Scoop Jackson, were edged out of their own party by a succession of FDR New Deal Democrats, McGovernite liberals, and then multicultural leftists.")-- no sources are provided. As for the author the blog states: "Luke Philips is a research associate at the Center for Opportunity Urbanism and a student at the University of Southern California. " Google Scholar shows that apart from his one blog he has not published anything about Whigs or Republicans. So we have an inexperienced student with no evident expertise and no reliable credentials. Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC).

"'Moderate Republican' redirects here"

Seeing some debates about who is a "Rockefeller Republican," it is important to note that Wikipedia, at this time, has any search for "moderate Republican" or wiki link to "moderate Republican" redirect to Rockefeller Republican. Currently, most English dictionaries also use Rockefeller Republican synonymously with moderate and liberal Republicans. Perhaps, a new Wikipedia article is needed if there is substantial support for distinguishing between "Rockefeller Republican" and "moderate Republican." SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing Wikipedia says has any weight here, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that assertions in articles *must* be verifiable. Because of rampant inaccuracy (and possible intentional vandalism) at this article in the past, inclusion of any politician in this article *must* be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source that actually makes a claim that they are a "Rockefeller Republican", which is, after all, the title of this article, and therefore "indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles".

You said,

Currently, most English dictionaries also use Rockefeller Republican synonymously with moderate and liberal Republicans

That is incorrect. They *describe* Rockefeller Republicans as moderate Republicans, which is accurate, but that does not make them synonymous. The Trabant is described as a small car, which is accurate, but it is not *synonymous* with small car, as not all small cars are Trabants. The Mini Cooper would have something to say about that. Exact same thing here. Collins and Murkowski may be added to the article as "Rockefeller Republicans", as soon as it can be shown that the majority of reliable sources describe them that way. Since they clearly do not, your addition of them to the article is pure original research, and is prohibited. Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the article should be changed so that "moderate Republican" no longer redirects here then. Currently, the article itself claims to be an article for moderate Republicans in general. I suspect that there are political motivations for denying the majority of reliable sources that define both Collins and Murkowski as Rockefeller Republicans (from past editors, because I remember the issue with vandalism). Also, three of the articles I cited for Collins referred to her directly as a Rockefeller Republican. The CNN article in particular is RS I think should remain and refers to her and Olympia Snowe as being in the Rockefeller Republican tradition. So, I don't think that is fair to call that original research. I think that there needs to be thoughtful consideration about whether to create a separate page for "moderate Republicans" rather than officially redirecting that search and tag to this page if this page is not in fact inclusive of "moderate Republican." Based on your comments, that this page should be exclusively about those widely referred to as specifically "Rockefeller Republican," I am hearing you may agree with me on that.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As an example, if one clicks on the "moderate Repubican" wikilinks on the respective pages for Senators Collins and Murkowski, it takes the reader here. If one reads the article, it says "'Moderate Republican' redirects here." And if one searches for "moderate Republican," this is the page it directly leads to. Given that we both agree that if they are to be distinguished, they cannot be the same article, perhaps you would be interested in that?SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, it may be necessary to reconsider the section "modern usage" because the section presupposes that Rockefeller Republican is congruent with "moderate Republican." I am reading through it and most of the citations do not mention "Rockefeller Republican" in relation to those politicians either.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@SeminarianJohn: Agreed; they don't either, and that section is highly confused and probably needs a complete rewrite. Since you've already seen which politicians are not verified by the sources you examined, can you please just go back and rip out all the unverified stuff you saw? You can just put "content not verified by the sources" or similar in the edit summary.

I think you hit on one of the sources of the problems that have plagued this article for a long time, with the confusion between the two terms, where you said:

I think the article should be changed so that "moderate Republican" no longer redirects here then.

Couldn't agree with you more; it should have been done ages ago, and that probably would have avoided a lot of the useless additions that belong in another article on moderate Republicans (which still should be created) as well as some or all of the confusion in that section which should be cut back or cut out. But, no time like the present: I've retargeted Moderate Republican so that it now points to a more accurate target: Factions in the Republican Party (United States)#Moderate faction. Hopefully, this will help reduce the confusion, and in the future editors will head over to the article Factions in the Republican Party (United States) instead, and add their content to the "#Moderate" section there, which would be fine. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Susan Collins

While I think a conversation should be had to formally distinguish "moderate Republican" from "Rockefeller Republican," as it seems other editors agree, so that the former does not redirect to the latter, I do think that U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) should be added to current office-holders. According to reports from the Associated Press, she is listed with Northeastern officials "dubbed the Rockefeller Republicans after the former New York Governor..." A Politico article refers to Sen. Collins, along with some former colleagues, as "in more recent times this [Rockefeller Republican] tradition...has been on the wane. The Senate has only three moderate Northeastern Republicans - Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine..." A CNN article refers to her this way in describing what happened Rockefeller Republicans, "First and foremost, who killed the Rockefeller Republicans?...Liberal to moderate Northeastern Republicans once were as much a part of the political landscape as today's liberals from Massachusetts. Now, they live mostly in history books. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine may be the last ones standing in today's Senate." After the Associated Press, Politico, and CNN, a fourth source, The Hill, published an opinion piece; while not on the same level as the other three, given that it states it is an opinion piece, the reference to Rockefeller Republicans supports that the information from the other three RS is used and broadly accepted. Another opinion piece published in the Baltimore Sun also supports that the information in the previous three RS is widely accepted. While not as reliable, lesser-known publications have also published articles referring to Susan Collins as among "Rockefeller Republicans" consistent with the aforementioned three RS. The MSU Reporter, the New Republic, and the Sarasota-Herald Tribune refer to Sen. Collins as a "Rockefeller Republican." Huffpost has an article interviewing former Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee wherein he groups Susan Collins with Rockefeller Republicans. Other politicians, including the four Governors listed in current office-holders, have only one reliable source referring to them in the category of Rockefeller Republican. There are multiple referring this way to Sen. Collins.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

John, good bit of research; you may well be correct about this. I don't have time to look at this right now, but I'm wondering if WP:DUE may be an issue here or not. If you have the time and the inclination, can you check what proportion of sources about Susan Collins' political ideology mention "Rockefeller Republican" without using that word in the query? This is to try to get a handle on whether those sources only turn up when you search directly for the term, or also when you just search for her name. Will be back when I can; thanks for raising this. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

John, I see that Susan Collins is mentioned at Factions in the Republican Party (United States) § Moderate faction (even has her picture, along with Senators Lisa Murkowski and Charlie Baker), and I think that's the right description of her. Or put another way, I think that's mostly the kind of description you get if you do an unbiased search for her, but there's also a time element involved, I believe. Collins has been involved in Republican politics since the mid-1970s, and in elective office since the mid-1990s, and remains a senator in 2022. She describes herself as a "moderate Republican" (as mentioned in Political positions of Susan Collins). The whole definition of what a "moderate Republican" even means, has changed dramatically over that period, and when examining sources, I think you have to keep that in mind.

Here's an example: which party supported, implemented, or campaigned for all of these: a major arms limitation treaty, wage and price controls during a period of inflation, a major Civil Rights Act in Congress, an affirmative action program in a major U.S. city, the ERA amendment, the Clean Air Act, creation of a new govt. agency to protect workers (OSHA), additional funding for sickle-cell anemia research (affecting mostly people of color), dramatic spending increase for federal employees, guaranteed annual wage, indexation of Social Security for inflation to aid retirees? Give up? Answer: that would be the Republicans, under Richard Nixon. Now, at the time nobody would have described Richard Nixon as a moderate Republican, but by today's politics, that list of positions and accomplishments would be an extreme progressive position even for a Democrat, and probably no Democrat could even win a primary based on that platform. So, what to do about someone like Collins, who, when she started out, had views similar to plenty of Republicans, and although she's actually moved a bit to the right, her party has moved so far to the right that they kind of left her standing almost alone with her mostly original views?

In the end, whether her fellow Republicans view her as a moderate, a liberal, or anything else is irrelevant; even what she says about herself is not a major factor. What matters is what the sources say, so I think we have to research that carefully, paying attention to WP:DUEWEIGHT, and also whether there's a trend over time, with more recent sources having more weight. The fact that you can find a handful of sources that mention "Rockefeller Republican" in the same sentence isn't sufficient; is that a majority view? A minority view? Or just the view of that handful of sources? If the latter, then she cannot be included here. If it's among the majority, then she can. And if it's a substantial minority, we could represent the difference of views by saying something like, "...and some sources have said she's similar to a Rockefeller Republican, although the majority do not." Your thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

references

References

History section headers

The § History section is the longest one in the article, so I've added a number of subsections to break it up a bit and make it easier to follow. This may require some touch-ups after, moving text around to better fit the thematic breakdown, or possibly changing section titles if a better organization can be found.

Section § Modern usage is almost as large, and the addition of some subsection headers should be considered there as well. Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:SeminarianJohn, I'd welcome your looking this over, and making any changes to the section org at #History that you feel are warranted, and/or offering your thoughts here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply. Life got busy! Thank you very much for including me. I will be looking and I appreciate what you have done to improve this and other articles.SeminarianJohn (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Baker, Scott, and Sununu

Claims are made in the article that Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and Chris Sununu are Rockefeller Republicans, but this is not supported by the majority of reliable sources, or even the minority. All three are sourced to a 2018 National Review opinion piece by Karl J. Salzmann. Salzmann was an editorial intern at NR in 2018, and an asst. editor Washington Free Beacon (per LinkedIn). The Beacon has been discussed several times at WP:RSN where it has been described as "dodgy", and lacks "a reputation for journalistic credibility" (here), "made various false claims" and "generally not reliable" (here), and had mixed reviews, eg, "false claims", "generally reliable", "no fact-checking or verification" (here). The current consensus appears to be that the Beacon is acceptable for quotations attributed to sources, but factual claims should be verified. Even in this one, weak, opinion piece source, there is no specific assertion that Baker or the others are Rockefeller Republicans; what the article says, is this:

At the state level, however, a kind of Rockefeller Republicanism seems to be rising once again in recent years.

and then says that Baker, Scott, and Sununu "are a reminder of" moderate conservatism of the Northeast.

The article never states it outright, the piece is an opinion piece not a news article, it doesn't quote anybody (and therefore are the author's words), and the author has light credentials ("intern") and has worked at somewhat dodgy publications. This source is far too weak on its own to substantiate an assertion in Wikipedia's voice that these three politicans are, in fact, Rockefeller Republicans. We need more than this. Can more reliable sources be found?

• A search in books, fails to find support for Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, or Chris Sununu as Rockefeller Republicans.
• Searches in Google Scholar likewise are negative; it's difficult to impossible to find even a single, highly reliable secondary source that includes any one of them in the same breath as "Rockefeller": (searches: Baker, Scott, Sununu).

Note that there is one result from the Scholar search on Baker that yields a 2015 article from The Atlantic, entitled "The bluest Republican: why staunchly Democratic Massachusetts loves its new GOP governor", which has the word Rockefeller in proximity to "Charlie Baker"; however, the article makes no claim but more of a conjecture as a set-up for the predicate of the sentence, which points out that Baker rejects it: "If Baker's win suggests a return to Rockefeller-style liberal Republicanism in the Northeast, he does not appear eager to claim the mantle." (Atlantic Monthly, vol. 315, issue 2, March 2015).

Currently, sourcing of these three politicans in this article is based entirely on a single, weak, opinion piece; this does not exceed the "tiny minority" provision of WP:DUE WEIGHT policy, which therefore requires excluding them from the article. I couldn't find other sources after trying hard, and the WP:BURDEN in any case is on those editors who wish to retain this content in the article.

Accordingly, I've tagged these three politicians as needing better sourcing, but if nothing is forthcoming within a reasonable interval, then they should be removed, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing found; removed. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Party faction or ideology?

WP:NOTFORUM.

Much of this page seems to be describing the Rockefeller Republicans as an ideological tradition, as opposed to a wing of the Republican Party. Yet, due to how far to the right the GOP has drifted over the past forty years, it now seems like a few figures who might once have been Rockefeller Republicans are now very moderate Democrats. Joe Lieberman, Kyrsten Sinema, and Evan Bayh come to mind. Yet, for them to be added to this list would seem very out of place. 151.41.161.200 (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Rename Article

Rockefeller Republican is an antiquated term and has been for quite a while. The article's name should be changed into something more current and inclusive. Which is why I propose renaming it Liberal Republican as a counterpart to the Conservative Democrat article. 158.120.36.80 (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Is Peloponnesian Wars an antiquated term? The question of whether an article should be named a particular way has to do with what it is called by reliable sources, and whether the topic is WP:Notable. It is clearly notable, and hundreds of reliable sources refer to the topic as Rockefeller Republican, so a rename is not going to happen. That said, there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a new article on a related topic, with a title such as you propose, as long as it is not a WP:POVFORK. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)