Talk:Political ideologies in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discrimination against conservatives[edit]

This stereotypes conservatives as positively discriminatory which is completely false. The left discriminated against whites and Jews and the creation of the Jim Crow laws but we don’t bring this up? This information is hugely biased. Additionally nearly all the trump rallies have 50k-100k in people and there are tons of polls that will show his favoritism well over 50% but these charts don’t show that at all. Why even produce the data if it’s not accurate? 47.187.166.68 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The left discriminated against whites and Jews and the creation of the Jim Crow laws but we don’t bring this up?" What are you referring to when you say this? X-Editor (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I've rewritten the article to make it more comprehensive and up to date. Previously, the majority of it was based on a single model published by Pew Research in 2005. I've moved all of the content about the Pew Research typology model to the article Pew Research Center political typology and rewrote this article using a better variety of sources to give a broader overview of the topic. Many of the new sections could still benefit from expansion, but I believe I've addressed the problems that this article previously had. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Political ideologies in the United States vary considerably" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Political ideologies in the United States vary considerably and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 12#Political ideologies in the United States vary considerably until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Political ideologies in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 07:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Xx78900[edit]

Hi there @Thebiguglyalien:, I've decided to sink my evening into reviewing this. Given the length of the article, I'm not certain I'll finish tonight, but I'll give it a go. The most cursory of glances looks very promising, but I will now go through it with a fine tooth comb. Sorry it took so long to be reviewed!Xx78900 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by section:[edit]

Lede[edit]
  • I haven't edited many contentious political pages on Wikipedia, so I'm going to be exceptionally cautious about stepping on people's toes here. I would rather the big three ideologies be listed in alphabetical order where possible, so as to avoid accusations of favourite picking, so I think it should read "conservative, liberal, or moderate" (though I do quite like that it currently reads left-middle-right).
  • Modern or contemporary?
  • I would avoid the phrase "is defined by" when discussing such large political bodies, particularly given the diversity of their voting bases.
  • "likely to hold different beliefs" -> ""likely to hold different political beliefs"
  • No need to capitalise "White".
  • Already the word "American" is used a lot here - I wonder to what degree this can be assumed in an article about American political ideology?
    • I've reduced the instances from 12 to 8 in this section. The others felt necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should White Americans and African Americans be linked?
  • Link "American liberalism" to either Liberalism in the United States or Modern liberalism in the United States. I would also link "American conservatism" to Conservatism in the United States. I would replace the original links of liberal, moderate, and conservative to pages about liberalism and conservatism more broadly, particularly given that moderate already links to a non US-specific article.
  • Link to Individualism and the appropriate option out of Collectivism.
  • Don't start a sentence with "However,".
  • Maybe a brief mention of what those commonalities are?
  • Should this article be part of a series on American politics?
    • I've added a section on political ideology to that template. I'm surprised there wasn't one already. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Early republicanism[edit]

First paragraph

  • Link to Constitution of the United States in the image caption. Also add artist name, and ideally year.
  • I would like this to have some mention of a year, if I had no knowledge of the American Revolution, I wouldn't know when this took place. I think 1776 is a crucial inclusion somewhere here.
    • I've added a sentence describing the time period that republicanism developed using the cited source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "the Loyalists" and "the Patriots", I would prefer "The monarchists, stylizing themselves as Loyalists"... "the republicans, stylized as the Patriots". Also given that the terms Loyalist and Patriot aren't used often, I wonder are thye even really necessary?
    • Loyalist and Patriot are the common terms for the factions, similar to Union and Confederate in the American Civil War or Allied and Axis in World War II. I've given the sentence a tentative rewording, but it might still need work. I don't know off the top of my head whether these are contemporary terms or if they were applied later. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I amn't familiar enough with American English so I'll just ask - is "Thirteen Colonies" typically capitalised?
  • Great Britain is an island. Do you mean the United Kingdom? Or perhaps the British Crown?
  • Reword "there would be".

Second paragraph

  • "emphasized the importance of Enlightenment values to republican ideology, such as civic virtue and benevolence," -> "emphasized the importance of Enlightenment values (such as civic virtue and benevolence) to republican ideology,"
  • There's nothing techinically wrong with it per say, but I hate the wording of "elite leadership team". You don't have to change it, it won't affect the review. But it gives me the shivers.
    • I refuse to believe that I wrote those words in that order. Changed to "select group of elites". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph

  • "As American government developed" could be better phrased. Evolved, perhaps?
  • What is the word "classical" meant to be doing here? I know America is a young nation, but can something established twenty years previous really be described as "classical" so soon? Unless of course you mean Classical republicanism, in which case you should link it.
  • That bit about the Era of Good Feelings sounded good at first, but it's only eight years long? Is that really impressive that one system was superior 8 years? Doesn't feel right to me.
    • The Era of Good Feelings is significant as it's the only time in American history where there was no national opposition party/group/ideology. There's probably a better way to word this though. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery and the Civil War[edit]
  • What is light blue on the map? It is not explained and not clear to me. Same for grey. Also link Union and Confederate in the caption. Also it later reads that 10 states seceded. 11 are red on the map.
    • It's supposed to read South Carolina and 10 other states, for a total of 11. The wording is a bit tricky, but I think it's important to say that the movement emerged from South Carolina given that state's association with secession in the 19th century. I've tried to reword it a bit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like in the last section, some years would be helpful
    • I'm hesitant to put specific years, as a lot of these ideological shifts took place over several years or even decades. I'll try to add years when appropriate, but I think there are places where a decade is more accurate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link slavery.
  • "present in the United States since colonial times". Were the United States even a thing in colonial times? Should you say North America here?
  • "until the Civil War." -> "until after the Civil War."
  • What was put under tariff in 1828 and 1832?
    • The actual subject of the tariffs doesn't get much attention in the history of this period. Their significance is that they were harmful to the south, which prompted threats of secession and military action. For now I've added a mention to the military as well as describing them as protectionist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article skips over any mention of ideology during the war.
    • So far it discusses abolitionism, secessionism, and white supremacy, which were the driving ideological movements of the war, and it describes the factions that formed in the north. Ideology is tricky during this period because national politics was really dominated by the slavery issue. Is there anything immediate that stands out? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link freedmen to freedman.
  • "violent means as well as political." This is poorly worded.
    • "violent means as well as political" -> "both political and violent means" Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two paragraphs end without a citation. Is it the next listed citation? Please move up a copy if so, empty paragraph endings without citations don't look great.
    • I was still fairly new to editing when I rewrote this article, and my strategy was to list uncited sentences at the end so they wouldn't be confused with the cited portions of the paragraph. I had tried to limit these to basic facts where citations weren't critical, but I'll try to find some. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the first instance of "secessionism", not the second.
The Gilded Age[edit]
  • Years as per other sections.
  • Can "Small government" be linked somewhere?
The Progressive Era[edit]
  • This is a brilliant piece of writing
  • "plebiscitarian democracy" should be linked to something, because I have no idea what it is, and couldn't find a wiki article with that title.
    • This one is interesting. It's referenced in literature relating to this period, but it's a fairly obscure term. I've rewritten the sentence to exclude the term and just explain it in plain language. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citationed needed for Wilsonianism line.
The New Deal coalition[edit]
  • Wikilink president roosevelt in image caption, add year.
  • Wikilink Great Depression.
  • Wikilink Truman.
  • No info about ideology during WW2?
    • I'll have to do some research to see if World War II caused a notable shift in ideology. I know that joining or not joining the war was a major issue, so there's definitely something to be said on this topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leading up to the Great Recession" -> "in the build up to the ..."
  • link to Big government
  • Change "carrying" to something else, probably "winning".
    • "Carrying" a state is a common term in American presidential elections, but it's informal and I'll change it to "winning in" to increase readability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Libertarianism (the standard is once in the lede, and once in the body). Add a citation at the end of the paragraph.
Reagan era and 21st century[edit]
  • Citation at the end of each paragraph.
  • "Liberals... expanded its focus" needs to be corrected.
  • Without falling into the trap of recentism, I'm all but certain this section should be expanded to include mentions of things such as the rise of the far-right, and issues surrounding same-sex marriage and abortion.
    • Far-right ties in with right-wing populism, and I'm not sure how much distinction to make between them. Agree about major social issues, and I'll begin working on that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General notes (05/09)[edit]

Okay, I'm gonna leave it there for tonight. I'll swing by for the next bit tomorrow! My early concerns about the scope of this article is that it leaves out (in my head) a lot:

  • When did Republican and Democratic parties achieve dominance of political ideology?
    • I'm cautious about making this "Political parties in the United States". I've added a few sentences to try and keep the major parties clear in the earlier years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feminism gets only a one word mention and a link. Surely the woman's suffrage movement, which dominated female political ideology for upwards of fifty years, deserves more of a section here? Not to mention second and third wave feminism.
    • Huge oversight on my part. It should be easy to find sources for this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civil rights is definitely way too short, and I'm very surprised not to see the names Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X mentioned in this article.
    • I agree. I think the best solution would be to split the 1950s-1970s into their own section to give the Civil Rights Movement and the Cold War more room instead of having them share a paragraph. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposition to the Vietnam war isn't covered here, nor is, say, the First or Second Red Scares.
    • All the more reason to split the 1950s-1970s. I'll also see about adding the First Red Scare (currently it's only a brief mention later in the article). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably the defining moment in 21st century politics, 9/11, isn't mentioned. Surely the uptick in nationalism and willingness to go to war in the Middle East shoud be mentioned?

I understand that this is an encyclopedia article and you can't put everything in, but as an outsider who knows very little about American political history, it seems bizarre that these major associtations with it have been excluded. That said, this article is very well written and largely well sourced, and I'm rather confident that should the issues of scope be addressed, this should, pending further review, pass fairly handily. Cheers! Xx78900 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like these suggestions and I'm going to start implementing some of the simpler changes. I'll add comments about specific points above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all of the concerns for the History section unless otherwise specified. I guess I was ready to get a jump on this after several months in the GAN queue! To summarize, the areas in this section that still need attention are the Era of Good Feelings, ideology in the Civil War, ideology in World War II, social issues in the 21st century, and the ideologies you mentioned in "General notes (05/09)". That should give me something to do while you review the other sections and look over my changes in History. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Prominent ideologies[edit]
  • "defined with the left-right spectrum" - Is defined the right word here? Also "left-right spectrum" should be linked. Also this opening sentence implies that liberalism and conservatism are the only two possible ideologies. As the sentences continue into explanations of moderates, I wonder is it possible to have an ideology outside of this spectrum?
  • "The United States uses" - change uses.
  • Instead of "typically supports", say "has typically supported".
Conservatism[edit]
  • Comma or some form of punctuation after "anti-communism".
  • "continuing with the Presidency of Donald Trump." I know this is an overview with a much broader time scale, so you don't need much detail here, but I don't think this should reach a terminus here.
  • Is it correct to say the right-wing populism is the only branch of conservatism against immigration? The border fence was there long before the wall.
    • It's certainly not the only one, but it's arguably more central to the ideology. Should this be reworded? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove capital from "White Americans".
Liberalism[edit]
  • "defined social liberalism in the United States, establishing it as a major ideology in the United States." Don't need to repeat United States here.
  • "left-liberal progressivism" ?
  • Change one-fourth to one quarter?
  • "50% of Democrats identifying as liberal... constituting half of the Democratic base." this is unnecessary repetition.
  • Link climate change
Moderates[edit]
  • Northern and Southern are capitalised here for the first time.
  • "strong abolitionism" -> "total abolitionism", "and enforcement/introduction of civil rights..."
Facism[edit]
  • "However, there were" -> "There were, however,"
  • Second most popular radio host needs a citation.

Gotta go, I'l lcomment more later!


General notes (06/09)[edit]

  • Lack of foreign policy notes under Conservatism to match its inclusion in Liberalism.
    • Neoconservatism is the only major conservative ideology that's defined by foreign policy. I've added a sentence on isolationist trends in conservatism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've been gone a few days (sorry!) but I'm back to continue the review.

Back to Facism

  • "A significant minority" is subjective, be specfic.
  • Maybe a note on the prevalence of anti-Semitic views amongst Americans of the era?
  • Link "Nazi".
  • Nazi political parties of fascist ones?
  • Link World War II.
  • "Present day Nazism in the United States is called Neo-Nazism" rephrase this, it implies that it is a US only term.
  • "There are many factors that cause someone" -> "Many factors have been proposed which may cause someone"
  • "In 2017, ABC News/Washington Post polling" -> A 2017 poll. If people want the source, they can check the citation.
  • Given the last sentence of this paragraph, should it be split into two? One for Nazism, one for fascism? I would think not, but it seems like an odd line, given its context.
    • Nazism is really the only agreed upon form of fascism that was present in the United States. For now I've organized the paragraphs by fascism/Nazism rather than 1930s/contemporary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coughlin's portrait seems at odds to the others here. Are there any prominent political figures that may be more appropriate?
    • To my knowledge, no one recognized as fascist was ever elected to national office. American fascism mostly existed and exists underground and never really developed a national figurehead more prominent than Coughlin. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarianism[edit]
  • "refers to the right-libertarianism that was first developed" -> "refers to right-libertarianism. First developed..."
  • Link isolationist.
  • "in 2020" -> "since 2020", "in response to the rise of the right wing populism"
  • Link "think tank".
Monarchism[edit]
  • Remove "as a monarchy".
  • Add link removed from "monarchy" to "monarchism"
  • "However, elements..." "Elements of monarchism still exist, however..."
Separatism[edit]
  • Was the confederate government not recognised by any nation? That seems odd.
    • The diplomatic aspects of the American Civil War were complicated, but it was never recognized. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Nullification crisis, already linked once in the body.
Socialism[edit]
  • Specify that Debs contested a presidential election.
  • "all of which sitting as Democrats" rephrase.
  • "Several members of the group have held office in the United States." citation needed
    • Removed. This sentence was redundant and only served to provide a link that I've moved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit wishy-washy, but Americans are known internationally for their stereotypical mistrust verging on hatred of socialism. There is a brief mention of the Red Scare, but could this be expanded? Also just popping to mind now, does the Cold War get a fair shake in this article? Or the Marshall plan? I know you mentioned you would expand on the Cold War earlier but I haven't re read anything just yet.
    • I have since expanded the Cold War in the history section, and I've added another sentence to this section as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Demographics etc.

  • "and welfare are signifcantly..." And welfare? Always state social welfare.
  • That bit on "correct voting" is very interesting.
  • "nones"? Change this to areligious, atheist, or other similar.
  • 29% is hardly "only". Remove this word.
  • Given that black people in the states are typically considered a safe Democratic vote, and as you mention this along with Asian-Americans above, I find it strange that this section doesn't mention race at all.
    • I've added a paragraph on race. I was hoping to avoid too close of a focus on political parties, but it seems that most sources break it down by party instead of ideology. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison to global politics[edit]
  • "the collectivist ideology that influences politics in some European countries"citation needed
  • "American citizens expect less influence and intervention by the government and are less likely to accept it." Than who?
  • "which is distinct from that found in the rest of Europe."citation needed, and also, how so?
  • Americans and Western Europeans are similarly progressive as well. Socially? Economically? All Americans and Western Europeans? Does this include Portugal, which infamously typically resembles more the balkans on maps charting human development than the rest of the west. Another citation needed
  • "European style social democracy" is so vague to be almost meaningless, Irish, French, British, and German styles of democracy are radically different.
  • extremism and polarization have been mentioned before. Link them earlier in the article, not here.
  • "The United States in particular is more susceptible to polarization than European countries due to its political structure, but it is more resilient to extremist ideologies for the same reason." This is sourced but needs to be extrapolated.
  • For a section on global comparisons, this is essentially Western Europe with a little about South America. The USA's great rival of the 20th century, the USSR, probably deserves a lot more here, particularly when the article focuses so much on history elsewhere. And what about China and India in the 21st century? Or indeed, Russia? And on the topic, though there is likely not much to say about comparisons of ideology between the states and the Middle East, for a nation that has been at war there for decades, it probably deserves a mention.

Okay, so that's the article reviewed entirely once. I know I have left a lot of comments, but this article is much letter than that number would imply, it's really good stuff. I do think that in it's present form it won't pass GA because of content omissions, but I think that it's very close and that you will have it up to quality soon. For that reason, I would put it on 7-day hold, but given the length of the article and the extensions necessary, I'm going to hold off actually filling in the GA review box until you've had time to make the changes and additions (or at least argue against them!) I've suggested here. At that point I'll read through it again and specifically comment on the GA criteria. So take your time on this, and when you're ready, ping me and I'll return to the review. Good job on the article!

Xx78900 I've been incorporating these changes as you've posted them, and I think the article is ready for a second pass. I've addressed all of the grammar/style concerns, and I've added a few paragraphs covering the omissions you brought up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Sorry for disappearing, I've been flat-out in the real world this week. I'll have another look at this this evening. Xx78900 (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:[edit]

  • Move the wikilinks for isolationism and interventionism to their new first appearances in the article.
  • Still a concern that abortion isn't mentioned at all in the article. The US's two-party system means there are a lot of single-issue voters, and this is a big one.
  • Happy to see women's suffrage now gets a mention, but I still think that both it and feminism more generally deserve more than one sentence. If you disagree, I'd to hear why.
What aspects of it do you think should be expanded upon? Do you think it warrants its own subsection under "minor ideologies"? I've added a brief mention of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was the primary focus of feminist politics in the 1970s/80s. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marxism-Leninism which was supported by the Soviet Union".
  • "White supremacy was predominant" - predominant or widespread?
  • I think the results of the civil rights movement might deserve a mention? Either to say that they influenced the growth of equality/identity focused politics thereafter or to say that having achieved their goals (if they did so?) the movement then gave way to the next thing.
Currently, one sentence under Reagan Era mentions the growth of minority rights as an issue among liberals. Are there any other specific ideas that should be mentioned? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red scare is now wikilinked twice - why did you decide not to include the second one? (It doesn't have to be there if not crucial, just curious)
Wikipedia doesn't call it the "Second Red Scare"; it redirects to McCarthyism, so that's the name I used in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Marshall Plan was a big part of American projection in the wake of WW2, deserves a mention.
  • That's the majority of what I have to say, but I still think that the USSR in the 20th century and then Russia and China in the 21st deserve a mention. Now that I'm thinking about it, how important is it to mention Taiwan?
For the most part, I've leaned toward talking about opposition to communism as a whole rather than specific countries so as not to exceed the scope of the article. Currently, the Soviet Union is mentioned by name three times in the article. I've added a brief mention of China. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that Puerto Rico under separatism, what about calls for it to become a state?
Xx78900 (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on a few of these, all other changes have been made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you. When I get the time, I'll do a source review, which is the last thing I need to do before (hopefully) passing this very high quality article to GA status. Xx78900 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Xx78900, just checking in. It's been about two weeks since the last update on this review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FormalDude[edit]

Hi Thebiguglyalien, here's some of my preliminary comments for you.

  • Fascism was never widely accepted in the United States, and no fascist party ever gained prominence in American politics. – This is unsourced.
  • Citation 104 is an OPED and should be removed or replaced.
  • Citation 132 is an OPED and should be removed or replaced.
  • Citation 185 is an OPED and should be removed or replaced.
  • Citation 73 and 130 need to be attributed or removed per WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Cato_Institute.

I also see that the reviewer has not edited in over a month. I am willing to take over the review if you'd like. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could take over, I'd really appreciate that. And yes, this article was my first "big" project on Wikipedia when I nominated it last spring, so I still hadn't quite gotten sourcing down yet. I'll take a look and see what I can do about that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I'll get started on the rest of the review. It looks like Xx78900 made a lot of good suggestions that you enacted, but I will have to still do a complete review, so please allow up to seven days for the process. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. In the meantime, I've fixed the citation issues you brought up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good fix, but I still feel American imperialism and Manifest destiny are not thoroughly covered in the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't really "ideologies" in the sense that this article describes. I added information about IR ideology, but anything beyond that would probably be better suited for History of United States foreign policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading those articles, they're pretty explicitly described as political ideologies. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out how to make it work in the article, and there are now a couple sentences on manifest destiny specifically. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More[edit]

  • There isn't a single quote in this article. Could you find some prominent political scholars and/or politicians who have discussed America's political ideologies in one way or another? I see several spots that are ripe for a quote.
  • about one quarter of the American public self-identifies as liberal. – Lacks context, add that this makes it the smallest mainstream ideological group.
  • Many separatist movements have advocated secession from the United States, though most of these movements have seen little support. – Fails verification.
  • Socialists advocate the abolition of capitalism – Fails verification.
  • The lede probably needs one more paragraph summarizing the history section.

––FormalDude (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a personal preference, I don't like using quotes if there's a way to summarize the key ideas as prose (particularly in politics-related articles where a quote may be used to give authority to one POV or another). Otherwise, I've addressed all of these notes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: See the quote I just added as an example. What do you think of that? ––FormalDude (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to object to it, but it's the sort of thing I wouldn't add to an article because I'd be worried about giving undue weight to the opinion of one person. If it were me writing, I would take any facts the quote might be referencing and include them in the body minus the opinion (which in this case the article does in the last three sentences of that section). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just compromise at the one quote then. It doesn't matter much in terms of passing GA anyways. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a ton of WP:DUPLINKS that need to be unlinked. I suggest using a tool like User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to help quickly identify them. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I'd been meaning to start using that tool. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably have a section(s) on populism and/or nationalism. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given some thought to writing sections for other ideologies, but it's difficult because some aren't as clear cut as others. All of the ideologies currently listed under "minor ideologies" are distinct from modern conservatism and modern liberalism. On the other hand, nationalism and populism (as well as feminism, abolitionism, isolationism, etc) are often included within modern conservatism, modern liberalism, or both. I could definitely see sections for these ideologies, but I don't know how to include them without being redundant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see what you mean, at least for populism. However I still feel Nationalism is not covered at a level of depth that I would want for a GA. The article should talk about how nationalism has developed in regards to both loyalty to a set of liberal, universal political ideals and a perceived accountability to propagate those principles globally. Speaking on the latter specifically, the article also does not cover American imperialism which is undoubtedly an important aspect of American political ideology. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and expanded foreign policy ideologies under conservatism and liberalism. It's generally considered its own separate field in ideology, and the issue was that it wasn't getting enough coverage in that context. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to the content you added about Roosevelt, I see a source stating that "Roosevelt claimed that he rejected imperialism, but he embraced the near-identical doctrine of expansionism" which appears to be somewhat at odds with the content you added. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the wording from "imperialism" to the more neutral "expansionism". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Some of the images do not appear to pass the relevance criteria per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. The Depiction of the signing of the Constitution in 1787, for example, could be added to almost an article that discusses revolutionary America or American political history. Martin Luther King Jr. at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963 is also an extremely broad image. And images of individual presidents are almost certainly overused. Could we try to curate some more pertinent images? Something like File:March on Washington edit.jpg is better than the Martin Luther image as it adds information to the article that the readers do not yet have (in this case, the size of crowds involved in civil rights-era protests). ––FormalDude (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer the MLK image. The crowd is in the background of both images, but the foreground has a notable proponent of the ideology rather than the backs of people's heads. I've removed all of the other images. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And to be clear I don't think all images of individual presidents needed to be removed, just the ones that were less pertinent. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think a good middle ground is? Maybe keep Reagan, FDR, and Eisenhower for the prominent ideologies section but leave the other ideologies without portraits? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Reagan and Eisenhower would be good. Not sure about FDR, but I do think a photo of Jefferson Davis to the separatism section would be appropriate. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems rather arbitrary. If the most prominent conservative and the most prominent moderate are given portraits, I'd think the most prominent liberal would be included as well. Also, why Harry Truman under socialism? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say Reagan or FDR are the most prominent conservative and liberal respectively. Those are harder to pin down a central figure of than the other ideologies. An image of Reagan can easily be included in the Reagan era section, as can an image of Truman accompanying a quote from him. And Eisenhower seems equally applicable to the moderates section. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added an image of Reagan, but I decided to avoid using the portrait; I'd rather be consistent in the style of images within the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final review[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Article passes GA. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States&oldid=1212455165"