Battle of Honey Springs

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Libertarianism Low‑importance Freedom Caucus is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The statement under ideology that this group is "anti-immigration" is insufficiently supported, in that the only footnote referenced is to a single Breitbart piece which notes the group acknowledged delaying the vote on an "immigration" bill. In my view, assuming this group is "anti-immigration" because they wish to delay a vote on one bill is completely unjustified without much more support. Given that this nation permits more legal immigration annually than the entire rest of the world combined, and given that, at least to my knowledge, no member of this group has introduced or co-sponsored any legislation to reduce the number of legal immigrants, such a suggestion is not justified at all. Furthermore, given that the administration refuses to enforce existing immigration law, passage of ANY bill regarding immigration would be an action which effectively cedes the power of the Congress to the administration, suggesting, as it does, that if the administration refuses to perform the duties of its branch it can force the Congress to pass such legislation as it wishes. Nowhere else in our country can anyone behave in such a manner and expect such a reaction from any branch of government. In point of fact, there is reason to believe that acceding to such a demand by the administration is tantamount to abandoning the Constitution and the structure of ordered liberty the founders established in this country in favor of a government not representative of the people at all. Indeed, why should anyone bother to vote if when their Congressmen arrive in Washington they are to be ordered what to do by the administration. Given that, the actions of this group seem to be the most conciliatory response possible, while still protecting the Constitution and the rule of law, at least nominally. In my view, the stance of this group can only be seen as minimal, given the level of unemployment of the existing citizenry, current wage rates for our citizenry, and the views of the public as expressed in election results where the issue has been discussed.2001:5B0:29FF:2CF0:0:0:0:39 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Ideology, the terms "Nativism" and "Anti-immigration" are misleading and unwarranted. There is no source to support these claims. I believe these two labels are being used as quasi slurs in this context to discredit the subject of the article, and thus are not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.34.184 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited to justify stating the caucus is against immigration reform (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/27/this-is-bull-inside-the-gops-immigration-meltdown-680106) does not support this conclusion. Immigration policy and border enforcement are not the same. According to the cited article, the caucus seemed to be against providing any legal benefit to any person who entered the country illegally. This is not evidence that they are anti-immigration reform. It is possible for an individual to want strong legal enforcement of the border, to prevent unwanted agents or biological contaminants or invasive species entering the country; while still being for an open border which allows anyone who is not a known criminal into the country. United States politicians intentionally conflate the two for political reasons. Academic writings should be more clear and precise. 47.24.187.59 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The freedom caucus is not anti immigration reform, they're for immigration enforcement. Billyjobob007 (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They blocked the passing of a reform bill supported by the GOP.[1]. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the politics of this caucus "far right" seems to be misleading at best and deliberately prejudiced at worst, especially since the first paragraph of the wiki on far right politics mentions the Nazis. This borders on reducto ad hitlerum. I propose it be removed or a more neural term chosen.Inspectorenjorlas (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page for far-right politics doesn't define the term as simply Nazism. It says "Far-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum." also that it includes "social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism". The sources used refer to this caucus as Far-right. This isn't exclusive for The Freedom Caucus. Here's an example The Blue Dog Coalition (a centrist, fiscally conservative caucus) is listed as center left even though when you go to the page it list "social democrats, social liberals, greens, progressives and also some democratic socialists" as center-left. The reason for it being list is because that's what the sources say. If you see a problem with the sources, I'm willing to listen. If you have an argument about the definition of far-right and want to discuss how it applies here, I'm all ears. But no one is trying to be deceptive, and it's possible I'm in the wrong. What would you propose and why? Also would you be okay with that argument/standard being applied to all other ideological caucuses (New Democrat Coalition, Republican Main Street Partnership, etc.)? Thank you for bringing this up. Alexander Levian (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far right is totally wrong here. The correct term for a position to the right of centre-right is rightwing. "Far right" is a loaded term that simply doesn't apply for a mainstream party like the Republicans or any main fractions of it. If you check the "far right" category the groups there are of a different nature.As an example: in my country Norway we have a party the Progress Party which are to the right of the Conservative party, but are still not categorized as far right (even if there are multiple international newspaper sources that label them "far right") . Otherwise, I will acknowledge that the labels and categorizations here can be complicated; and the scholarly literature are not internally consistent as various scholars use different terminology and categorization. The far-right and right wing articles on Wikipedia are of bad quality and does not sort these things out. Iselilja (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you think the articles on wikipedia for far-right are problematic. I hear you. I'll leave it off until we all can come to some sort of agreement. With that said, can you give me some sort of academic source to clear up the definition of far-right (at least as far as United States is concerned)? It's been my understanding that far-right doesn't just mean extremist and authoritarians, but can also include various radical or reactionary positions. That would be a good starting point and maybe after we figure this out, we can tackle the Far-right politics next. Alexander Levian (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Freedom Caucus has been described as Far Right by the Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Vox, Japan Times, MSNBC, the Guardian, and Newsmax. All reliable sources. What's the problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC

This is unfortunately a far too common misconception among Wikipedians that just because something is said in two or more reliable sources, we can state it in Wikipedia's voice. That's not so at all when it comes to complex, controversial and muddy concepts. A journalist here and a journalist there does not a scholarly consensus make. Many journalists will use "far right" in a loose way to describe an organization or so that are to the right of centre; but that does not make an organization "far right" in a scholarly and encyclopedic sense. An important feature to consider is the dog that doesn't bark: namely the great majority of sources that deal with the Freedom Caucus and does not label them far right, but simply "conservatives"; "most conservatives" etc. (CNN, Pew Research). Iselilja (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding our policies and guidelines. WP:V and WP:NPV make clear that content need only be supported by a single, uncontroverted reliable source to be included without qualification. (The CNN and Pew sources are not contradictory because an organization can be both "far right" and "conservative" at the same time.) There is no requirement of scholarly consensus, even for content that is "complex, controversial, and muddy." And in fact, this isn't a complex, controversial, or muddy issue at all. If it were, these mainstream sources wouldn't be calling the Freedom Caucus "far right." Our only requirement akin to what you're talking about is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. But in this case the claim isn't exceptional, and we do have exceptional sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Skip the political position in the infobox. This is done in the main article about the Republican party, and by the same logic that is used for that article, we should skip it here. Infoboxes and categories are for undisputed facts; not for muddy concepts and disputed labels. Iselilja (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, no need to put this is the infobox, but it belongs in the lead section due to its extreme noteworthines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest ultra-conservative accurate without invoking the trope of fascism or Nazism. William J Bean (talk)

The problem is the sources aren't calling them that. Alexander Levian (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term far right generally refers to neo-nazis and similar groups, even if the press often uses it to refer to groups to the right of mainstream Republicans. The field "political position" is best avoided because while there is agreement over relative position in the political spectrum, there is usually none over absolute position. TFD (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your statement

The term far right generally refers to neo-nazis and similar groups, even if the press often uses it to refer to groups to the right of mainstream Republicans.

: You're making an assumption that's inconsistent with the reliable sources. "Far right" sometimes refers to fascist groups, sometimes it doesn't. As pointed out, multiple mainstream, reliable sources have come to the conclusion that the Freedom Caucus is "far right," regardless of whether it has any fascist associations. It's not for us to second-guess them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna look up sources describing the caucus as "far right", but I see DrFleischman did it already. It's absolutely fair and appropriate to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Webb, Clive. Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era: "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists, p, 10."[2] If you have a textbook that disputes the general usage, please provide it. Regardless, if you think the term can sometimes mean fascist, using it here could leave readers with the wrong impression, i.e., that the Freedom Caucus belongs to the same political family as Golden Dawn, Jobbik and the BNP. TFD (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A logical fallacy. Just because the word is often used to describe white supremacists doesn't mean it's only used to describe white supremacists. Our article on far-right politics makes this clear. The mainstream media uses the term "far right" all the time to describe groups that have nothing to do with white supremacy, at least in the United States. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a Google Book search for "far right." All ten books on the first page use the term to refer to fascist or near fascist groups. TFD (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, at least one of those books isn't about fascism. More importantly, you're taking those out of context. All of those are about Europe or WWII-era politics. This article is about a 21st Century American organization, which which reliable sources call far right. These sources have experienced editors. None of them are suggesting the Freedom Caucus is facist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those books do you think is not about fascism? And the books do mention the far right in the U.S., which is identified with the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazism and Christian Identity. While most of the books are primarily about Western Europe, two are primarily about the U.S. and The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right includes entries for the U.S. However, search for "far right" "united states" and the results are similar. There is no exceptional use of the term in the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racism and islamophobia are not fascism. Even the Ku Klux Klan wasn't (isn't) fascist. There are openly racist and islamophobic elements in the far right aside from white supremacists, I hope I don't need to explain those. To say racism/islamphobia equals fascism, equals far right, therefore "far right" implies fascism, is both logically and factually incorrect. The far right includes racists, islamaphobes, fascists, as well non-racists, non-islamaphobes, and non-fascists as well. Our article on far-right politics makes this perfectly clear. A link to it should alleviate your concern without ignoring reliable sources and creating the appearance of whitewashing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "The term far right generally refers to neo-nazis and similar groups." [17:56, 22 October 2015] Indeed some of these groups are not strictly speaking fascist, but they are closely related. That's why for example there is a book called The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. And no one has claimed that racism=far right, merely that racism is a feature of the far right. And racism in the far right is more virulent.

In any case, if fascist and the KKK are far right, why do you feel comfortable that readers may conflate the Freedom Caucus with them? If you want readers to dislike them, and you are confident in your view of them, then just present the facts and trust readers to make the correct judgments.

I suggest too that you not use Wikipedia as a source. You should be aware that anyone can contribute to it. In the meantime, you have failed to provide any sources for your definition of the far right.

TFD (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article about the far right, so there's no reason to define it. It's an article about the Freedom Caucus, and the question is whether the Freedom Caucus is far right. The reliable sources say it is. This has nothing to do with wanting readers to dislike the Freedom Caucus. It has to do with helping readers understand the Freedom Caucus's ideology and where they land on the political spectrum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia article, not a polemic. If we want to call a group far right or anything else, it must be clear to the reader what is meant. Reliable sources draw a distinction between groups like the Freedom Caucus and Golden Dawn, even if you do not. And even if you think at heart they are the same, you have to recognize certain differences, even if you find them superficial. For example, the Freedom Caucus does not use street violence. TFD (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "far-right" label is quite misleading here. The Caucus might be "far-right" in the American political spectrum, but has nothing to do with the extreme views espoused by far-right parties in Europe or Asia. "Right-wing" would be a more accurate description. --Checco (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left/Right is an axis along an X-axis which lumps together measures of social and economic views. This group is certainly very far right along the axis as to their traditionally conservative social views but they are more libertarian-left on some economic outlooks, as in their view on crony capitalism, where they are against welfare for the largest corporations thus aligning them with Occupy Wall Streeters[3], who are very far left. See their fight against the export-import bank and it's preferences towards mega-corps while disadvantaging small businesses. If you average this leftist view into their overall outlook, I think they are not the furthest possible right group, nor are they economic fascists whose governments exerted greater than regulatory control over their economies. Fascist economies made profit private but socialized corporate losses. Extreme far-right groups would be those that support monopoly capitalism, exert control on corporations to work for state interests, increase military spending, isolate from free trade with other countries while maintaining socially conservative values. The Freedom Caucus has been trying to cap all spending, including the military budget, including the increase in this last deal, which is not a fascist economic attribute. The hawks that pushed for increased military spending are more fascist. The extreme-right label might very well be a polemic being pushed by lobbyists of these largest corporations into main stream media outlets.

Anyway, if you stick with the X-axis measure of conservative spectrum, Pew Research has identified their membership and plotted a chart that does place them on the far-right [4] 97.85.173.38 (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguished fascists from other right-wing parties was their use of political violence and rejection of constitutional government. It may be that the Freedom Caucus would govern that way but so far it is not part of their path to power. And their economics is no different from the fascists. Both are willing to attack crony capitalism yet act in the interests of them. But that applies to groups across the political spectrum. BTW no one questions whether they are the most right-wing group in Congress, the issue is whether that places them on the far right. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided political science research data that places them on the far right. If you took a look at the image from the Pew Research study (linked above) they are much farther right than the general Republican party membership. From that Pew study they can be qualified as far-right by the NOMINATE (scaling method) measure.

As for them being fascist, they constantly claim to support the constitution and I disagree that they are behaving as classic fascists on the economic front. I already provided evidence that they opposed increases in the defense budget which is a 180 from fascists of Italy or Germany who always worked to increase their military. You are right that many of their policies are similar to the early days under Mussolini were taxes were reformed, sectors were privatized, there was a focus on cutting debt, but Italy retained control of the banking sector while this caucus was against the bailout and wanted to let banks fail. Italy also built up larger government bureaucracies, such as the National Council of Corporations, in an attempt to further privatize the economy but essentially caused more hindrances to their plans. This caucus is always talking about smaller government and wiping out bureaucracies. Maybe they are the 'new' fascist economists who have learned from the past mistakes, but has a reliable source called them that? I'm just looking for accuracy in representation in a Wikipedia article. Honestly, their social politics piss me off. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis says we cannot say they are far right if the source does not say that. They may be the most right-wing group in Congress, that does not make them far right. The most northerly part of North Carolina for example is not the far north. TFD (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts - Spending on a military does not make a person fascist. JFK ramped up military spending drastically, he was not a fascist. Fascism, is national socialism. Left and right on the modern political spectrum is based on economic ideology. They can be authoritarian or non authoritarian in outlook. Fascists are left wing economically, and authoritarian. As opposed to modern western socialists which share the same economic views of fascists, but are not authoritarians. The Freedom Caucus is not far right wing, far right wing would be true anarchists, (as opposed to anarcho syndicalists), libertarians and the like. Ron Paul is far to the right of the Freedom Caucus, which recently joined in supporting an Omnibus bill with massive spending funding 1000s of government programs that will consume over 40% of the economy.~ John M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:317C:A84:D8A8:CD6 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several of your claims are incorrect.

• "Fascists are left wing economically" Except the left-wing includes a variety of economic positions including anarchism, social democracy, and Marxist-Leninism. There are various right-wing economic positions as well ranging from free market to nationalist economics. The difference between left and right isn't purely an economic one.
• "far right wing would be true anarchists," Except historically anarchist are classified as far-left. The early anarchist generally comprised of socialist and mutualist that were very skeptical of the state.
• "Freedom Caucus, which recently joined in supporting an Omnibus bill" This is just outright untrue. The members of the caucus voted against the bill (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll579.xml). And

Sources still say they are far-right, and you haven't presented any reason why we should go against those sources. Alexander Levian (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our thoughts and opinions on this are not important. What is important is what reliable sources have said, and they've said far-right. Ratemonth (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What indication is there that their use of 'far right' means what Wikipedia means by 'far right'? Toa Nidhiki05 00:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source that says they are far right. Toa, if no sources say they are far right, it does not matter whether definitions of far right in reliable sources and Wikipedia differ. IP, generally "left-wing economically" does not mean placing economic power in major corporations. TFD (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, we've already discussed the fact that multiple reliable sources say that FC is far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly thought my edit was a 'real' motto; though I was close to thinking it was not. I knew it was a critic who was my source; and I knew it felt awkward-to-overly provocative to ... cite such a critic with his ... jokingly disrespectful may I call it? ... headline about 'crazies' .... But I really didn't think it was made up. I researched it. I found nothing direct. I found Dred Scott in 1859; and fights in the House over who would be Speaker that year; oh, no; ... maybe it was Dred Scott too ... but what I found for sure was John Brown (in 1859). The raid on the federal armory ... sounded just possible ... as a true 'freedom' rallying cry. (I also had to research and find that it had to be 'slogan' not 'motto' for the purposes of fitting into the Template:Infobox political party fyi.) Anyway, the polite explanation for the reversion of my edit seemed, upon a moment's reflection just now, ... completely plausible and probably more plausible than all my previous thinking about it. It gave me, in the end, a good laugh. (These political matters can get SO serious ... these days.) Hope no umbrage here User:Brianhe or others. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Membership to the House Freedom Caucus is secret. Upon review, however, some members listed here are not necessarily confirmed as caucus members. I have removed Steve King of Iowa from the list after discovering multiple sources noting he was not a member.^[1][2]

On this same note, journalists are not always accurate when suggesting certain members are in fact part of the House Freedom Caucus. A link to a tweet from a journalist is barebones evidence for membership in this caucus. We should be much more careful in attributing membership, ideally relying on statements from members directly. With this being said, I think it would be wise of us to review whether or not Louie Gohmert (TX) should be listed as a member. He is often lumped in with the Freedom Caucus because he opposed Kevin McCarthy in the speakership race to replace Boehner, but it is not totally clear beyond the current citation whether he is a member or not.^[3][4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zm11 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the basis for your belief that "journalists are not always accurate when suggesting certain members are in fact part of the House Freedom Caucus." The standard we follow is WP:RS, which essentially says that edited articles published by reputable news outlets are reliable. Tweets by journalists are presumably not fact-checked by editors and should not be used. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, it does not sound like we really disagree about the point I was trying to make. I certainly concede that journalists have editors and are fact-checked. However, there are some members of the Freedom Caucus who have never confirmed, nor denied, being members. But, because of the secrecy surrounding the caucus membership list, sometimes two legitimate news sources (e.g. The Dallas Morning News and The Hill--in the case of Rep. Gohmert) will report conflicting information about their status as caucus members. Without the member owning or disparaging those reports, there is no way for us to know if that member really is part of the caucus. In summary, my point is that since there is no official member list, we should treat journalistic accounts of caucus membership with additional scrutiny. And, ideally, we should strive to seek out direct statements from members noting their participation in the caucus. Zm11 (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When there are conflicts between/among reliable sources, we follow our neutrality guideline and note the conflict. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Want to add here that there is something resembling a public list of members - which is the House Freedom Fund's endorsement list, published before each election - the current list includes 40 members ^[1] 06:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.70.104 (talk)

The map needs to be updated for the 115th congress. Wyoming should now be shaded for a former rather than current member. 76.99.216.210 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey no longer has any members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.120.12 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia changes are needed, too. The 7th District should be excluded, Abigail Spanberger D is not in freedom caucus. Denver Riggelman in the 5th district is included. It looks like the outlines of Viringinia's congressional districts are outdated too, not sure if shading in 7th(?) district is actually for 1st district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evomellor (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction there is a sentence saying (sry, I'm no native speaker) :

The caucus is sympathetic to the Tea Party movement.[4]

'Is' it really ? Source '4' is over two years old.

Does a fellow wikipedian have younger / more detailled infos ? thanks in advance, --Neun-x (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure if being two years old makes it no longer reliable or obsolete. With more recent articles of the Tea Party siding with the Freedom Caucus over Trump ([5][6]) it seems that the two groups are still (at the very least) sympathetic to one another. Alexander Levian (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the opening description to say "libertarian and conservative," instead of just "conservative," because the RFC prominently includes Justin Amash, who is described by such widely varying Reliable Sources as Slate and the Wall Street Journal as a "libertarian congressman" (and Google finds many more examples). NCdave (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the Freedom Caucus is more libertarian than conservative. Of 28 Congressmen whom Wikipedia lists as members of the Liberty Caucus, 16 are also Freedom Caucus members, and three others are former Freedom Caucus members. Only 9 of the 28 Liberty Caucus members have never been Freedom Caucus members:

 16 Liberty Caucus member who are also Freedom Caucus members:
 Justin Amash of Michigan, Chair
 Dave Brat of Virginia
 Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma
 Ron DeSantis of Florida
 Jeff Duncan of South Carolina
 Louie Gohmert of Texas
 Paul Gosar of Arizona
 Morgan Griffith of Virginia
 Andrew P. Harris of Maryland
 Jim Jordan of Ohio
 Raul Labrador of Idaho
 Bill Posey of Florida
 Mark Meadows of North Carolina
 Mark Sanford of South Carolina
 David Schweikert of Arizona
 Ted Yoho of Florida
 Three Liberty Caucus members who are former Freedom Caucus members:
 Ted Poe of Texas
 Tom McClintock of California
 Reid Ribble of Wisconsin
 Nine Liberty Caucus members who have not been Freedom Caucus members:
 Michael C. Burgess of Texas
 Jason Chaffetz of Utah
 Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee
 Trey Gowdy of South Carolina
 Walter B. Jones, Jr. of North Carolina
 Thomas Massie of Kentucky
 Dana Rohrabacher of California
 Todd Rokita of Indiana
 Jason T. Smith of Missouri

NCdave (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need sources saying that the caucus is itself libertarian. Second, listing the number of memebers of the FC that are also in the LC doesn't mean the FC is libertarian. The Liberty caucus ideology is listed as libertarian conservative and conservative. We need the reliable sources that says the Freedom Caucus is libertarian (without resorting to WP:SYNTH). Alexander Levian (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The caucus consists of its members. If its members are a mixture of libertarians and conservatives, then the Freedom Caucus is libertarian and conservative. We have Slate and the WSJ agreeing that Justin Amash is a "libertarian congressman," and he is a founding member of the Freedom Caucus. It is not WP:SYNTH to note that the Freedom Caucus contains libertarians, it is a Reliably Sourced fact.

But, anyhow, here's Time Magazine reporting that, "The [Freedom] caucus is overwhelmingly male, geographically diverse, and contains both religious “values voters” and more libertarian-oriented conservatives."

Also, here's Rare reporting that Justin Amash is "the most high profile libertarian Republican in Congress after Senator Rand Paul."

Also, here's PanAm Post on March 27, 2017 reporting that, "The Freedom Caucus Representatives Who Stood Up to Trump Are Libertarians, Not “Far Right Wing.”" That's the headline. The body of the article reports that, "They are often called “conservatives” in American political lexicon, and sometimes they too have to embrace this term because it has resonance with the media and the voters. But they don’t like it, and it doesn’t really describe them."

Also, the LibertyConservative web site reports that, "While the ACHA would have defunded Planned Parenthood, many conservatives and libertarians, including the members of the Freedom Caucus, grew concerned that the bill served as nothing more than ‘Obamacare Lite’."

Also, Politico in 2015 reported that "Amash, a 35-year-old libertarian-minded Republican first elected in the tea party wave of 2010, is at the heart of a new power center in the House Republican Conference. With roughly 40 members, the Freedom Caucus..."

Also, LifeZette just yesterday called the Freedom Caucus "a subgroup of conservative and libertarian Republicans who formed in 2014."

Also, Reason, which is the House Organ of the American libertarian movement, called the Freedom Caucus "libertarian-leaning." (The the article refers to "the Freedom Caucus and other libertarian-leaning members of Congress".)

Is that sufficient? Do you think the article needs references to any of these? NCdave (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Gamecock on 03/29/2017 reported that, "most of the Freedom Caucus align more with the Libertarian Party’s values than the Republican Party’s."

Likewise, The Trace on 7/13/2016 reported on what they called, "The 40-member group of libertarian-leaning House conservatives, known as the Freedom Caucus."

Likewise, WJLA-TV, Washington, DC, on 3/24/2017 reported on, "The House Freedom Caucus, a cadre of conservatives, libertarians and others who have shown no hesitation to buck the party leadership."

Alexander, as you can see, the libertarian character of the Freedom Caucus is well-documented.

Which of those references do you think ought to be included in the article?

Also, I see that you've reinserted the "far-right" label. That label is not accurate, and it has been debated and rejected by the Wikipedia community. Please remove it. NCdave (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no sources, but my TN representative (district 4) is clearly Alt-right. However, it seems also clear to me that the definitions of the term are maturing. Surprised to see the freedom caucus not already labeled as Alt-right. Not sure (in my mind) there is a greater core to the Alt-right movement than the freedom caucus, aside from media punditry. Certainly someone can find some facts/sources to cite that can make a direct correlation? Please, let's open up the conversation here... ev (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one. My representative Scott DesJarlais, has a pinned tweet that describes in <144 characters what the alt-right represents. Rep DesJarlais is also (not coincidentally) a member of the freedom caucus. Is this a case to make on this article? That members of the caucus are also members of the alt-right?? ev (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/desjarlaistn04/status/743491218814996481 ev (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we are going to need more if we are to make the inclusion. The first issue is the analysis of wikipedia editors of that tweet from one of the members of the FC doesn't really constitute a reliable source (which we will need in order to make proposed addition to the ideology section). The other issue showing that one or more members of the FC are also described as alt-right wouldn't be sufficient to add it to the ideology list (This would be an example of wp:synth). In order to add alt-right to the ideology section, the source would have to describe the organization itself (not individual members) as alt-right. My suggestion would be to look through news sources for terms "freedom caucus" and "alt-right" and see what you can find. I'll be happy to look for some sources myself when I have some free time. Alexander Levian (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You seem to intuitively agree, as would most rational readers, that this sect of the US House tends to be the Alt-right invasion of our government. I wonder, if citing sources that can validate the "leader" of the House Freedom Caucus allies with the "leader" of the Alt-right 'Movement' would in fact be sufficient to describe the organization itself. Neither group, Freedom Caucus or Alt-right Movement, have an outright leader, and assuming the people who are "front runners" for those positions (I won't name the because that would again validate them, but we know who they are). Seems key that drawing relationships between members of each that CLAIM to be heads can be easily traced to each other's ideological platforms, specifically that of xenophobia and Islamaphobia, nationalism, and an otherwise hateful-toned version of conservativism. I'd love your help, this is obviously something missing from the article, however I am a proven novice when it comes to authoring any edits to the article. I will search, as you said, but please assist. That goes for any other talkers here, either for or against the addition of Alt-right to the list of ideologies for the House Freedom Caucus. Perhaps some readers already have some sources? ev (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/what-is-the-freedom-caucus/index.html

https://fee.org/articles/it-s-fake-news-to-call-the-freedom-caucus-the-rebellious-far-right/

https://altright.com/2017/03/31/republican-civil-war-continues-as-trump-lays-into-freedom-caucus-paul-ryan/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/20/house-freedom-caucus-what-is-it-and-whos-in-it/

http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/trump-strategist-steve-bannon-abandons-tea-party-roots-criticizes-freedom-caucus-health-care-stand/

Just bookmarks ev (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology - Conservatism[1][2] - Libertarian conservatism[3][4] - Right-wing populism[5] - Social conservatism[6][7] - Libertarianism[2] - Alt-right ev (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism^[2][3]
Libertarian conservatism^[4][5]
Right-wing populism^[6]
Social conservatism^[7][8]
Libertarianism^[3] ev (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so either I'm not seeing it or the sources you've listed don't call the FC alt-right. Connecting one member to the Alt-right would be insufficient. We have to go by what the sources say. Maybe I missed the part in those articles you've listed where the FC is called alt-right and you could provide the quote. That would be very helpful. Alexander Levian (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know where the group's funding comes from? It seems like all of these powerful Conservative groups have some wealthy shady backer. Ex: Fox News (Murdoch), Brietbart (Mercers), Project Veritas (Thiel), etc. --Craigboy (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An undated graphic at Infogram by Drake Hounshell of Politico identifies the group's (current or former) top five donors. —ADavidB 02:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as shady as I thought. I wasn't surprised that the Koch Brothers are a major funder. I'm looking into the Club For Growth, a group that supports things like repealing the estate tax.--Craigboy (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigboy: as shady as George Soros? – Lionel^(talk) 06:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The real irony is that the George Soros conspiracy is pushed by media groups controlled by extremely wealthy Conservatives who more or less do what they accuse George Soros of. But projection is a common characteristic or right-wing media.--Craigboy (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Freedom Caucus doesn't really seem to be populist. Many in the Freedom Caucus (such as Justin Amash) refused to endorse Donald Trump, the face of populism in the US. Moreover, the group has been extensively described as "libertarian" because many of the libertarian congressmen in the Liberty Caucus are also in the Freedom Caucus. Libertarianism tends to oppose many facets of populism, especially on the fronts of immigration, free trade, and welfare reform. The article doesn't really make a good case for describing the FC as populist when you look at the ideological makeup of its members. 174.86.4.210 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article identifies a source. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. —ADavidB 03:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are you saying that the user is doing original resource? Because I can easily provide sources regarding his points about Trump's conflicts with the Freedom Caucus or the libertarian leanings of Freedom Caucus members. The Freedom Caucus may be extremely conservative, but it's certainly not populist. Dewythiel (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The info present is sourced. The commentary here hashad yet to be. As sources differ on the populist status of the caucus, a (sourced) statement thereof can be included in the article text. —ADavidB 13:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided sources on the commentary here. Since the only evidence for the "populist" leanings of the Freedom Caucus is one article, it doesn't seem appropriate to label it populist. It really doesn't make sense to call the Freedom Caucus populist especially when you look at the things they support vs the things a typical populist supports. Dewythiel (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the only "source" that indicates that the Freedom Caucus is populist is the opinion of the author of the article. No political experts or insiders analyzed and described their ideology as "populist" and certainly none of the Freedom Caucus members or supporters have identified as populist. Using a single opinion piece to label an entire caucus as "populist" seems a little ridiculous. Dewythiel (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most everything is opinion-based to a degree. The populist claimer refers to "their brand" of populism, which does seem to disqualify the significance. My point is to use what are considered reliable sources rather than unsourced discussion on a talk page. —ADavidB 14:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but I do think the discussion, though initially unsourced, brought up a logical point regarding the many ideological differences between the Freedom Caucus and populists.I also agree that the author's argument isn't very strong in the first place. My point was mainly that one opinion article with a weak claim isn't enough to label the Freedom Caucus as populist, especially when other sources show ideological differences. Dewythiel (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a mistake to say that right-wing populism requires any specific policy on spending, free trade or any other economic policy, and the Freedom Caucus does take a pretty hard line on immigration, regardless of whether or not that's a prerequisite. According to the Wikipedia page on the topic, right-wing populism is more to do with anti-elite and anti-establishment rhetoric. For example, the Tea Party movement page describes that movement as populist. The right-wing populism page also has cited sources describing Barry Goldwater, Ted Cruz and Ron Paul as embracing right-wing populist themes. Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard wrote an essay advocating for libertarians to embrace right-wing populism in 1992.--Jay942942 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dewythie, the sources use the term "far-right" to describe the caucus . If you take issue with that characterization, your objection is with the sources. Sources like the AP, for example, use this phrasing (example AP story: "far-right House Freedom Caucus.") or similar phrasing (Reuters: "an influential group of hard-right Republicans called the Freedom Caucus").

Contrary to your understanding, the term is not limited to the U.S. sources, either (not that this would be a proper argument for removal). See, e.g.: the Tornoto Star: "the far-right Freedom Caucus within the Republican party"; The Guardian: " "far-right conservatives"; "arch-conservatives"; The Guardian again: "Members of the far-right Freedom Caucus"). The same phrasing has been used by academic writers: Burdett A. Loomis & Wendy J. Schiller, The Contemporary Congress (7th ed. 2018), p. 218: "the far-right House Freedom Caucus"). Neutrality^talk 21:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC we've had on this rejected using the term. Not sure why the article was ignoring consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 22:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but more than two years ago. The recent sources, all linked above, have continued to use the term. Neutrality^talk 23:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of them are, as before, in the context of "far right of the Republican party", not "far right neonazis/fascists/etc.". Hence the earlier consensus which was apparently ignored. Toa Nidhiki05 00:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no - almost all the cites just say "far right" full stop, not just far right of the party. Neutrality^talk 01:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see sources definitively declaring FC "far right." In context, the sources indicate that FC is on the far right of the Republican Party. – Lionel^(talk) 01:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources cited directly above, a very substantial number literally and directly say "far right" (not "the far-right of the party"). Neutrality^talk 02:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a consensus? Looks like there was a tie in the earlier RfC, with 3 Yes and 3 No, with a further one preferring "radical right", and one saying they were okay with "far right" if it had consensus from a broad range of sources.--Jay942942 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus was ever reached as the votes were split. GRuban simply ruled that the sources all said that they are the right-most faction of the Republican Party, even if some of those sources do call them far-right (This seems rather inconsistent given that we call the Blue Dog Coalition center-left, even though they are fiscally conservative centrist solely, because one source called them center-left Democrats). But since the votes were split, that also means that there was no consensus to include "far-right" as the position. Given that it's a term with extremely negative implications and it's about a group of living people (WP:BLP), we have no choice but to leave it out until sources that call them far-right also say their ideology is similar enough to "Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views". Alexander Levian (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a far-right group if there ever was one, and that's how they are described by reliable sources. Like many others, I'm concerned about the attempts to whitewash a far-right group in this article by ludicrously describing them as "conservative" (seriously, they are ten times more far-right than Alternative for Germany which we do describe as far-right), and I support reinstating the well-sourced description as far-right. --Tataral (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the old discussion from 2016 alone is not binding on what we do now, there seems to be a rough consensus for inclusion of far-right even in that discussion, where inclusion of the term is supported by strong policy-based arguments with sources by three editors, with one additional editor suggesting a similar wording with some qualification. Three editors write that they oppose it, but don't cite any sources or any policy-based arguments, but instead e.g. their own personal disagreement with sources. In this more recent discussion User:Neutrality also offers a strong policy-based argument for inclusion supported by sources. In sum, there is more support for inclusion of far-right than opposition to it, and when considering the weight of the arguments, there seems to be a rough consensus for it. In similar articles, where there are different views on whether a party is far-right, right-wing populist or conservative, we include all the widely used terms. For example, we describe Alternative for Germany (which is far more moderate than the Freedom Caucus and the Trumpists) as both "right-wing populist" and "often characterized as being on the far-right of the political spectrum." It has been demonstrated clearly here on the talk page that the Freedom Caucus is often characterized as far-right. The appropriate thing to do here is to mention that the Freedom Caucus views itself as conservative (in the US sense) and that they are often characterized as far-right. The article as it now stands, which portrays them as undisputedly conservative and nothing else in Wikipedia's voice, is basically propaganda. There is also no consensus of any sort for describing them as "conservative". --Tataral (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last RfC was back in 2016, I think that someone should open another one asap to determine if we can really include far-right in the infobox and in the lede. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Congressman Matt Gaetz as a member of the Freedom Caucus relies on a February 2018 story in Newsweek by Graham Lanktree.

In a piece published in The Hill more recently on September 5, 2018 (Conservatives blame McCarthy for Twitter getting before favorable committee), Melanie Zanona and Scott Wong state that "Gaetz, who is not a Freedom Caucus member, said that when he complained to McCarthy, the leader told him he should trust the members of the other panel." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/405228-conservatives-blame-mccarthy-for-twitter-getting-before-favorable-committee

These two sources contradict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9Questions (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC) 9Questions (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps The Hill writers got it wrong last month? Here are several more sources that identify Gaetz as a member of the caucus:

• Roll Call – June 2018, "Gaetz, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus"
• Fox News – July 2018, "members of his Freedom Caucus"
• The Daily Caller – July 2018, "Gaetz, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus"
• MSNBC – May 2018, "Gaetz (R-FL), member of the House Freedom Caucus"

I'd think if Gaetz left the Freedom Caucus recently, that would have made news. —ADavidB 02:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updates? Tinybirdie (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetz and caucus members received a lot of media coverage in October 2019 when they led a call for transparency in the impeachment inquiry. That coverage seemed more careful how it associated Gaetz with the group.

• Real Clear Politics – "Gaetz and Freedom Caucus members"
• Politico – "a member of the Freedom Caucus, and Gaetz"
• BuzzFeed – "[Gaetz] got into an elevator with several other Freedom Caucus members"

The last example still includes Gaetz among caucus members, though it seems he may only be "close to" the caucus rather than an actual member of it, as the article's second Gaetz citation shows. He may never have been an actual member, though media accounts are still divided over it. —ADavidB 20:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The map seems way out of date, with McClintock, Huelskamp and Lummis long gone, also, Brat, Blum, etc, and Amash more recently. Anyone up for fixing this? Iowa, California, Kansas, Wyoming, Michigan, etc., are currently Freedom Caucus-free. Activist (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new "Future members" section lists nine house members-elect who will supposedly join the caucus after they are sworn into office, citing https://www.housefreedomfund.com/ as a source. The source identifies these members as those whom the caucus has granted "endorsements", not those who will necessarily join the caucus. In fact, the source description for Barry Moore (Alabama politician), the first such 'future' member-elect listed here, includes " He is the only proven conservative candidate who will join the House Freedom Caucus next year." Is there agreement to trim the future list accordingly? —ADavidB 04:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to editor ZimZalaBim for removing the section. —ADavidB 19:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this article: mention of the Freedom Caucus's position on regulations intended to minimize the spread of Covid-19 (such as stay-at-home orders or mask mandates). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that any attempt to list the political position of the caucus as "Right-wing to Far-right" is being reversed because of consensus, which i understand, due to the fact that on the page of the main national branch of the Republican party, the consensus is to not put a political position, due to the ambiguity and factions within the party. (I am also aware of a previous talk post on this page about this issue, but the most recent consensus there seems to be to include "Far-right" as a descriptor.) However, there are clearly Far-right members of the Freedom Caucus, on Marjorie Taylor Greene's (who is a member of the Freedom Caucus) page, she's described as a "Far-right conspiracy theorist", this is evidence alone that there is at least one Far-right member of the caucus. This is backed up further by multiple sources who describe it as a "Far-right caucus". For these reasons, i feel that the political position should be "Right-wing to Far-right". Galaxy1011 (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I agree. We aren't giving the full information of the caucus. Zman19964 (Zman19964 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is no consensus against mentioning far-right that I'm aware of. On the contrary the rough consensus is to mention far-right. The infobox is simply a summary of the article. The Freedom Caucus is not the Republican Party, and whether the entire Republican Party should be described as far-right or something else is a separate discussion. --Tataral (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the caucus as a whole consists of the most "far" of the right-wing Republican party, which means "far-right", just as RS describe it. We have "It is generally considered to be the most conservative bloc within the House Republican Conference." if the "most conservative" isn't far-right, then words have lost their meaning. There is apparently some ancient consensus not to accurately describe the caucus, but consensus can change. Of course, we should follow RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It is generally considered to be the most conservative and furthest-right bloc within the House Republican Conference" – this was present for years, although the "furthest-right" part was recently removed. A new RfC will definitely have to take place. Vacant0 (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a diff for that change? It should be restored. I do find this very dubious change by User:Toa Nidhiki05, who is not a newbie and should know better. This mess needs to be fixed and brought up to date. Vague descriptors that lag far behind the current situation are unhelpful and misleading. The Overton window shows the whole party has slid far to the right, so that there is hardly a congressman who straddles the middle, as the party did before Trump. Now the whole party has slid far from center, and the Trumpists are far-right, with some openly sympathetic to racist, neo-nazi, and nationalist ideas, fully in line with Orban and Putin. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff. Vacant0 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Someone has to exist on the extreme left and right fringes of each party. These are the ones for the GOP, along with the Sedition Caucus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objection to "furthest right wing of the caucus" being included and I'm not sure when it was removed. That bit certainly isn't controversial at all. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe it should get wikilinked. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toa Nidhiki05, so why won't you allow mention in the box? We should harmonize it with the RS and lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We had a previous discussion on this you can look back on, and those reasons hold up. Toa Nidhiki05 12:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a plenty of news and scholar sources nowadays that describe the Freedom Caucus as far-right. The pre-Trump presidency tied RfC from 6 years ago is pretty much outdated. Regarding its political position, there are more sources that describe the Freedom Caucus as "far-right" than "right-wing", although "conservative" seems to be the most common ideological descriptor.

• McKay, David (2021). American Politics and Society. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781119578369. There are usually organized around a particular interest, such as the Democratic black and Hispanic caucuses, or around an ideological orientation, such as the Democratic Study Group, representing liberal causes, or the conservative Republican Tea Party Caucus later effectively replaced by the far right Freedom Caucus.
• Homan, Patrick; S. Lantis, Jeffrey (2019). The Battle for U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress, Parties, and Factions in the 21st Century. Springer. ISBN 9783030301712. Simply by threatening to withhold votes for Ryan's hand-picked successor, the far right Freedom Caucus gained unprecedented leverage.
• Drutman, Lee (2020). Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190913854. These far right Freedom Caucus member had been unhappy with Boehner's top-down style of leadership...
• Perry, Luke (2019). Donald Trump and the 2018 Midterm Battle for Central New York. Springer. ISBN 9783030130237. Behind the scenes, Faso was "a moderate voice in the contentious effort (among Republicans) to bring the far-right Freedom Caucus on board with 'repeal and replace'".
• Wong, Scott; Allen, Jonathan (April 28, 2022). "Trump expected to stump for Illinois congresswoman in primary fight against fellow lawmaker". NBC News. Retrieved August 11, 2022. Miller, who was elected to Congress in 2020, is a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus...
• Lillis, Mike (May 12, 2021). "Freedom Caucus Republican says Cheney was 'canceled'". The Hill. Retrieved August 11, 2022. Buck, a member of the far-right Freedom Caucus...
• Brown, Hayes (December 16, 2021). "Trump's election theft allies need to be expelled from the House". MSNBC. Retrieved August 11, 2022. The New York Times named names Wednesday night, calling out a half-dozen members of the far-right Freedom Caucus who worked closely with Trump in his attempt to reverse the election's results.
• Daley, David (March 29, 2017). "Trump can't stop the Freedom Caucus. He has GOP gerrymandering to blame". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 11, 2022. Ryan's American Health Care Act, however, did not go far enough for the far-right Freedom Caucus, and a majority of its members were unwilling to budge.
• Binder, Sarah. "How to waste a Congressional Majority: Trump and the Republican Congress". Foreign Affairs. 97: 83. JSTOR 44822016. In the House, the far-right Freedom Caucus would vote only for an Obamacare repeal bill that their moderate colleagues refused to support. Vacant0 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the discussion. Do any of those imply ties to Nazism or fascism? Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05, that old RfC does not hold up. New sources and a new consensus have arisen. We're in a new world now, a post-truth Trumpian world that has transformed and radicalized the GOP, and not just the base, but actual members of Congress.

Are you seriously implying that all people who are far-right are also neo-nazis or fascists? I think not, although it is disturbing how many caucus members do lend support to nationalism, racism, and autocratic leaders like Orban and Putin. The description by RS of "far-right" does not automatically imply nazism or fascism. Even within far-right circles, there are differences. It just means "further" (=far) right than merely "right-wing". The Freedom Caucus are a special breed of radical right-wingers, not just right-wing. They have gone further than the rest of the party. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being far-right does not automatically make you a fascist or a Nazi. Vacant0 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! That's exactly my point. The term "far-right", just like "right-wing" and "left-wing" are umbrella terms that encompass many aspects. Just as we can accurately say, at this exact point in history, that practically all American far-right wingers, white nationalists, racists, and neonazis are supporters of Trump, and that he encourages them and supports them, we cannot say that all Trump supporters are white nationalists, racists, and neonazis. No, many of his supporters are not. (And in the case of racists, one does find some on the left.) While those are groups that are under the "far-right wing" umbrella, not all people who are "far-right" are white nationalists, racists, and/or neonazis. If we are referring to only a subset, then we identify them specifically. In this case, we are not doing that. We are using the umbrella term, and we should not be afraid to do so when RS do so, and they do. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adavidb, you need to join this conversation before making edits like this, and edit summaries like this: "furthest right among GOP blocs is not the same thing as far right politics in general." Members of the Freedom Caucus are further right than the general GOP right-wing public and other people right-wing in Congress, ergo they are "far-right", and that's evident from their practices, statements, and allies. RS tell us this. They are not merely or just "right-wing". No, they are beyond that/further to the right than that. What other option is there? Please self-revert. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There remains a significant difference between saying the FC is farthest right among GOP blocs and labeling the caucus as practicing far-right politics. This linked article begins with descriptors such as authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist, and starts its second paragraph with Fascism and Nazism and neo- versions of the same, before listing yet more broad-brush terms of negativity. —ADavidB 19:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the recent comments above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The political label of "far right" does vary in meaning among those who use it. Applying what is here an extremist label to a political group because some of its members may fit source writers' definitions – and especially linking to the WP article which may vary greatly from those writers' definitions – is simply wrong. The United States section of the far-right politics article (read it) includes unqualified terms (for example, "overwhelmingly anti-Semitic") that have not been shown to accurately describe this caucus's currently known 42 members. As editors we are not required to include everything written by RS's, and the neutrality policy still applies in an election year. One doesn't use a linked extremist label (especially in wiki-voice) then when questioned over it, say that the (direct) description in the linked article doesn't necessarily apply and we instead mean 'farther right collectively than the others'. —ADavidB 06:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "far-right" label is inaccurately applied to numerous people, and I don't see Wikipedia labeling the Squad as "far-left" because they are clearly the "furthest left" of the Democrats' House Delegation. There should not be a blanket label applied to the freedom caucus of "far-right". All it does is diminish the actual far-right that exists in America. Bill Williams 12:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can describe this caucus as a right-wing to far-right. The U.S. centre-left Democratic Party is more progressive than the centre to centre-left DPK in South Korea or the centre to centre-left CDP in Japan, so it cannot be compared. However, the U.S. GOP is closer to the South Korean right-wing PPP or Japan's right-wing LDP than the British centre-right Conservative Party. The current GOP after Trump is an obvious right-wing party, and the Freedom Caucus should be described as far-right because it is more right-wing than the GOP. (The center-right in the GOP exists in the Blue State, but they are not the mainstream party) Mureungdowon (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Freedom Caucus has a PAC (the House Freedom Fund). Money from the PAC is used to support campaigns of current and prospective members of congress whom the Freedom Caucus endorses. Some editors are using sources that show PAC support as if they are equally sources that show caucus membership. The Freedom Caucus can certainly endorse a candidate for election (or reelection), including by providing funds from their PAC, without that candidate being or becoming a member of the caucus. An example case is Fred Keller (politician), who is identified as a "current member". The provided source only identifies him as receiving endorsement from the caucus/PAC – actually it only notes his election results. Support from the caucus does not mean one is/was or will be necessarily a member of it. I've yet to find a source that actually ID's Keller as a Freedom Caucus member. Are others in agreement that support does not equal membership? —ADavidB 02:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The red-area-indicator Freedom Caucus membership map for the 117th Congress appears to be incorrect per Scott Perry's "(PA-10)" District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.154.149 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it appears that Perry's district is included correctly, but that Fred Keller's adjacent 12th district is there as well. While Keller was supported for election by the Freedom Caucus, we don't have any sourcing to show that he is now a member. —ADavidB 03:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Good, a well known member on the Freedom Caucus, is listed as a member but does not have his district shaded accordingly. Please shade VA-05 red (Good’s district). Dashing24 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Trumpism category should be added to this article. All members of Freedom Caucus are Trump supporters, and they are clear right-wing populists, so I don't see any reason to separate Trumpism and Freedom Caucus.

Although there are significant differences between the Tea Party and the Trumpists, I believe that categories related to the subject should also be flexible. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be mentioned in the infobox or in the lead, but I was reverted by someone acting against consensus. Previous discussions have shown there is no agreement to put the contentious label at the beginning of the article. Bill Williams 05:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources currently listed are not about the Freedom Caucus, nor do they call it "far-right," they simply call a single member (MTG) of 44 "far-right." Bill Williams 05:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MTG related sources have just been removed. I added more sources referring to Freedom Caucus as "far-right". Mureungdowon (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the conservative media The Washington Times also defines the caucus as "far-right", I think it is right to define it as a far-right. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you self revert because you are going against the consensus of the article, which was to leave far-right out of the lead and the infobox, and when I removed this information, you reinstated it. A few opinion articles do not make the caucus far-right, neither does articles calling individual members far-right. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the caucus as right wing, as should the lead and the infobox. Bill Williams 04:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the agreement was three years ago. This is before violence broke out in Congress in January 2021, and the extremity of Trumpism was further revealed. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You alone cannot change past consensus, there is no reason to suddenly put "far-right" in the lead, and I have no idea what Trump has to do with anything when Trump was not a member of the Freedom Caucus and himself is not labeled as far-right by most reliable sources. Conspiracy theories about an election are not automatically equivalent to far-right ideologies like white supremacy or anti-semitism. Bill Williams 05:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The far-left/right is very relative. The modern Far Right does not necessarily presuppose white supremacy or anti-Semitism. White supremacy does not exist in South Korea or Japan. So does South Korea or Japan have no extreme right? Mureungdowon (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right clearly needs to be included. I'm not aware of any serious sources not considering this far-right trumpist group as far-right. --Tataral (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only a small percentage of sources refer to the Freedom Caucus as far-right. Please refer to the article itself for a dozen sources referring to it as right-wing, and I can find you dozens more if you want. Your personal opinion does not dictate consensus. Bill Williams 05:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty easy just by googling to find dozens of reliable sources calling the caucus "right-wing" [7] while those calling it "far-right" [8] tend to be opinion articles or are referring to specific members and not the group as a whole. Bill Williams 05:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many far-right populists in Western Europe do not support anti-Semitism or white supremacy. I don't think fascism or racism is the only extreme right. The traditional far-right is reactionalism. We must remember that there have been far-rights before the advent of fascism. The Freedom Caucus/Trumpism is NOT fascism, BUT reactionalism. Reactionalism in far-right. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new Vote is needed in this article. Freedom Caucus is a far right in the context of American politics, and the far right does not necessarily mean fascism or racism. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'United States' section of the far-right politics article includes no mention of relativity or non-inclusion of fascism or racism. —ADavidB 02:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, not all far-rights are necessarily based on fascism or racism. In far-right articles, "transphobic" and "reactionary views" are clearly mentioned as to the definition of the far-right. Freedom Caucus does not support fascism or racism, but supports reactionistic political views compared to other American conservatives, as well as discriminatory views of transgender people. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transphobic and reactionary views are not something the vast majority of sources would identify as far-right by themselves, only in combination with other views that reliable sources do not express the caucus as holding. If opposition to trans rights and whatever vague "reactionary views" definition you believe in, then half of Congress is "far-right" which is a pretty pathetic and absurd comparison to actual Nazis or other antisemites, white-supremacists etc. Holding very specific views on transgender people does not automatically make them far-right, and the vast majority of sources do not use that terminology, which is why it was not in the lead before you shoved it in there. You went against consensus and on your own volition put it in the lead, then repeatedly re-added it even though I asked you to self-revert. Bill Williams 06:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria of the far-right are relative depending on time or space. The Freedom Caucus is far right in the context of American politics, so its political position is far-right. "Far-right" does not necessarily mean that it is Nazi or anti-Semitic. Mureungdowon (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even much of the media calls them far right. I think there is a consensus that it’s right wing-far right. Many of its members are considered far right. Even this article itself in Wikipedia states it’s the furtherest right caucus. https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna61418 Zman19964 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are also grounds for being referred to as far-right by the BBC. Since there are no counterarguments, I will amend it to the right wing to the far right.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64158234 Lazt9312 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rep. Greg Murphy, M.D. is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus.

Source: Alexander Crane, Communications Director, Office of Congressman Gregory F. Murphy Alxcrn (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You've told us who has said that but didn't give us any indication as to where he said it. Please provide a source showing where he said this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 19:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there needs to be a substantial rewrite of the section, but because it's widely reported that the U.S. government may shutdown, this could be considered a current event or at least in flux and I would wait for further developments, and not begin to seek consensus on a rewrite for now.

I think the level of detail could be reduced, because either the crisis will be resolved or it will be part of an article on a 2023 government shutdown should a shutdown occur. The Freedom Caucus will likely play a role in whether a shutdown occurs and how long it lasts, and such details could be added to this page similar to how the Freedom Caucus was involved in the 2023 debt ceiling crisis.

For context, Kevin McCarthy lost two votes on advancing military spending bills last week due to 5 Republicans, most of whom also voted against him for Speaker initially, refused to vote for authorizing rules to debate them. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Jackson is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus. He has never stated his membership. 2601:5CC:C701:3DB0:FDE6:3FB1:FB8C:F54F (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: we have a WP:RS describing him as one. also feel free to check out https://www.c-span.org/video/?529337-1/house-freedom-caucus-news-conference-ndaa Cannolis (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Rep. Ronny Jackson (TX-13) from the member list of house freedom caucus members. Rep. Ronny Jacksonis NOT a member of the house freedom caucus. He never has been. Please remove him from the list of current members.

Kate Lair Lairkate (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason he is in the NDAA presser you site above when somebody else corrected this is because he had a major amendment that went into the FY 2024 NDAA. Again, Ronny Jackson has never stated his membership. This error causes a lot of confusion for his office, reporters, and the public. Please make this change to be factual... The fact is, he is not a member of HFC. Lairkate (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done we previously had a source describing him as a member https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-donald-trump-presidential-elections-election-2020-mo-brooks-8ecfb58a1845ed21d380d6c8a3181f95 but it seems they have issued a correction on 9/27, so have removed it Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetz is not in the Freedom Caucus. This page says Rep. Matt Gaetz is in the Freedom Caucus. He has said himself he is not in it. See here from Twitter, "I’m not a member of the freedom caucus. Never have been. Try again."

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1701266299240824867

Also here in May, " I’m not a member of the freedom caucus"

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1663598846662918144

Also January, "I’m not a member of the Freedom Caucus"

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1610672857721507842 Editingthispage122 (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea why his name was there. Even the sources only said he was "close to" the caucus, not a member. I've removed it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know politicians always tell the truth. Ha. As I've updated in the article, reliable sources vary as to whether he is a member or not. —ADavidB 06:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adavidb: Do you not see the glaring problem in adding someone to a “list of freedom caucus members” when one of the two sources say verbatim he is not a member? Sources aren’t “divided”, the vast majority of sources (which I’ll get around to posting here once I’m on PC) say Gaetz isn’t in the caucus, hence why I removed - not because of the politician’s own statements. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the litany of reliable sources on WP:RSP indicating he isn't a member of the caucus:

• Time Magazine; Notably, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, though often associated with the caucus, is not a member, his office confirms.
• The Hill; Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who is not a Freedom Caucus member but frequently works with them, (the source in the article)
• Politico; and while he’s not in the House Freedom Caucus,
• Forbes; Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) – who, despite being vocally pro-Trump, is also not a member of the Freedom Caucus
• Roll Call; Gaetz is not a member of the Freedom Caucus but is interested in many of the rules changes it is promoting.
• CNN; Rep. Matt Gaetz, an unabashed McCarthy critic who is not a member of the Freedom Caucus but is closely aligned with the group,
• NPR; [...] Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, who is not in the Freedom Caucus.

And a few that go to the liberty of issuing a correction on his membership:

• New York Times; An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida. He is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus.
• AP News; [..] an erroneous reference to Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz as a member of the Freedom Caucus. Gaetz is not a member of the group.
• Axios; This article has been corrected to clarify that Rep. Gaetz is not a member of the Freedom Caucus.

When there are this many sources saying he isn't a member, you can surely understand why including him in a list saying the opposite is an issue. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying a variety of sources and corrections. —ADavidB 18:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Noting these, do you believe he should be listed as a member of the caucus? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetz line is removed. —ADavidB 19:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congressman Greg Murphy of North Carolina is not a member of the House Freedom Caucus. 2600:1003:A011:6C3F:2573:25BB:A397:F23 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note there is an existing 2022 citation saying he is a member. Jamedeus (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Matt Gaetz still listed as a member? There was a big discussion recently (see above discussion on this talk page), and he was removed from the article as of October 2023. The only reference cited is from 2018, and it doesn't even claim he's a bona fide member, it says he's "close" to the Freedom Caucus: "There's Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a freshman who is close to the Freedom Caucus." Please fix. Warren Platts (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the addition of Matt Gaetz happened on 22 February 2024 by one User:Jimbo218 who is no longer with us. So I reverted the fake entry myself. I hope you all don't mind...Warren Platts (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issues that Republicans are having with governing in the House and their reliance on Democrats to pass key legislation may warrant its own article. I have created a draft, Draft:2023–24 House of Representatives legislative coalition, which I think talk page watchers of this page may be interested in. I would love help and suggestions, including those from people who don't believe this warrants an article at all. Thanks! Esolo5002 (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]