Talk:Congressional Progressive Caucus

"Center-left to left-wing" in the infobox

It is unreasonable to imply that the progressives are "left-wing" beyond being center-left. Social democracy is center-left and the progressives are only partially social democrat. Liberalism is a centrist ideology, even social liberalism. AOC and the others who are democratic socialists are indeed left-wing (not center-left) however they are only a very minor part of the party. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia goes off sources, not what you feel fits. Social democracy is center-left to left-wing and most people would say social liberalism is center-left. Also, this is a caucus, not a party. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense! Sources are to be taken in context! Altanner1991 (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

From Left-wing politics: Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for movements more critical of capitalism, including the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism, Leninism and syndicalism Altanner1991 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

when it comes to different political environments, maybe we choose to use more sided words than what it really is, perhaps. — Tonkarooson • (📭|edits) 22:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

That is a matter of debate. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles are not a valid source. Note that the other article has no source for the claim. TFD (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a policy source for the claim? It seems reasonable that vital contributions can be made based on the information provided from articles unless they are proven incorrrect! Citations are only used when needed; bibliographies and common knowledge can be used to provide WP:V for the claim. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It is well established that social democracy is center-left. Now, radical social democracy, which Bernie Sanders and the Squad represent, is center-left to left-wing, while “true” democratic socialism is middle-left (left-wing). The reason I wouldn’t call them democratic socialists is that, while they may have populist tendencies, they don’t advocate for socialization/nationalization of basic industries (and an eventual socialization of all industries, which is what socialism is), unlike for example Jeremy Corbyn, who is indeed a democratic socialist. Now, consider that this is the “left-wing (or even far-left)”of the caucus. The “center-right” of the faction, which includes people with similar ideology to Elizabeth Warren, is (moderate) social democratic at best, so center-left. Add on top of that many people who belong to both the CPC and the NDC, who are mainstream (modern) liberals, so center to center-left, and you get a caucus which is center-left, when taken as a whole. Otherwise, if you don’t want to include the people who belong to both factions, then the same should be done for the NDC, leaving only the third-way-ists, which would make it centrist, given that the Democratic Party as a whole is center to center-left.

Btw, I know that sources are needed, but we must take those things into account. Abotekap (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Btw, I’ve said in the past that the CPC should be described as “center-left with left-wing factions”, but this was also wrong, upon further reflection, because the Squad and Bernie Sanders aren’t left-wing, because, as I said above, they don’t want to socialize/nationalize basic industries, and they don’t want to (gradually, and through democratic means) replace capitalism with socialism, they don’t oppose capitalism, and thus aren’t democratic socialists in reality. Abotekap (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Correct. Imo the CPC is only center-left. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I am changing my proposal to "center". This is because the CPC is not more left than center. What I mean to say is that they may be center-left, but they are more center than left. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line is that the CPC advocates for broadly social democratic policies, and despite dem socialist identification for many of its members, none of them are advocated for social ownership of the means of production, and therefore the caucus doesn't even really dip into middle-left or left wing positioning. The CPC doesn't even support limited nationalization of industry like Latin American left wing parties that gets their foot in the door. Therefore I think its reasonable to say that Center-left is the clearest and most accurate identification we can give it if were speaking objectively and globally. Bedandbreakfast118 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Do they consider themselves to be liberal? I believe that they do. And liberalism is a centrist ideology, even if social liberalism tends towards social democracy in the center-left sphere. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

They mainly call themselves progressives, and it’s mainly about the functional reality of their policy proposals. Universal program advocacy is in line with social democratic center left policy, in contrast to the average liberals who only support minor social safety net expansion like paid family and medical leave or increasing the minimum wage a bit. Therefore even if some identity as liberals, most don’t and their policies align with social democracy and the center left. Bedandbreakfast118 (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

You provide good points.

But, the 2019 Pew survey showed general identification with liberalism nonetheless, which contradicts your statement "Therefore even if some identity as liberals, most don’t". Altanner1991 (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Link the source Bedandbreakfast118 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm adding the comment I added to the article to this talk page, plus links.
> There is an ongoing debate about whether this should be "Center-left", "Center-left to left-wing", or "Left-wing". I do not mean to step into this debate; therefore, I have unscientifically and arbitrarily chosen the option that looked like it was on the page for the longest period of time in the last few weeks. I think it would be good to avoid editing this line until a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Remember that claims need to be verifiable (WP:V). Also remember MOS:TIES. Blippy1998 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown I encourage you to discuss on the talk page, as per the comment directly next to the excerpt you edited, as there clearly is a lack of obvious consensus and this weekslong back-and-forth smacks of an edit war. Blippy1998 (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I was only restoring content that was initially removed without consensus or a valid reason. Part of the argument to remove that content was a lack of sourcing, when, in fact, the sourcing had been erroneously removed. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS we are going to need good sources to provide evidence for the claims. (These sources should be refenced using citations directly on the material provided...) Altanner1991 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd further like to add that people here are having abstract discussions about political concepts and ideologies, and seem to have favored views of what ought to be considered "left" or "center" or whatnot and are attempting to find sources whose labels match their views and conclusions. This is a form of bias. I suggest people simply look up "Congressional Progressive Caucus" on search engines or neutral, reliable sources like recent editions of encyclopedias (perhaps The Almanac of American Politics), C-SPAN's website, or even the Congressional Research Service, or some other such source with a sterling reputation for neutrality, and simply use whatever range comes up in those sources. Blippy1998 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

As a caucus, its political position is rarely discussed in terms of comparitive politics, and most sources omit such labels entirely, preferring terms like "progressive" or ”very liberal", or only describe it in relation to other Dem caucuses (i.e. "to the left of the NDC"). Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to ommitting a position entirely on this page, as there's clearly a deficit of RS that discuss it. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I imagine readers would be interested in one, though. In the meantime, I checked C-SPAN and the CRS and some others and didn't find anything useful. If someone has a copy of the Almanac, that could have some good info. I don't know any titles of American encyclopedias off the top of my head. Blippy1998 (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with removing political position from the WP:DISINFOBOX section per WP:ONUS. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s a great idea considering the whole system we’ve set up for the other caucuses and their position, and the fact that we have sources within the page that have the group being referred to by the labels we’re debating. The best thing we can do is come to a conclusion on the positioning based off of the facts at hand. American Progressivism is understood by sourcing to be in line with social democracy, and therefore the CPC can fairly be considered center left on a base level as to line it up with global positions standards. Various sources within the page itself back this point conclusion. Bedandbreakfast118 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

One of my points above is that "is understood" plus "can fairly be considered" isn't really the standard we use. Such approximations should only be used if reliable sources lack explicit labels for positions.

Another of my points above is that the reliable sources should have "sterling reputation[s] for neutrality". (At worst, the collection of such reliable sources should be circumspect.)

I agree that there probably should be consensus around a position that can be listed, though. Blippy1998 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

But is that not how every political party alignment has been decided for a number of these wiki pages. You look at the policy positions of a party or faction and if they line up with conventional understanding of center left, center right, and so on by the pre-existing structure, and then you make a determination alongside News sources that refer to the group as such for addional evidence. I don’t see why we need to be so specific and methodical when the center left identification is understood by us as accurate due to the social democratic policy positions and socially progressivism associated with the caucus as well as lining up with the standards of all other political party pages. Bedandbreakfast118 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

If there are articles that have estimated a political party's position based on their policies, there shouldn't be. Per WP:SYNTH, Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources., we as Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to editorialise or engage in original research. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 22:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. I didn't realize that was outlined so explicitly at that page (WP:SYNTH) but that's exactly what I've been driving at. Claims need to be verifiable by reliable sources.

By the way, at Talk:Freedom Caucus#Right-wing/Far-right, I've already proposed opening an RfC on this topic for articles including this one. I don't know how that works though. @DN This is the other place I'm aware of that discussion has been happening on this general subject. Blippy1998 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

See also the constant discussions (archived too) at Talk:Democratic Party. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Correct. Other articles are not a viable source. Just because another article does something, doesn't mean we have to do it here. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree but it’s not one article it’s like the majority of protocols party articles you can look at the formula. Classical liberal parties in Europe are center to center right because of a blend of socially liberal and economically liberal positions, which is backed up by an even number of sources calling the party either centrist or center right. That formula is repeated for like most if not all European political parties. So if we’re gonna upend that formula for this one page that’s fine but that’s the context I’m working with here. Bedandbreakfast118 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That isn't true, Several liberal parties in Europe are described as "Centre to centre-right" solely because of the sourcing supporting the label. We don't start from a conclusion based on original research and find sources that back up said conclusion. All content within articles is only there because it's attributed to a reliable secondary source. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. Political position is contextually defined. Without context, it is meaningless. TFD (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t agree, because many people simply skip the details, and want to quickly get a glimpse of the faction’s ideological position (for example, I do that too sometimes, with parties from other countries), and may not have the time or will to look up what each of its ideologies means exactly. To answer to other comments, the political positioning should be absolute (ideologically, not policy-wise), because having to navigate each country’s relative political positioning makes it harder than it should be. Maybe we should make an article placing all (major at least) ideologies on a (likely qualitative, though I would have no problem with a quantitative one) scale, and then possibly even making a guide of how to categorize a faction/party/movement ideologically, according to scientific consensus.

Maybe one of you could also share a link of a Wiki place where we can discuss about those things. Abotekap (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That could be a worthwhile major project, and maybe one that some professor has already taken on, but that is surely out of scope of Wikipedia (WP:No original research). Blippy1998 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, my two cents: I understand that far-right and right-wing media and politicians want to label everything and everyone to their left as Marxist or anything far-left (including even some people and organizations widely regarded as centrists) as a tactic to scare voters and mobilize their own supporters, but Wikipedia editors should not fall into that trap. Within that grouping in the party, it is rare for anyone to fully support what would be considered social democracy in Europe, let alone anything further left. Also, even if at some point one, five, or ten members out of almost 100 support the abolition of private property or private ownership of the means of production, that is still not enough to label the whole group as exclusively left-wing.~2026-28816-95 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Without consensus on the sourcing, it must be removed per WP:ONUS. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That would make sense if centre left had a clear meaning, which it doesn't. TFD (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

formatting help/attempt(?)

i was trying to use {{Multiple image}} since there’s quite a bit of images on the right there, but i was having a difficult time understanding it. maybe someone else can help me or do it for me?

this is the code i was using:

{{multiple images|perrow = 2|total_width = 300<br/>
|image1 = File:Pramila Jayapal, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg<br/>
|image2 = File:Rep. Greg Casar - 118th Congress.jpg<br/>
|image3 = File:Chuy Garcia official portrait.jpg<br/>
|footer = Chairwoman [[Pramila Jayapal]] (2019-2025), from [[Washington's 7th congressional district]] (top-left)<br/>Current chairman [[Greg Casar]], from [[Texas's 35th congressional district|Texas' 35th congressional district]].

— Tonkarooson • (📭|edits) 04:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

It isn't liking that you've stated "file:" on the file names, so if you drop that it'll work. You'll see that at {{Multiple image}} they don't state file: (or image: ). (Also don't add the break tags, I'm assuming those were added for here rather than live use, but just stating outright.) Use this:

{{multiple images|perrow = 2|total_width= 300
|image1 = Pramila Jayapal, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg
|image2 = Rep. Greg Casar - 118th Congress.jpg
|image3 = Chuy Garcia official portrait.jpg
|footer = Chairwoman [[Pramila Jayapal]] (2019-2025), from [[Washington's 7th congressional district]] (top-left)<br/>Current chairman [[Greg Casar]], from [[Texas's 35th congressional district|Texas' 35th congressional district]].}}

Zinnober9 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

ahhh, i forgot abt using “file:”. i also don’t know why i was using “br”.
anyways, thank you for help me, even if i forgot lolol — Tonkarooson • (📭|edits) 21:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Update

Can we add in new New Jersey Congresswoman Analilia Mejia please? She is a progressive and she has not joined the New Democrat Coalition or the Blue Dogs. Please update the list to include Representative Analilia Mejia of New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District please Stardust1259 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

That is not sufficient reason to add a member; see WP:V. Perhaps the best source to use is https://progressives.house.gov/caucus-members, which now lists her as a member. Blippy1998 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2026

Change "Congressional Political Caucus PAC" to "Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC" Evanwhit (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)