Talk:2023–24 U.S. House legislative coalition

	United States portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Thing(s).

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Split

This is not a European-style legislative coalition, even an informal one. Unlike in parliamentary systems, in the United States it is common and unnoteworthy for legislation to pass with some votes from both parties. The idea that Republicans should try to pass legislation without any Democratic votes is a new one—even the Hastert rule didn't require that—and one that has not even been put into practice.

What this article does have is a good description of funding-related legislation during the 118th Congress, but that text is customarily in the article for each year's federal budget. I propose to move the text to 2024 United States federal budget and 2025 United States federal budget, and possibly other articles, as appropriate. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you take this request to WP:AFD. These split proposals tend to not get a lot of responses and be open for long periods of time.

That being said, I'm opposed to a merge . I think the current sources in the article speak for themselves. Specifically [1], [2] and [3], which all deal with the unprecdented nature of the situation. These sources establish notability outside of the budget articles Esolo5002 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be clear about what exactly is unprecedented here. As I said, some of the minority voting with the majority on major legislation is very commonplace in U.S. politics—it's not a coalition. The Rules Committee vote on the foreign aid package in April 2024 and the vote to table the motion to vacate in May 2024 are unusual, but they're one-off events and don't look like an ongoing coalition. Even so, most of the text of this article is unrelated to those two events.

Also, are there reliable sources that specifically say that this is literally a coalition? If not, the article title shouldn't be worded to state that one exists.

I'm not nominating the article for deletion since the text is actually very good, I believe it's just in the wrong place. We can ping relevant WikiProjects if there's need for more !votes. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support.

As someone who has done some work on this page, I have come to agree that the alliances between Democrats and pro-Speaker Republicans, while very interesting and peculiar, and way more common than in other Congresses, are not unique enough to warrant their own page.

I agree on moving the parts on spending to the pages you mentioned, but I would say that a significant portion of this article should be transferred to an ad-hoc section of the 118th United States Congress page. Revangarde568 (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?

I can't do an AfD right now but this article seems to be deletion worthy with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations. 1) the idea that there are any coalitions (and I use that term loosely) between fractions of the Republican and Democratic parties exist is dubious at best and outright false at worst. 2) the infobox, especially but not to the ideology section, makes claims that are not supported in any of the sources. 3) the article can't even agree who is apart of this "coalition". 4) this article synthesizes sources from the 2 speaker elections in 2023, the removal of Kevin McCarthy, and the various bills to stop a government shutdown to create a narrative unsupported by reliable sources TheMysteriousStar (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the split discussion above; the text itself is well written and I believe it should be moved to the annual budget articles. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]