This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Liberalism sidebar template. |
|
Politics Template‑class | |||||||
|
Why exactly does the Liberalism template include all those "Other ideologies outside the series"? Wouldn't it be a better idea to create a separate Socialism series, a Conservatism series, etc.? - Mihnea Tudoreanu
This template includes many articles that have more to do with politics in general than liberalism in particular. I'm talking about the "middle section": Democracy, Freedom (political), Individual, Liberal democracy, Rule of law, Utilitarianism. The only one that really belongs there is liberal democracy. All the others are shared by liberalism and a wide variety of other ideologies. A better place for them would be Template:Politics. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would prefer to delete the articles Classical liberalism, Green liberalism, Individualism, New liberalism, Neoliberalism, Small-l liberal, Social liberalism and to concentrate the template to the main articles about or on liberalism. In the main article Liberalism there are links to the articles I would like to delete from the template. -- Gangulf 12:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am doubting about what to do with small-l-liberal
I patterned it to socialism's template, why should the socialists alone have the colorful stuff. -- Humble Guy 14:28, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Liberalism has recently turned blue and, conservatism, especially the christian democrats in Europe, started to use yellow. It used to be the other way around but not anymore, so it should be blue now. But instead of arguing each side just regarding simple color, I'd rather finish this now with a vote. Old liberal yellow or new liberal blue, take your pick. Oh, ya, the earlier status quo was yellow, so blue needs a majority to win.... This vote is a response to the unknown guy who keeps who prefers yellow, he just gave his IP address.
Note: for the unfamiliar, above section are for votes, pls discuss below.
Just because blue is used by Democrats in the United States (who I don't think even know what liberalism means) does not mean it the rest of the world is any more valid. And did you know, that East Timor and Philippines are not located in Europe? ("especially the christian democrats in Europe...")
I believe we should have an expansion for this template. Seems rather limited, especially when compared to Socialism. I'll try to make a branches article for this template one of this months. -- Humble Guy 03:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
See Ideology#Political_ideologies – Kaihsu 19:32, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I think this template shouldn't be called "Liberalism and Centrism", but just "Liberalism". Centrism is a much more vague conception, and can mean for instance Christian Democracy, which is liberal neither in the social nor the economical sense of the word. 213.243.154.187 12:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
The new layout is no improvement, so I made a rollback. Electionworld 15:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The new layout fits in the norms with the professional templates on Wikipedia recently featured on the main page. A professional article benefits by having an easily navigable template. I think you are being rather defensive -- I noted you do this rather often. Let some other people have a chance. Ogo
Oops, miscommunication: what I mean is this template looks like other templates of featured pages, not that there was a Wikipedia feature actually concerning templates themslves. Featured pages, at least the ones with templates, usually have the little solid bar submenus and they usually have the title of the series in larger, bold font above. (I tend to think appearances matter.) If you think that the aesthetics can be improved, by all means -- I generallly have a rather poor sense for what looks good, only I think the template currently is more navigable. Forgive my impetuousness on yesterday's post. I feel I often get reverted for no cause and I was acting poorly by taking it out on you. Ogo
I do not think Capitalism belongs in. Economic liberalism is allready in and I don't see the extra value of capitalism added in. Capitalism is not typical for liberalism, and some whould say it is not liberal, since liberals will act against monopolies and cartels. If you read the articles on capitalism, it is clear that it is not a current of liberalism. I deleted it from the box Electionworld 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Why are "some figures" raised up? They are all already mentioned in " Contributions to liberal theory" (some of them twice), and I think that listing them in this box is unnecessary and gives some of the (like Dahrendorf) disproportioned attention regarding their true influence to liberalism, while some other important names are left outside. So if you don't want to make this box a copy of the article "Contributions to liberal theory", it would be better to leave all the names out.-- 213.243.157.96 12:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
shouldnt Neo-liberalism be one of the main liberalisms?
What the hell is a "current"? RJII 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Are we going to include Asian liberalism, African liberalism, French liberalism, Scandinavian liberalism? Please stick to the old schools. Especially you (RJII) should agree with labeling American liberalism as a school or trend of liberalism, since it is so different from your admired classical liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried ( talk 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
But why can't American liberalism be exported to other countries?
Please follow the discussion on diverse pages. There is an article about libertarianism and one about classical liberalism. But American liberalism is a regional trend of worldwide liberalism in its variations. Electionworld = Wilfried ( talk 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
User:BoDu removed most schools of liberalism in this edit. His reason was "Most political scientists recognize only 2 schools of liberalism:classical liberalism and social liberalism". I dispute this edit, because I believe political scientists have recognized more schools of liberalism. The burder of proof is on BoDu, because he claims to have proof. Can he provide references for this deletion? - C mon 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I reorganized the template following reorganizations of templates like {{ Socialism sidebar}}, {{ Anarchism sidebar}} and {{ Communism sidebar}}. The reason for this is that smaller templates are preferable for two reasons
Making templates expandedable with the "show" button deals with these issues quite nicely. - C mon ( talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon ( talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we want thinkers/persons on this template, like on the {{ Social democracy sidebar}} and {{ Communism sidebar}}. I think John Lock, J.S. Mill and John Rawls are the most fundamental liberal thinkers in history, not including them on the template liberalism, would be like making a template on christianity, but not including Jesus. C mon ( talk) 07:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I continue to think that it is fairly better not to have thinkers in the template. Any list would be partial and not complete as liberalism is a broad movement. I think that it is fairly better to have only the link to List of liberal theorists which is more complete and useful to read.
No user other than C mon and me stated his opinion on the issue, so I observe that there is no consensus in having thinkers in the template. Anyway, in the meantime, I add to the template the two thinkers I proposed to C mon above: von Hayek and Friedman. I still hope that it will be possible to take them away from the template. -- Checco ( talk) 06:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I would use brighter colours for the template. Everyone agrees? -- Checco ( talk) 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As the most important philosopher in the English language and a critical contributor to liberal theory, David Hume certainly must be mentioned. I don't understand the inclusion of Nozick, however, as he is a marginal figure in philosophy. It would seem that figures such as John Dewey, Kant, Rousseau, and Humboldt deserve placement over him. CABlankenship ( talk) 02:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
For some reason the template does not show as expanded, neither individual sections or 'all' when the correct tag is embedded in pages. Can anyone fix this? Thanks. Maguire09 ( talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand why Immanuel Kant is in the list of important liberal thinkers, since he wasn’t really a political thinker in the first place – not mainly, and not at all important – and even when he expressed political views, they were not specifically liberal. (See Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant.) If someone does not agree with this, please explain why he should be here! CaspianRehbinder ( talk) 14:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Another editor has been removing the link to Libertarianism and replacing it with one to Right-libertarianism. I think that such a major change to a widely-used template should not be made without clear prior consensus here, and have reverted him. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This template produced broken HTML at
Germaine de Staël. The text of the "In popular culture" section was hanging off the left margin on mobile, which is usually the result of a div being closed too early (in fact the list starts with a <li>
with no enclosing <ul>
). Adding a blank line after the transclusion worked around the issue.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 02:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of separating Politicians from Philisophers, and excluding Jurists, Activists, etc, I think it would be better to have a general "people" category. Who agrees? 108.18.179.237 ( talk) 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
What is Burke doing here? He was the father of modern conservatism! I tried to delete him once before, but my edit was reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.179.237 ( talk) 01:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Anarchism is an anti-thetic theory; Liberalism promotes the existence of the rule of law.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Liberalism sidebar template. |
|
Politics Template‑class | |||||||
|
Why exactly does the Liberalism template include all those "Other ideologies outside the series"? Wouldn't it be a better idea to create a separate Socialism series, a Conservatism series, etc.? - Mihnea Tudoreanu
This template includes many articles that have more to do with politics in general than liberalism in particular. I'm talking about the "middle section": Democracy, Freedom (political), Individual, Liberal democracy, Rule of law, Utilitarianism. The only one that really belongs there is liberal democracy. All the others are shared by liberalism and a wide variety of other ideologies. A better place for them would be Template:Politics. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would prefer to delete the articles Classical liberalism, Green liberalism, Individualism, New liberalism, Neoliberalism, Small-l liberal, Social liberalism and to concentrate the template to the main articles about or on liberalism. In the main article Liberalism there are links to the articles I would like to delete from the template. -- Gangulf 12:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am doubting about what to do with small-l-liberal
I patterned it to socialism's template, why should the socialists alone have the colorful stuff. -- Humble Guy 14:28, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Liberalism has recently turned blue and, conservatism, especially the christian democrats in Europe, started to use yellow. It used to be the other way around but not anymore, so it should be blue now. But instead of arguing each side just regarding simple color, I'd rather finish this now with a vote. Old liberal yellow or new liberal blue, take your pick. Oh, ya, the earlier status quo was yellow, so blue needs a majority to win.... This vote is a response to the unknown guy who keeps who prefers yellow, he just gave his IP address.
Note: for the unfamiliar, above section are for votes, pls discuss below.
Just because blue is used by Democrats in the United States (who I don't think even know what liberalism means) does not mean it the rest of the world is any more valid. And did you know, that East Timor and Philippines are not located in Europe? ("especially the christian democrats in Europe...")
I believe we should have an expansion for this template. Seems rather limited, especially when compared to Socialism. I'll try to make a branches article for this template one of this months. -- Humble Guy 03:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
See Ideology#Political_ideologies – Kaihsu 19:32, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I think this template shouldn't be called "Liberalism and Centrism", but just "Liberalism". Centrism is a much more vague conception, and can mean for instance Christian Democracy, which is liberal neither in the social nor the economical sense of the word. 213.243.154.187 12:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
The new layout is no improvement, so I made a rollback. Electionworld 15:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The new layout fits in the norms with the professional templates on Wikipedia recently featured on the main page. A professional article benefits by having an easily navigable template. I think you are being rather defensive -- I noted you do this rather often. Let some other people have a chance. Ogo
Oops, miscommunication: what I mean is this template looks like other templates of featured pages, not that there was a Wikipedia feature actually concerning templates themslves. Featured pages, at least the ones with templates, usually have the little solid bar submenus and they usually have the title of the series in larger, bold font above. (I tend to think appearances matter.) If you think that the aesthetics can be improved, by all means -- I generallly have a rather poor sense for what looks good, only I think the template currently is more navigable. Forgive my impetuousness on yesterday's post. I feel I often get reverted for no cause and I was acting poorly by taking it out on you. Ogo
I do not think Capitalism belongs in. Economic liberalism is allready in and I don't see the extra value of capitalism added in. Capitalism is not typical for liberalism, and some whould say it is not liberal, since liberals will act against monopolies and cartels. If you read the articles on capitalism, it is clear that it is not a current of liberalism. I deleted it from the box Electionworld 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Why are "some figures" raised up? They are all already mentioned in " Contributions to liberal theory" (some of them twice), and I think that listing them in this box is unnecessary and gives some of the (like Dahrendorf) disproportioned attention regarding their true influence to liberalism, while some other important names are left outside. So if you don't want to make this box a copy of the article "Contributions to liberal theory", it would be better to leave all the names out.-- 213.243.157.96 12:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
shouldnt Neo-liberalism be one of the main liberalisms?
What the hell is a "current"? RJII 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Are we going to include Asian liberalism, African liberalism, French liberalism, Scandinavian liberalism? Please stick to the old schools. Especially you (RJII) should agree with labeling American liberalism as a school or trend of liberalism, since it is so different from your admired classical liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried ( talk 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
But why can't American liberalism be exported to other countries?
Please follow the discussion on diverse pages. There is an article about libertarianism and one about classical liberalism. But American liberalism is a regional trend of worldwide liberalism in its variations. Electionworld = Wilfried ( talk 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
User:BoDu removed most schools of liberalism in this edit. His reason was "Most political scientists recognize only 2 schools of liberalism:classical liberalism and social liberalism". I dispute this edit, because I believe political scientists have recognized more schools of liberalism. The burder of proof is on BoDu, because he claims to have proof. Can he provide references for this deletion? - C mon 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I reorganized the template following reorganizations of templates like {{ Socialism sidebar}}, {{ Anarchism sidebar}} and {{ Communism sidebar}}. The reason for this is that smaller templates are preferable for two reasons
Making templates expandedable with the "show" button deals with these issues quite nicely. - C mon ( talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon ( talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we want thinkers/persons on this template, like on the {{ Social democracy sidebar}} and {{ Communism sidebar}}. I think John Lock, J.S. Mill and John Rawls are the most fundamental liberal thinkers in history, not including them on the template liberalism, would be like making a template on christianity, but not including Jesus. C mon ( talk) 07:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I continue to think that it is fairly better not to have thinkers in the template. Any list would be partial and not complete as liberalism is a broad movement. I think that it is fairly better to have only the link to List of liberal theorists which is more complete and useful to read.
No user other than C mon and me stated his opinion on the issue, so I observe that there is no consensus in having thinkers in the template. Anyway, in the meantime, I add to the template the two thinkers I proposed to C mon above: von Hayek and Friedman. I still hope that it will be possible to take them away from the template. -- Checco ( talk) 06:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I would use brighter colours for the template. Everyone agrees? -- Checco ( talk) 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As the most important philosopher in the English language and a critical contributor to liberal theory, David Hume certainly must be mentioned. I don't understand the inclusion of Nozick, however, as he is a marginal figure in philosophy. It would seem that figures such as John Dewey, Kant, Rousseau, and Humboldt deserve placement over him. CABlankenship ( talk) 02:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
For some reason the template does not show as expanded, neither individual sections or 'all' when the correct tag is embedded in pages. Can anyone fix this? Thanks. Maguire09 ( talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand why Immanuel Kant is in the list of important liberal thinkers, since he wasn’t really a political thinker in the first place – not mainly, and not at all important – and even when he expressed political views, they were not specifically liberal. (See Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant.) If someone does not agree with this, please explain why he should be here! CaspianRehbinder ( talk) 14:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Another editor has been removing the link to Libertarianism and replacing it with one to Right-libertarianism. I think that such a major change to a widely-used template should not be made without clear prior consensus here, and have reverted him. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This template produced broken HTML at
Germaine de Staël. The text of the "In popular culture" section was hanging off the left margin on mobile, which is usually the result of a div being closed too early (in fact the list starts with a <li>
with no enclosing <ul>
). Adding a blank line after the transclusion worked around the issue.
Hairy Dude (
talk) 02:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of separating Politicians from Philisophers, and excluding Jurists, Activists, etc, I think it would be better to have a general "people" category. Who agrees? 108.18.179.237 ( talk) 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
What is Burke doing here? He was the father of modern conservatism! I tried to delete him once before, but my edit was reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.179.237 ( talk) 01:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Anarchism is an anti-thetic theory; Liberalism promotes the existence of the rule of law.