| Revision as of 12:10, 15 January 2021 editRick Norwood (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users21,613 edits →Removal of the list of proponent: signing comment accidentally left unsigned← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:11, 27 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,120 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States/Archive 3) (bot |
| (16 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} |
|
|
{{Vital article|topic=Society|level=5|class=B}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class= B|importance=mid|liberalism=yes|liberalism-importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class= B|political=yes|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|political=yes|importance=mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|ap}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|target=/Archive index |
| Line 15: |
Line 14: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader={{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader={{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize=250K |
|
|maxarchivesize=200K |
|
|counter=2 |
|
|counter=3 |
|
|minthreadsleft=5 |
|
|minthreadsleft=1 |
|
|algo=old(90d) |
|
|algo=old(365d) |
|
|archive=Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive=Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Archives|bot=MiszaBot I|age=90|search=yes|index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rename Modern liberalism to Liberalism == |
|
== Why aren't direct quotations in the article's text placed in quotation marks? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose renaming the Misplaced Pages article by removing modern from modern liberalism. The term liberalism is more commonly used than modern liberalism when referring to this ideology. For example, the Democratic Party's infobox labels it simply as liberalism. |
|
Just looked at this article for the first time. The second and third sentences in the opening paragraph are a direct, verbatim quotation from a footnoted source, but those sentences are not in quotation marks in the text. Is there a Misplaced Pages policy that approves this practice? Anywhere else it would be plagiarism, and footnoting the direct quotation would not be considered sufficient. Why not put the sentences in quotation marks in the text?] (]) 16:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I added them. In any case, we need to review the lead since it is ambiguous whether it refers to the shared ideology of what are today called liberals and conservatives or just liberals. Conservatives with the exception of a radical fringe have of course accepted modern liberal policies such as income tax, the end of the gold standard, and social security. ] (]) 22:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, the Republican Party's ideology is referred to as conservatism, which aligns with the term's usual usage. The existing Liberalism in the United States page could then be renamed to Classical Liberalism in the United States, mirroring the approach taken with the Traditionalist Conservatism article, which reflects the original version of American conservatism. ] (]) 10:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== This article is a mess == |
|
|
|
|
|
It loses the thread after the 1960s, shifting focus from liberalism in the United States to simply listing issues in quasi-chronological order (environmental and labor politics by no means faded after the 1970s, or if they did, they very much have reversed that now.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Worst of all is the "Return of Protest Politics" section, which not only ends in 2016 for some unfathomable reason (regardless of your thoughts on it, the Women's March undoubtedly is one of the most notable instances of protest politics this decade, and is more representative of "modern liberalism" than most of the protests in the section) but is mostly a recap of the Bush and Obama presidencies interspersed with mention of a few protests -- primarily Occupy and Black Lives Matter -- that are not neatly classified as "liberal" (as opposed to left, or mixed in the case of Occupy). The mention of Black Lives Matter is also accompanied, for some reason, by a quote criticizing the movement by someone of dubious relevance. |
|
|
|
|
|
And really, the fact that the timeline of this article ends in 2016 is bizarre. I'm not even just talking about the Trump administration; the 2016 Democratic primary and now the 2020 primary were in part referendums on what kind of "liberalism," if any, the party would define itself around. ] (]) 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Then fix it. I agree though there is a problem. Modern liberalism was an agent of change in the 1930s to 1960s. It's not clear what it means today. Is it the establishment or progressive Democrats? ] (]) 20:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Given that it is a very charged topic I thought it would be best to bring it up on the talk page instead of slashing and burning out of nowhere. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: There's a problem in the the early timeline too, for example the comment, "In 1900–1920, liberals called themselves progressives." But progressivism and modern U.S. liberalism are distinct, with the latter developing in the 1930s, long after the Progressive Era. ] (]) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What adds to confusion is that ] covers a lot of similar ground; perhaps necessarily. But if Modern Liberalism is mainly a term for changes 1930 - 1960 then the article could be reduced in scope with the excess parts merged with the fore mentioned article? ] (]) 12:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== summary picture == |
|
|
|
|
|
I question in the sidebar summary picture whether Hillary would be a better choice than one of Pelosi, Krugman, Bader Ginsburg, and certainly also Sotomayor. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Nancy Pelosi, a liberal? She's against ''Medicare for All'' & continuously backs every Pentagon budget. ] (]) 17:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Theodore Roosevelt == |
|
|
|
|
|
Theodore Roosevelt is not a liberal based on his era and today. He had populist view of conservation for his era should not be misappropriated for the 1960s environmentalism movement. Lincoln could be considered a liberal using similar misinterpretation by opposing conservative southern Democrat Congressmen and Senators. Since Lincoln would not be considered a liberal. Theodore Roosevelt should not be considered one either. Please remove him from the Modern Liberalism list which rightly should begin with Franklin Roosevelt instead. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Modern liberalism and modern conservatism really begin in the 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt called his supporters liberals and his opponents conservatives. That happened because the two parties were not yet fully polarized along left-right lines. The most one could say about TR is that some of his policies anticipated liberalism and some of his supporters would eventually become New Dealers. ] (]) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::And, by the way, Lincoln is universally considered one of the most important liberals in American history, alongside Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt. Some conservatives try to pretend otherwise, because he was a Republican, but as TFD points out, the polarization of the parties did not exist then.] (]) 11:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Going back to the beginnings of the Republic, there has always been a left-right division in politics which has cut across party lines, unlike other countries where parties had much less overlap in ideology. But there has also been considerable realignment. So Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and TR can end up in the pantheons of both sides. ] (]) 14:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of the list of proponent == |
|
|
|
|
|
Such a list would be chronically incomplete. Most of the names listed were unsourced. The list adds no benefit to the article and just takes up space. People on this list are not of the same era and some would disagree on key issues. |
|
|
Also the article is ]. ] (]) 07:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Essentially all such lists, which are common throughout Misplaced Pages, are necessarily incomplete. Also, I noticed you first deleted just one name, and then decided to delete everybody else. I restored the list, you deleted it again. Rather than engage in an edit war, I'll request other Wikipedians to restore the list if they find it encyclopedic. ] (]) 12:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::In the essay ], it is stated that "] may also be crufty, especially when they are ] collections of ] (trivia)". I feel this describes the list I removed perfectly. ] (]) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
I don't see any point of having a long list. If someone is important to liberalism, then their name should be in the article and readers can follow the link to their article. After reading about LBJ's Great Society and civil rights legislation, they may want to go to the article about him. But having his name in a list with dozens of other liberal politicians isn't helpful. ] (]) 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As a compromise, I've moved the deleted list to a new article ] paralleling the structure of the article ].] (]) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
I propose renaming the Misplaced Pages article by removing modern from modern liberalism. The term liberalism is more commonly used than modern liberalism when referring to this ideology. For example, the Democratic Party's infobox labels it simply as liberalism.
Similarly, the Republican Party's ideology is referred to as conservatism, which aligns with the term's usual usage. The existing Liberalism in the United States page could then be renamed to Classical Liberalism in the United States, mirroring the approach taken with the Traditionalist Conservatism article, which reflects the original version of American conservatism. Guotaian (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
