| Revision as of 16:58, 21 March 2019 editRedound (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,000 edits →Why aren't direct quotations in the article's text placed in quotation marks?: new section← 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 |
| (43 intermediate revisions by 19 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}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Link to "Health care" article == |
|
== Rename Modern liberalism to Liberalism == |
|
Should the first mention of “health care” in the lead be linked to the Misplaced Pages article on the subject? I was about to make this edit myself when I realized there might be a good reason this hasn’t been done yet, and that I’m just unaware of said reason. The terms “abortion” and “same-sex marriage” are linked in the same sentence, so why not “health care”? Thoughts?] (]) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I went ahead and added the link.] (]) 17:28, 13 November 2015 (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. |
|
== Editor's claim that Modern liberalism in the United States is not a form of American liberalism. == |
|
|
An editor repeatedly removes a link from this article to the article ], with the claim that "Modern liberalism not American liberalism". Presumably this claim is based on the idea that modern liberalism in the United States is not liberalism or is not American. This claim is strongly POV. It seems reasonable that someone reading this article, who wants to understand the origin of these ideas, would follow up by reading the Liberalism in the United States article.] (]) 13:24, 11 January 2016 (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) |
|
:I think the point is that U.S. liberalism and modern U.S. liberalism are not synonymous. The dispute is: (1) says "American liberal causes include ] for minorities, legalized ], support for ], and government programs such as ] and ]," where "American liberal" links to ]. (2) uses the term "Modern liberal" and provides no link. |
|
|
:The U.S. liberalism article is about liberalism as normally defined: support for individualism, capitalism, constitutionalism, and is the main ideology in the U.S. Liberalism has always had divisions however and the U.S. confusingly adopted the terms liberal and conservative to identify its major strands. The belief that individuals should take responsibility for their own welfare and do not have the right to engage in immoral behavior, even if it is victimless, is well within the liberal tradition. |
|
|
:I would point out though that since this article is called "Modern liberalism in the United States" it can be abbreviated to liberalism when it is understood in context that that is what is meant. But in that case there should be no links. |
|
|
:] (]) 00:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
When two articles have subjects that are synonymous, they should be combined into one article. When the subject of one article is related to the subject of another article, as is clearly the case with ] and ], they should be, and in almost every case are, linked. ] (]) 12:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:They should not be synonymous. In the other article, the first paragraph of the lead defines the topic, although most of article focuses on modern liberalism. It would probably be better to improve that article, otherwise it is just a duplication of this one. ] (]) 15:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
They should not be synonymous and are not, though I am all for improving any article. The topics of ], ], and ] should each be subsets of the preceding article, and ideally expand on one section of the preceding article. But it seems obvious to me that each article should be linked to the preceding article. ] (]) 12:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. But this article is not about liberalism in the U.S. today, but about a specific branch of U.S. liberalism. There are even problems in saying that. Some writers say there are two ideologies in the U.S.: liberalism and ] (although that article is not clear), which roughly corresponds to the liberal/] division. And the term liberal is used so widely that even socialists in the New Deal and Great Society are considered part of liberalism. ] (]) 16:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4173 |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified (February 2018) == |
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120803004534/www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/novak.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/novak.html |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160225221559/http://www.unm.edu/~pre/law/articles_advise/PolSci_Overlooked.htm to http://www.unm.edu/~pre/law/articles_advise/PolSci_Overlooked.htm |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029063356/http://articles.cnn.com/2000-12-13/politics/cnn.poll_1_sampling-error-poll-usa-today?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS to http://articles.cnn.com/2000-12-13/politics/cnn.poll_1_sampling-error-poll-usa-today?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Editing the Modern Liberalism in the U.S. template. == |
|
|
I've been trying to add some names to the template of "Modern liberalism in the United States." However, I, for some unknown reason, am not able to do so, because I don't see the "V-T-E" options for the template on it. I'd like somebody to help me fix this problem. Thank you for your understanding & cooperation. ] (]) 00:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== summary statement in lede == |
|
|
Thanks for the edit, ]. I've further tweaked it because, while I see what you were getting at with your wording, I think some of it has unintended implications. Do modern American liberals necessarily oppose privatization of healthcare? Taken literally, wouldn't that imply favoring nationalization of healthcare, and isn't that something about which liberals could reasonably take either position? Saying liberals oppose privatization of education is tantamount to saying that they're opposed to private and parochial schools. Likewise, wouldn't opposing privatization of welfare entail being against private charity? On the flip side, only die-hard libertarians support privatization of criminal justice, if by that we mostly mean policing, though privatization of prisons seems to have mainstream supporters on the right. |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm reading too much into your formulations, but what do you think about my attempt to get at many of the same points? I've tried to word it in a fair-minded way, implying neither criticism nor uncritical endorsement of those positions. And by citing the Democratic Party Platform in support of those claims, I don't have any axe to grind about how liberal the Democratic Party is, but it's certainly the most mainstream of the liberal-leaning political parties in the United States, and I couldn't think of a better citation for those claims. ] (]) 23:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Or maybe we should parallel language from the Overview section, such as, "The American modern liberal philosophy strongly endorses public spending on programs such as education, health care, and welfare," and, "Modern American liberals generally believe that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy..." ] (]) 23:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::While liberals are closer to those views than conservatives, that really hasn't been the liberal position for the last fifty years. Incidentally, many liberals support privatization of education, prisons, etc. (] means the transfer public services to private ownership or control. It doesn't mean just allowing private property to remain under private ownership.) ] (]) 05:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you've been following American politics closely enough. Democratic politicians frequently criticize Betty Devos's efforts to use government money to fund private schools, especially religious schools, objecting that it violates separation of church and state. They have also pointed out that private prisons are often corrupt, and are a way of warehousing unwanted minorities, and forcing them to work for low wages. This practice has been called "slavery" by some liberals, especially Black liberals. ] (]) 11:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I said some not all. Cory Booker and Rahm Emmanuel for example. My point is that these are not what define the distinction between liberal and conservative but that the liberals are more likely to tend one way on the issue than conservatives. There is no distinction similar to that between royalists and jacobins in the French revolution. ] (]) 20:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why aren't direct quotations in the article's text placed in quotation marks? == |
|
|
|
|
|
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 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)
