Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Redound (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 21 March 2019 (→Why aren't direct quotations in the article's text placed in quotation marks?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:58, 21 March 2019 by Redound (talk | contribs) (→Why aren't direct quotations in the article's text placed in quotation marks?: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Modern liberalism in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States High‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Link to "Health care" article

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?Kerdooskis (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the link.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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 Liberalism in the United States, 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.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2016 (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 voting rights for minorities, legalized abortion, support for same-sex marriage, and government programs such as education and health care," where "American liberal" links to Liberalism in the United States. (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.

TFD (talk) 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 Liberalism in the United States and Modern Liberalism in the United States, they should be, and in almost every case are, linked. Rick Norwood (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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 Liberalism, Liberalism in the United States, and Modern Liberalism in the United States 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. Rick Norwood (talk) 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 Republicanism in the United States (although that article is not clear), which roughly corresponds to the liberal/radical division. And the term liberal is used so widely that even socialists in the New Deal and Great Society are considered part of liberalism. TFD (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern liberalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Modern liberalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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. Mr. Brain (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

summary statement in lede

Thanks for the edit, Rick Norwood. 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. Jbening (talk) 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..." Jbening (talk) 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. (Privatization means the transfer public services to private ownership or control. It doesn't mean just allowing private property to remain under private ownership.) TFD (talk) 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. Rick Norwood (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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?Redound (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories: