Talk:Liberal

Wow, oh-so-biased article. Consider for deletion? Mac OS X 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This page should either be cleaned up or deleted. The author(s) really need to keep a neutral point of view; the page reads more like RNC talking points or an editorial piece from Fox News. The "Brain of a Liberal" image is especially offensive--it adds absolutely nothing factual. Also, the More Information link at the bottom of the page to the wikipedia article on "Deceit" is clearly editorial opinion. Again, the article has been sabotaged and needs cleanup. Formaulhaut 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that this page has been flying under the radar, so to speak. One of the primary editors of this page in particular even has "conservative" in his name--I'm not saying people of opposite viewpoints should not edit pages like these, but just that it can indicate bias. It should be noted that there isn't a page on Wikipedia for "Conservative," but that it instead is redirected to "Conservativism." This page should redirect to Liberalism, since that page has much more depth and neutrality. This page simply isn't needed as the definition of "liberal" is best described as "one who identifies with the 'liberalism' school of thought." All of those with (any) bias that edit (any of the) pages on Wikipedia should seriously reconsider their hobbies--you're not going to persuade/fool anyone by claiming the opposite viewpoint represents "moral ambiguity" or "deceit" on Wikipedia. Mac OS X 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How did you not notice this one?

I agree wholeheartedly with the first commenter. This article is extremely negative, biased, and skewed. It is also far too short to cover the topic adequately. It uses very loaded and one-sided language. Examples:

- "Denial of inherent gender differences" might instead say equality of opportunity regardless of sex/gender.

- "Taxpayer-funded abortion?" How about taxpayer-funded welfare checks to mothers not prepared to raise children?

- "Opposition to a strong American foreign policy" - perhaps you mean opposition to an Imperialist foreign policy?

The list can go on and on...and this one seems obviously put together by a liberal-hating American conservative (bias and the origins of articles on Wikipedia should not be this obvious).

149.136.25.254 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

no 2601:646:C300:7080:6925:2BE6:AE26:668E (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Blanking and Redirecting

Please do not blank or redirect the page until the close of the AfD, the notice clearly says "but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed" Conservativechuck 00:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's policy is also to not steal from other wiki sites completely and to not be biased. It deserves to be redirected. Mac OS X 00:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The information is not stolen, it is released under a GFDL compatible license. If you believe something is biased feel free to change it with proper sources. You have chosen to take this article to AfD, now please abide by the AfD guidelines which states that the article is not to be blanked or the notice removed until the end of the discussion. Conservativechuck 02:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire page is biased, so i changed it. I simply reverted to the last edit before it was vandalized, which was as a redirect page. Give up. You always have Conservapedia. Mac OS X 02:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith against other editors. You chose to nominate an article for deletion, the AfD notice clearly states you are not to blank the page or remove the notice until the end of discussion. Creating a redirect does both of those Conservativechuck 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The blank and redirect is fine, if not mandated by policy. The article version is utter poppycock, speediable on quite a few grounds, not the least of which is copyvio of the dictionary.com definition. We don't copy or play tit-for-tat games with conservapedia. Good faith or bad faith has nothing to do with that, it's just completely unconstructive editing to make a point rather than to further our encyclopedic mission. Wikidemo 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Liberal (disambiguation) or Liberalism

I'll support a redirect to either until the move of Liberal (disambiguation) to Liberal happens. The redirect to Liberal (disambiguation) was the last one before the vandalism, but the redirect to Liberalism was the first and goes along with Conservative redirecting to Conservativism. Mac OS X 02:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The redirect to Liberalism is more encyclopedic, useful, and in keeping with the way most redirects / disambiguations work around here. So I'll restore it to that state. I'll take a look at "conservative" to see if it deserves the same. Wikidemo 14:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary and edit redirected the page to Liberal (disambiguation), although I agree with your statement here that the redirect to Liberalism is better. For one thing, we redirect adjectives to nouns; for another, it creates unnecessary busywork for WP:DPL when we put dabs in front of valid primary topic redirects. In this case, it would involve repiping every time someone wikilinks the word "liberal". The otheruses hatnote at the top of Liberalism takes care of any residual ambiguity in the search term. Dekimasuよ! 14:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that the general is better than the specific and we should redirect to Liberal (disambiguation) - assuming it automatically means Liberalism in the american sense is showing a bit of a cultural bias.

I'm not sure I buy the adjectives to nouns argument either, since most of the uses are nouns.

Of course what really needs to happen, as mentioned above, is the article should be deleted and Liberal (disambiguation)]] moved into it's place. Artw 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that "liberal automatically means liberalism in the American sense" - in fact, the article at Liberalism handles a very broad spectrum of ideologies and certainly doesn't give undue focus to the American usage of the term. I probably underestimated the proportion of links that are noun usages, though. As before, if the redirect to Liberalism is a valid primary topic redirect, the dab page does not need to be moved here. Dekimasuよ! 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Liberally" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Liberally. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Liberally until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Bleeding heart liberalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bleeding heart liberalism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Bleeding heart liberalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Bleeding-heart liberal" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bleeding-heart liberal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Bleeding-heart liberal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Bleeding heart liberal" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bleeding heart liberal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Bleeding heart liberal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

liberal as in Democrat

Shouldn't the politics section also note that in American context liberal is often another name for Democrat.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)