Template talk:Political ideologies

message: Please do not change the background colours to that used in :Image:Political Ideologies.png.  The colours used here are representative of the historical parties with the respective ideologies.  The colours used in the image are not. – Kaihsu 13:13, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
*The colours are horribly ugly and are an affront to people who have full sight. They should be changed so that people who aren't colour-blind can look at it without getting a headache.Spylab 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against a new colour scheme, but grey/green/grey/green was very ugly. C mon 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks (only grey) much better then either of the other two (pastel rainbow & grey/green). C mon 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours

message: Dominionism has been included in this template. I don't think dominionism is as large and significant a political ideology as the others.
For instance Anarchism has 4,560,000 google hits, christian democracy 38,900,000, communism 29,200,000, 340,000, conservatism 16,400,000, fascism 16,100,000, green politics 822,000, liberalism 19,700,000, libertarianism 2,130,000, socialism 22,3000,000 and dominionism only 126,000 (about a third of the smallest of the others). While not-included ideologies like social-democracy (1,500,000 hits) and zionism (6,060,000) have more hits. Dominionism also has less then 250 links on wikipedia, while anarchism has more than 1500, christian democracy more than 250, communism more than 3500, fascism more than 2500, green politics more than 250, liberalism more then 2500, libertarianism more than 2000, socialism  more than 3500. Non included ideologies like trotskyism (more than 500) have more links. Furthermore there is no explicitly dominionist international.
Now I realize that google hits don't make an arugment, but I think it signifies that dominionism is a small ideology, which does not merit inclusion in this template. Because we have to prevent every minor ideology getting included in this template.
-C mon 08:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing there is no reaction, I've removed dominionism. C mon 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to disagree, Dominionism is still a political ideology, but it is too minor to be included in this template. So the template can stay. C mon 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where to look in Wiki policies about template use, but I thought I read something on another discussion page that if a template is used, the article where it is used should at least mention something on the template to warrant the template being there. Have you ever heard that before?  Thanks for taking the time to discuss :-) --Awinger48 21:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I personally agree with your logic there is no wikipedia policy on this. See talk:sustainability#Political ideology templates for a discussion of this. C mon 21:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll check it out. Thank you :-) --Awinger48 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominionism

message: Why isn't Theocracy on here? I'm adding it in.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then instead perhaps it should have Zionism and Islamism.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theocracy? 

message: Is it really necessary to include all currents within communism? I hoped we could keep this list clean and simple. Communist currents are part of the communism template. Including it here would only create a precedence to include all kinds of currents, making a clean and simple template, unnecessarily cloggy and large. C mon 09:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the change. – Kaihsu 10:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marxism, Trotskyism, Communism

message: I added islamism as it already has an article under "islam" - section, although current article on islamism is problematic. I think it is in general a problem that template has only western ideologies. 03:40, 12 June 2006 (Moscow time)
:I think it needs Zionism too. Christian democracy, Islamism, and Zionism are all major political ideologies of the three major abrahamic religions. They matter a lot to religion and politics.-- The ikiroid  03:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some class islamism on fascism. Why islamism is different to fascism? Pixeltoo 17:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamism

message: I've removed capitalism earlier because it is an economic system, see for instance the introduction of the capitalism article:
"Capitalism has been defined in various related ways by different economic theoristsDefinitions of capitalism. Wikiquote, (2006), and is commonly understood to mean an economic or socioeconomic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, mostly through the employment of labour. In such a system, money mediates the distribution and exchange of goods, services, and labour in largely free markets.  Decisions regarding investment are made privately, and production and distribution is primarily controlled by companies or businesses each competingMerriam-Webster Third New International Unabridged Dictionary defines "competition" in business as "a: the effort of two or more parties to secure the custom of a third party by the offer of the most favorable terms. b: a market condition in which a large number of independent buyers and sellers compete for identical commodities, deal freely with each other, and retain the right of entry and exit from the market" and acting in its own interest. "
Furthermore the political ideology to which capitalism is related are libertarianism, and to some extent conservatism and liberalism. So including capitalism would be strange because it is an economic system and it would be superfluous because libertarianism is already excluded. C mon 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is reasonable. – Kaihsu 13:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is reasonable. – Dean Michael Gores Jan 2007
As you can see below the criteria for inclusion of this template is about fair distributions, but political philosophies that meet criteria like being a political philosophy, having philosophical notability, party-political notability are included. Therefore capitalism is excluded as it does not meet the criteria for inclusion (mainly because it is not an ideology, but an economic system). C mon 10:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Referring to those you disagree with politically as "beggars and thieves" is perilously close to incivility, so I will feel free to point out that your not including fascism in your list of anathemized positions speaks volumes. - Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please keep your comments relevant to the template and not use this as a platform for your political views. C mon 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue isn't what the terms connote for you, it's what they mean. Fascism does not necessarily have any racist component (although it usually does), and racism can certainly occur entirely independently of the other elements that make up fascism. So on this point, insofar as it is relevant, you are simply wrong. The rest of this seems to wander off mainly into your personal opinions, which are neither here nor there in terms of writing an encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalism 

message: I was surprised to find a Politics template including Christian democracy and Progressivism, but excluding Feminism. Feminism may not have the import it used to in Western society, but it has played a very important role in the last century on the modern political landscape, and still has much significance across the world. It has 23,400,000 google hits and features in most modern political ideologies guides in some form.
If it is its one-sided slant that has gives its place on the template doubt, I would even more happily suggest something along the lines of "Feminism/Masculism" as one line, though masculism has some way to go before it is as widely in use a term as feminism.
I suspect, however, that feminism's exclusion is mere oversight, that I hope might be corrected? -Erolos 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear your right. I've inserted it. -- C mon 21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But masculism??? I can hardly imagine a more obscure term. - Jmabel | Talk 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminism? 

message: I was thinking that it might be a good idea to draw up clear criteria for inclusion. Clearly not every political "ism" qualifies - ideologies must have a certain notability or influence to be listed here. Let's try to draw up a collaborative list of criteria. So far I can only think of one:
#To be included, an ideology must be shared by political parties active in more than one country.
-- Nikodemos 11:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a criterion is needed but the criterion you use very oriented towards political parties, and not to political philosophy. I'd prefer a (second) criterion that is oriented towards the issues of contemporary academic literature and political philosophy. -- C mon 12:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The "either" list comes closer to my intuition, though it has a "presentist" bias. If we allow a broader historical sweep, then fascism and absolutist monarchism would probably also both make the cut. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and the exclusion of national socialism/fascism troubled me when I was making the list, but I was merely executing an originally made plan. A third criterion for historic ideologies sounds reasonable. But I have no idea how to formulate it. BTW I think that this template should have a modern bias, because we only should include systems of thought that identify themselves as ideology. And before 1750/1800 there was no concept of ideology. - C mon 18:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the reasearch that you made, but why it isn't applied in the template? CG 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to wait for some reactions and there are some unfinished issues: like fascism (above) and pacifism (below). But seeing your inspired exhortation I will make the change. Including fascism because I lowered the second criterion to 75,000 scholar.google hits. C mon 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Globalisation is a social process, imperialism is a stand on a particular issue, not a complete ideology. C mon (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion? 

message: Guys come on now, Feminism? This is a table of political ideologies and parties, as far as I know there has never been a notable Feminist party or political ideology, unless we are to take into account the Ancient Greek Amazonian warrior tribe and the mythical ladies of Lesbos? I agree feminism has a place in the table, perhaps under a "other ideologies" sector but not as a major player along with Fascism, Conservatism and Liberalism etc... this whole table needs ammending in my opinion. Zionism is also hardly a notable form of political ideology/party, it's more of a standard used to anatgonise particular far-right conservative Israel politics. Piecraft 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is nowhere specified that this template should be about political parties. I have emphasized before that this template is also tied with the current academic discussion about political philosophy. Any book on political science (especially American ones) have one or multiple chapters on feminism. Furthermore feminist parties have existed in multiple countries, for example the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, Iceland Women's List and the Feminist Initiative (Sweden). And there are multiple explicitly zionist parties in Israel, most notably Labor (Israel) (centre-left), Kadima (centrist) and Likud (centre-right). For more information read the Zionism article. --C mon 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Leaving aside the Feminism question for the moment: why should Zionism be singled out from all other nationalisms? - Jmabel | Talk 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems I see with the toolbar 

message: This article is not about a political ideology, but about a position on the left/right scale. I'm removing it. --C mon 12:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because these articles are stubs and therefore not very precise, furthermore leftwing and rightwing are not included in this ideological template either. They are used more often to define political parties' ideologies. --C mon 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Centrism

message: Surely this is covered by nationalism? Granted, it has a hefty religious component, but that's the norm for many nationalisms.--Nydas 12:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see you got there a few days before me (my remark above, I hadn't read this far down). And Labor Zionism had/has almost no religious component. - Jmabel | Talk 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zionism

message: The title of this sidebar, "Ideologies and parties," will inevitably create problems.  The title of this sidebar should be changed to "political ideologies," which would be clear, useful, and would more accurately describe what it is currently.
From their respective pages:
"Politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups."
"An ideology is an organized collection of ideas."
Thus, all major systems of ideas regarding politics should be included.
The repeated demands for criteria which require that political ideologies represent themselves with electoral parties in order to be listed - which some important political ideologies inherently oppose and many others are deeply ambivalent about - would simply turn this into a redundant list, already linked to twice at the bottom of the sidebar itself!
It is absurd to suggest removing anarchism, feminism, and fascism from a list including political ideologies.  They are clearly political ideologies with both significant historical and significant contemporary importance. Think of wikipedia users - anyone looking for a list of links to political ideologies deserves to see a useful and reasonably complete list.  Each of these examples have expression on every continent, often in what should be considered extra-electoral, non-electoral, or anti-electoral parties - such as labor unions, lobbying groups, civil disobedience movements, insurgent groups, and so on.
This looks to me very much like old-fashioned and narrowminded theological arguments which sought to exclude Buddhism from the category of "religions" because it does not include a god, which is a feature of some religions, not a necessary defining trait of religion.  Forming political parties and nation-states are a feature of some political ideologies, not a necessary defining trait.  Clearly, some political ideologies are anti-electoral.
On the other hand, Nazism and Zionism are particular, party-based expressions of the Nationalist ideology of a single country - like Irish Republicanism and countless other examples.  Fascism might be grouped similarly, except that as an ideology it has spread to every continent and been attached to the domestic nationalism of many nations, rather than being specific to its countries of origin.
Capitalism has been excluded due to being an economically-focused ideology.  It does, however, come with certain political requirements, such as some mechanism of enforcement of private property rights.  If this is the case, then Communism and all its variations must also be excluded, as Communism is also a primarily economic system, which comes with a few basic political requirements - namely some form of abolition of private property rights.  It makes more sense to include both, since these two major economic orientations define the bulk of ideology and policy for so many parties.  Both have authoritarian expressions (Pinochet & Stalin, for example), both have more democratic expressions (such as most socialist and capitalist parties of Europe), and both have explicitly anti-authoritarian expressions which denounce all nation-states, however constituted (such as anarchism and libertarianism).  But if one must go, both must go if this is to be consistent.  Both are systems of ideas related to how groups make decisions and act in relation to property.
To prevent the list from being limitless, obviously sub-types should not be separately listed.  Communitarianism and Progressivism should be grouped under either Liberalism, Socialism, Social Democracy, or better yet all three.
Marxism, Maoism, etc are best grouped under Communism, as has already been implemented.
Similarly, Theocracy should have one umbrella link, rather than three particular (and exclusively Abrahamic) religious political movements.  Virtually every religion has some advocates for theocratic politics, from Hindu caste system advocates to Tibetan Buddhists.
I would be tempted to put Social Democracy under Socialism, Liberalism, or Democracy, but it doesn't really fit well under any of those.
It is quite strange to me that Authoritarianism and Democracy have been left out.  It seems like an obvious oversight.  Pacifism and Populism are good candidates for inclusion - they are all signficant but don't readily fit under any other umbrella term currently listed.  Monarchism seems at this point to be almost exclusively of historical interest, and more or less fits under Authoritarianism or Theocracy.
So after all that, here's the modified list I would suggest for the above stated reasons.
*Anarchism
*Authoritarianism
*Capitalism
*Communism
*Conservatism
*Democracy
*Green Politics
*Fascism
*Feminism
*Liberalism
*Libertarianism
*Nationalism
*Pacifism
*Populism
*Socialism
*Social Democracy
*Theocracy
Fundamentally, this is confusingly titled - as "ideologies and parties" - when it is really a list of major political ideologies.  There is already a "List of political parties by ideology" and an overview of "Ideologies of parties."  It only makes sense to rename this list "political ideologies," as that is what it is closest to now, and it can easily be made more clear and useful with such a designation.
69.12.152.249 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that we need to rename. The list you made however lacks criteria, and mixes concepts like "political system", "party label", "position on the left-right scale", "position on certain issue", "political ideology" and "economic system".
*Authoritarianism, Democracy and Theocracy are political systems not political ideology. Note that Theocracy does not include Christian-Democracy or Zionism. Christian-Democrats do not advocate Theocracy and Zionism is a form of nationalism.
*Capitalism is an economic system, its political expression is liberalism/libertarianism (compare this to communism, whose political expression is communism).
*Centrism is a stance of the left-right scale and not a political ideology.
*Populism is party label and a political strategy, not a political ideology.
*Pacifism is very problematic: it is not an influential contemporary political philosophy. And historically there has been only one pacifist political party the Dutch Pacifist Socialist Party. But I could accept it conclusion if you could prove that it can come through the criteria.
So we need strong criteria for inclusion, as I am proposing above. The new title I can agree with though. C mon 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title is confusing, and makes reasonable criteria impossible. 

message: I think that the sorting of the ideologies is pretty confusing, wouldn't it be better to sort them from a right-left perspective rather than an alphabetical?  phisk 12:43, 23 August 2006
:It is a tad confusing, but ordering them by left-right would be too problematic, because it raises [[Wikipedia:POV|point of view issues. Consider libertarianism: rightwing or leftwing? You might say rightwing but:
:"In his essay "Left and Right: the Prospects for Liberty" [1] and "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal" [2], Murray Rothbard even put libertarianism on the "left", claiming that conservatives are the right and socialists merely "middle-of-the road"."
This quote from the Far Right-article says otherwise. Anyway it would lead to too much debate. C mon 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting

message: I added nazism because it's an ideology shared by political parties in many countries. I think fascism must be deleted because it's an italian phaunomenon. 87.203.233.242 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a strong consensus on this page that Nazism does not meet the criteria for inclusion listed above. Because it is too localized (only significant in Europe), used too little in political philosophy, and too close to fascism. I have removed it.C mon 23:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazism 

message: Why did you change the colors of the template? The current "all grey" is very very ugly. The former colors were harmonious and pretty representative. So why this change? CG 10:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you re-stumbled upon the problem: on my computer the template has the similar coloring as modernarch (blue/grey), on yours it does not. In the old colour scheme I had a peaceful rainbow of pastels, while Spylab had another more funky colour-scheme. In spylabs early alternative he himself saw a matching blue/white, while I got a clashing grey/green. Either we or our computers are colourblind. C mon 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: The above discussion shows that Communitarianism's inclusion has been repeatedly been open for debate.  Well I just don't think it's notable enough.  How often do you hear about "Communitarian" members of this or that Parliament, or Communitarian parties, or Communitarian anything?  I can accept that it's an up-and-coming political philosophy, but it doesn't belong on a template like this.  Fishal 01:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two criteria for inclusion: one being the existence of communitarian parties, parliamentarians etc. the other is its role in the academic debate on political philosophy. If you take an introductory course on contemporary political philosophy (at any university, especially American ones), the subject of that course will be liberalism vs. communitarianism. Furthermore in standardworks books like Kymlicka's "Contemporary Political Philosophy" it has a chapter (out of eight). Finally several politicians are self proclaimed communitarians, for instance Dutch prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende. C mon 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say: it's right on the line. I think the word itself is less used than the others here, but the concept is widely discussed: the rights/claims of the community (vs. those of the individual). - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Communitarianism seems to be more of a point of view than an ideology (an organized system of ideas).  The Communitarianism article mentions the two currents of "philosophical" and "ideological" communitarianism, but there does not seem to be much consensus as to what that ideology means.  In other words, while several writers may espouse communitarian ideas, it does not seem to have ever been "organized" in a meaningful and influential way.  At any rate, the term and the ideas seem mostly to be influential among American academics, whereas the template should have a more global scope.  Fishal 04:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As a Dutch student of political philosophy, I would implore you to keep communitarianism on the template. Both in Dutch political philosophy, Ad Verbrugge, Andreas Kinnegin, prominent Dutch critics of individualism, and in politics, with our MP Jan Peter Balkenende being a committed communitarian, communitarianism plays a big role. BTW communitarianism passed criteria (google hits & use of the term in standard works) which were not explicitly linked to the US. C mon 07:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Communitarianism

message: Feminism and masculism? Although this may merit a list article or a cateogry, I don't see a template. And what of royalists? The Islamists and Dominionists are really just royalists with different factions, no? This template is likely to turn into a grocery list without cleare criteria for inclusion. Rorybowman 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually very happy with the criteria for inclusion. They are clear and are enforced well. Do you advocate a particular change or is this just your opinion? - C mon 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royalism/Monarchism/Theocracy/Absolutism 

message: Would this nav box be better as a footer?  Most of the pages it is used on have 1-4 other nav boxes and this nav box is more of a list of general topics rather than details on a specific topic (sort of a "macro" nav box as oppposed to a "micro" nav box, if you will).  I would propose something similar to:
Please feel free to edit accordingly and provide feedback.--Old Hoss 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no opposition, I will begin changing the template later today or tomorrow.  I will also remove this template from all pages that are not listed on the template and instead replace it with a link to the Political ideologies page under the "See also" section of the respective pages.  Before I change this template, I will move the template on each page it links to to the bottom of that page.  Since this involves quite a few pages, I wanted to post this before I began in case some one has other ideas.--Old Hoss 16:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better as a Footer 

message: There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates about ideologies, such as ,  etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsable sections 

message: Proposing adding Pirate Politics to the list as it has been growing mostly in Europe, such as Czech_Pirate_Party and Pirate Party (Iceland) but also has been active in Australia and Japan. Previously also represented in Canada but defunct as of 2017.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pirate Politics