Template talk:Liberalism sidebar

message: Why exactly does the Liberalism template include all those "Other ideologies outside the series"? Wouldn't it be a better idea to create a separate Socialism series, a Conservatism series, etc.?
- Mihnea Tudoreanu
:I am pruning some of the entries. This article box has gotten quite large. --Twinxor 05:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the pruning, but restored the timelines and the liberal international. --Gangulf 06:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I suppose that would be a good idea, since the articles are mostly stubs. But, in that case, shouldn't we merge this template with Template:Liberalism (II) ? After all, without the list of stubs, this template gets too small to justify the existence of 3 separate liberalism templates. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prologue 

message: *I deleted classical liberalism; new liberalism and social liberalism from the template, since these articles only refer to the main article.
*I deleted liberal since this has become a disambig now
*I am still doubting about what to do with Green liberalism, individualism
*I deleted Neoliberalism because of the explanation in the article liberalism.
I am doubting about what to do with small-l-liberal
:--Gangulf 19:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions from the template 

message: I patterned it to socialism's template, why should the socialists alone have the colorful stuff. --Humble Guy 14:28, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Changed the blue in a lighter blue. Electionworld 17:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this template using Disraeli's colour? Septentrionalis 18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: I think this template shouldn't be called "Liberalism and Centrism", but just "Liberalism". Centrism is a much more vague conception, and can mean for instance Christian Democracy, which is liberal neither in the social nor the economical sense of the word. 213.243.154.187 12:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreeElectionworld 17:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centrism 

message: The new layout is no improvement, so I made a rollback. Electionworld 15:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed the feature on the main page on the professional template. Where can I find it. In Firefox the template was just not an improvement. It might be in IE. In reverted to Ogo's version, but restored some deletions of links, e.g. List of liberal parties and Contributions to liberal theory. I have some doubts about the Figures section. When we start adding persons, where will it end. E.g. Shouldn't we then list also Adam Smith, John Locke, Ralf Dahrendorf etc. Where do we stop? Then a personal note: You might find me rather defensive, but if you see my comments on this page, I agreed with a lot of modifications. The version I saw yesterday had some disadvantages. - Electionworld 06:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No problem. I will look for the layout. See e.g. :template:elections - Electionworld 11:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New layout no improvement 

message: I do not think Capitalism belongs in. Economic liberalism is allready in and I don't see the extra value of capitalism added in. Capitalism is not typical for liberalism, and some whould say it is not liberal, since liberals will act against monopolies and cartels. If you read the articles on capitalism, it is clear that it is not a current of liberalism. I deleted it from the box Electionworld 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You deny that Adam Smith was a liberal or you deny that he was a capitalist? RJII 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe strongly that Adam Smith is a liberal, but I believe one can be a capitalist without being a liberal. e.g. the present-day communist regime in the PRC (see the comments of Gibby at talk:Communism. Electionworld 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalism 

message: Why are "some figures" raised up?  They are all already mentioned in "Contributions to liberal theory" (some of them twice), and I think that listing them in this box is unnecessary and gives some of the (like Dahrendorf) disproportioned attention regarding their true influence to liberalism, while some other important names are left outside. So if you don't want to make this box a copy of the article "Contributions to liberal theory", it would be better to leave all the names out.--213.243.157.96 12:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind leaving out all the figures. Electionworld 15:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The box would be a lot better with the people removed. For one thing, it makes the box enormous, and since everyone wants their figure mentioned, it will attract drive-by additions that will further grow the template. But also, when you're reading an article, a list of thirty-odd people connected with liberalism is not very helpful or useful. Relevant figures should be mentioned in the article or placed under see also. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It just makes the box too big.  Removing figures... --JW1805 04:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some figures 

message: shouldnt Neo-liberalism be one of the main liberalisms?
:Given that it's not actually liberalism at all, it shouldn't even be on the list. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-liberalism 

message: What the hell is a "current"? RJII 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I used the wrong translation for the Dutch word stroming. The correct translation is trend or tendency. Electionworld 12:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked in the dictionary and it said a current is "a tendency or course of events that is usually the result of an interplay of forces." I think, as you said, "tendency" or "trend" would probably be more in line and understandable. RJII 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current

message: User:BoDu removed most schools of liberalism in this edit. His reason was "Most political scientists recognize only 2 schools of liberalism:classical liberalism and social liberalism". I dispute this edit, because I believe political scientists have recognized more schools of liberalism. The burder of proof is on BoDu, because he claims to have proof. Can he provide references for this deletion? - C mon 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schools

message: I reorganized the template following reorganizations of templates like ,  and . The reason for this is that smaller templates are preferable for two reasons
# Having a large template can lead to strange lay outs on the screens, especially if articles have multiple large templates, it can become very messy
# Large templates can be pretty strange on small articles, when half the page is white, because the template continues but the text does not
Making templates expandedable with the "show" button deals with these issues quite nicely.
- C mon (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally prefer not to have templates with "show" buttons. --Checco (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear C mon, your opinion counts exactly as mine, so I don't understand why we can't return to the previous version of the template. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageble. For these reasons I ask you to rollback your edit, which has only your consensus. For now. In the meantime, can you at least use brighter colours? --Checco (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Manageable for who? The editors or the users? I think that this benefits the users because the text is not distorted when these larger templates clash. I think that 1) we should centralize this debate and 2) probably use dispute resolution to get more than one opinion. C mon (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After six days, I can only observe that there is no consensus on the edits of C mon, as he is the only one defending them in this talk page... Dear friend C mon, we definitely need to centralize the debate. I don't think that our discussion is exactly a dispute, but we definitely need to know what a larger number of users think about the issue that comprises a handful of templates. --Checco (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small or large? 

message: Do we want thinkers/persons on this template, like on the  and . I think John Lock, J.S. Mill and John Rawls are the most fundamental liberal thinkers in history, not including them on the template liberalism, would be like making a template on christianity, but not including Jesus. C mon (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want thinkers in this template and a I strongly disagree with the fact that John Rawls is a fundamental liberal thinker: he is liberal only from an American perspective. I disagree with the section on thinkers and there is no consensus on it. If there will be consensus on it, I ask either to take away Rawls from the template or to put near him Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, another kind of American "liberals", more representative of liberalism from an European perspective. --Checco (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with a lively discussion about which authors should be included. If there are more people who disagree with adding thinkers I also welcome a debate about that. We can make a longer list of possible thinkers. But I certainly think that Rawls is a prominent liberal. He revolutionized liberal thinking. C mon (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can put him, basically a social liberal, if he is accopained by some classical, conservative and economic liberals. In any case the more I think about having thinkers in the templates the more I strongly prefer not to have them: having List of liberal theorists is just fine and fairly better for me. --Checco (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinkers 

message: I would use brighter colours for the template. Everyone agrees? --Checco (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours

message: As the most important philosopher in the English language and a critical contributor to liberal theory, David Hume certainly must be mentioned.  I don't understand the inclusion of Nozick, however, as he is a marginal figure in philosophy.  It would seem that figures such as John Dewey, Kant, Rousseau, and Humboldt deserve placement over him.  CABlankenship (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nozick, Hume

message: For some reason the template does not show as expanded, neither individual sections or 'all' when the correct tag is embedded in pages. Can anyone fix this? Thanks. Maguire09 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More than 10 years after Maguire09's comment above, this still appears to be an issue, at least for the recently renamed "Schools of thought" section at the current time.  If someone more tech-savvy than I could describe or demonstrate how to successfully indicate expanded=Schools immediately below, I and probably others would be much obliged.  I'll watch this space.  Thanks! - Babel41 (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded tag 

message: I do not understand why Immanuel Kant is in the list of important liberal thinkers, since he wasn’t really a political thinker in the first place – not mainly, and not at all important – and even when he expressed political views, they were not specifically liberal. (See Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant.) If someone does not agree with this, please explain why he should be here! CaspianRehbinder (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immanuel Kant 

message: This template produced broken HTML at . The text of the "In popular culture" section was hanging off the left margin on mobile, which is usually the result of a div being closed too early (in fact the list starts with a  with no enclosing ). Adding a blank line after the transclusion worked around the issue. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken markup 

message: Instead of separating Politicians from Philisophers, and excluding Jurists, Activists, etc, I think it would be better to have a general "people" category. Who agrees?
108.18.179.237 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Figures 

message: What is Burke doing here? He was the father of modern conservatism! I tried to delete him once before, but my edit was reversed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.179.237 (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Burke was a Whig, and is still a very significant figure in Liberalism. See, for example, , or  You have previously been referred to Brack & Randall in edit summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edmund Burke

message: Anarchism is an anti-thetic theory; Liberalism promotes the existence of the rule of law.
--RVD3 (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchist