Talk:List of political ideologies

message: Listing Kemalism under Fascism may not be right. I believe this should be reconsidered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.111.68 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kemalism 

message: Why isn't Capitalism on the colour bar?
-G
:Capitalism is an economic ideology, not a political ideology. Capitalism is, however, on this bar. VolatileChemical 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article again. Marxism is not in the same category as fascists. Electionworld 06:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Please read the article on liberalism and you can clearly see that communism and libralism have noting in common. Liberal is not a synomym of left (neither of right) and this is not an American page. Communism starts with the collective, with class, liberalism starts with individual liberty. There was a well balanced oversight, which whereby the new one isn't. If we cannot agree, we could make an alphabetical list. Electionworld 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalism 

message: I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Template: Lib 

message: The section on anarchism does not belong here because anarchists generally do not form political parties so i will remove it.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a different solution is necessary renaming the article list of political ideologies, because that would 1) show the list nature of the artcicle and 2) allow is to encompass all ideologies and not just party political ones. But we will need an admin for the move because the article already exists and is a redirect to this article. C mon (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism 

message: I've made some changes to the list's organization in order to avoid the use of list items as list headers and to cut back on some redundancy. I'm not sure if this is the correct style. I've read Wikipedia:Lists but I couldn't see any style guide that addressed the way the list was before, which seemed a bit awkward in my opinion. Please feel free to revert or change the list in case I made a mistake in changing it. Ecto (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New organization 

message: There might be a few ideologies missing from this list. I think "anti" articles like anticommunism, antifascism, or antifeminism should be included on this list but I understand why others might disagree. What does everyone think?
Also, capitalism should be on this list too, even though it has been removed. There are some old discussions about how capitalism is an economic system rather than a political ideology but I think that leaving capitalism off this list has NPOV issues. We probably wouldn't even use the word "ideology" at all today if Marx and Engles hadn't used it to identify the pro-status quo belief system (superstructure) generated by the economic system of the day (the basis), so "capitalism" doesn't just refer to an economic system but also the value system that makes the economic system acceptable to a society. Marx and Engles used "ideology" to distinguish pro-capitalist ideas from the "science" of socialism. When communists talk about "bergousie morality" they're talking about capitalism as an ideology. We might not agree with the communist point of view that capitalism is as an ideology but we should take it into account when making this list in accordance with NPOV.Ecto (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "National Socialism" after Nazism, but then discovered National Socialism (disambiguation) and National Socialist Party both of which described a number of ideologies or groups that were NOT Nazi. I don't see a previous discussion on how to handle this.  I'm sure some would like the ideology not mentioned at all because they think it makes "socialism" look bad. But it makes Wikipedia look bad to not try to distinguish the types here. That being said, I don't have a strong idea of how to do that right now and busy on other stuff, so I'll keep it in mind and see what others think. CarolMooreDC 10:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing ideologies 

message: This list seems to be rather democracy biased. What of those who are opposed to democracy, or Technocrats (such as myself)? 80.3.68.136 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoritarianism and Technocracy 

message: I have noticed many ideologies can fit into 2 or more categories and while this system works fine. I believe it could be massively improved.
If you used scales such as the Political Compass instead it would avoid any possible crossing of political ideologiez. Political Boss (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way to avoid overlaps of ideologies in groups. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of political ideologies. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609075437/http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html to http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How come we have two "Anarchist communism" sections? Should they not be merged in one place? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchist communism sections 

message: Any reason why One-nation conservatism is not included? Is it not considered a political ideology? If so, why? --Jzema 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since added this to the page --Jzema 17:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing one-nation conservatism? 

message: I'm not sure why, but it seems like some anonymous editor(s) keep insisting on conflating distinct ideologies, such as Socialism and Communism, Libertarianism and Liberalism, and editing out ideologies such as Christian Democracy and Social Democracy.  I understand the desire to keep from listing separately ideologies that are generally agreed upon as being variations of the same ideology, such as Mutualism and  Anarcho-syndicalism both being branches of Anarchism. However, it is definitely not an idea generally agreed upon in political science that Socialism a branch of Communism, for instance.  To support this idea, I wish to cite the following article: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/state-of-socialism-a-note-on-terminology/4C742B00BE0D00ED3F0BE855097DE5F7#
Please state your reasoning and/or give citations if you wish to make such conflations, whoever you anonymous editors may be.  Thanks! Tomabird (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary conflations of distinct ideologies 

message: I am mystified as to why the link I added to the page, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/PoliticalIdeologies , was removed by an anonymous editor- there are no external links provided on this page and this was one which gave readers useful and unbiased information on the subject of political ideologies- and this on a Wikipedia page that has been tagged as needing more citations! Thanks. Tomabird (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why remove an informative, unbiased link? 

message: I have spent a lot of time adding content to this page and organizing it as rationally as possible, only to have my work undone continually by anonymous user(s) who seem to have some agenda. I know this kind of thing must happen a lot on Wikipedia, but it seems to me to be approaching the realm of vandalism. Any thoughts? Tomabird (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous users continually deleting content & conflating differing ideologies 

message: I've been thinking that the most proper way to categorize Anarchism and Right-libertarianism would be to put them both in the same section called "Libertarianism," with Left-libertarianism and Right- libertarianism as subcategories. Any thoughts? Tomabird (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Left and Right Libertarianisms be under one section? 

message: Should we have a separate section for populism? It's an interesting thought, as I have wondered about it previously, but decided after reading the article on populism that it reflects more of a political approach that various ideologies might pursue, rather than an actual ideology in-and-of itself - but I may be wrong, of course. Thoughts? Tomabird (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Populism? Interesting... 

message: To the IP who has now twice restructured the whole article without any conversation or really even edit summaries, care to discuss what's up? Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't fill me with confidence that you disregarded my advice to break out your edits into smaller chunks and make use of edit summaries. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major re-ordering 

message: Populism has nothing to do with Direct democracy. Why combine both of them? It's illogical.--186.59.174.228 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why combine populism with direct democracy? 

message: the footers at the bottom of the article were not displaying due to too many sidebars (post-expand size exceeded).  I have removed many of the more minor sidebars and sidebars that were duplicating the footers.  please feel free to remove more.  we should concentrate on adding footers where appropriate and avoid adding more sidebars since they crowd the article content and have problems when there are too many trying to occupy limited space on the right side of the article.  thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many sidebars 

message: Seems like it, but I always feel uneasy about reverting when the list itself is almost entirely unverified info. Second opinion requested. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , it seems that the IP is right. Marxism–Leninism was developed by Stalin and his supporters in the 1920s after Lenin's death and became the ideology of the Communist International and later of the Communist bloc, in several cases being also explicity mentioned in the state constitution. Trostkyism was in opposition to Marxism–Leninism which was seen as Stalinism and anti-Stalinist socialists use Stalinism to refer to it. In academia, Stalinism seems to be used to specifically refer to Stalin's policies while Marxism–Leninism is used to refer to the ideology adopted by Communist states.--Davide King (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's go with that then. Thank you for the response!  –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special:Diff/959445883]] - [[WP:OR]]?  

message: I removed the source "The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics". It's only cited in the opening after a long list of other sources. It's author is "anonymouse conservative" and appears to be vanity published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) 
~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by History8192 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Spam "Source" 

message: Could someone please add individualism to this list Bruhwer01 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individualism 

message: Mexico is North American too, Turkey is also European L1948L (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey and Mexico 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. All four !votes (including the proposer) raised valid points. But there is consensus against increasing the scope of this article at this time. (non-admin closure) VR talk 18:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: List of political ideologies →  – Renaming this to "List of ideologies" will allow for more freedom in what is included, without lengthy debates on which ideologies are political and which are not. It will also remove the need for an expert in politics to review the article, which means that there will be one less problem to solve. Heythereimaguy (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @BarrelProof fair point. I'd say it would be best to exclude it for now, as a quick search doesn't come up with anything useful. Focusing on stuff like economic ideologies would be better, in my opinion. What do you think? Heythereimaguy (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if the title is , then any kind of ideology would be assumed to be included. A quick web search for "religious ideologies" shows that the phrase is commonly used, and there are a lot of religious ideologies. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: this should include every ideology, including religious ones. 20 million + is significant, the only problem is that none of these provide much information at first glance, except an article in a journal that's paid access. Can you provide some sources that have a decent amount of info about religious ideologies? Thanks! Oh, and one more thing: you're definitely right about Ngram. Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 September 2021 

message: There seems to be a lot of discussion over what should/ should not be included within this article. I think that will take some time to deal with. In between this, could we agree a way to minimize the length of this article? It is a little difficult to navigate as it currently stands. 
I am not sure what is possible in terms of wiki-tech, but: 
- Each section could be wrapped in a {{columns-list|colwidth=18em| so the different article links go across the page, rather than down? 
- Each section could be placed within a table and then set to autocollapse? 
Any other ideas of what is possible/ accepted editorially + not impacting accessibility would be great to know. 
This can then be reversed, if wanted, once/ if the page is reduced in scope of the current ideologies. I think, though, addressing this issue would help this page be more approachable for everyone. Jamzze (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the length of this article 

message: Articals such as the New Deal in the progressive section are not political ideologies and shouldn't be in the article. As to to violate R3 I'm making this so it can be discussed. — RealFakeKimT 19:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non ideologies 

message: Georgism is a pro-capitalist economic philosophy with respect to the ownership of private property, Geolibertarianism even more so. It seems wrong to me to list it under Left-libertarianism rather than Right-libertarianism or Other-libertarianism
Snoopdigglet (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geolibertarianism as Left-libertarianism? 

message: This is obscure ideology but it is a ideology none the less and as such I believe it should by located here.
I will try to find the Chairmanist Party website again to further reference this Ideology. Tob 888 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be a reliable source showing that it's a notable ideology. ... discospinster talk 18:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairmanism 

message: Scandinavia is Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Finns, Sami and Inuits are not Scandinavians or even Germanic (or even Indo-European!) and while Faroese and Icelandic people are Germanic, they're not Scandinavians either. Using "Scandinavia" to refer to the Nordic countries is, well... not very NPOV to say the least. For it to be accurate (and not reflective of Scandinavian expansionism or whatever), the section should be renamed "Nordic countries". I'll rename it myself in a second, but I expect it'll be reverted by one of those "nationalists" the section is about... VHGW (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I'm not going to edit it myself because that's not the only part of the "nationalism" section that's a mess. Apparently according to this article, Bulgarian, Chechen, Circassian and Karelian nationalists are now proponents of Russian nationalism... uh. Maybe someone who's better at Wikipedia can figure out how to fix it. VHGW (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually nevermind the nevermind, looks like it's intentionally organised by country/region even though the linked articles are to the "main" nationalism of that country or the pan-nationalism of the region... except in the case of the Nordic countries, since one doesn't even exist. So I'll edit it, but leave the link to the "Scandinavism" article since it just barely mentions "Nordism" (which isn't really a thing; a lot of Finns think it is, but it's a naive self-delusion entirely different from the anti-Finnish Scandinavianism). VHGW (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Scandinavians in the "Scandinavia" section of "nationalism" (and more) 

message: Tagalog 222.127.75.74 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phillipines politics