Talk:Liberalism in the United States/Archive 3

message: The section Contemporary use of "liberal" by political opponents sounds very non-NPOV to me.  Does anybody else agree?  Reading it I get a very clear idea of which side the writer thinks is right, namely the liberal side.  I'm a liberal myself but this is not cool with me.  Hajenso 8:30pm, October 10 2005 (PST)
I agree with you about that section, but I'd go further and say that the whole thing needs to be looked over by someone less POV-invested than the author.  I got a pretty heavy POV feel reading it--though certainly the "contemporary use of liberal by opponents" section is the worst of it.  This really ought to be cleaned up . . . Greg  (Talk) 20:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One wiki tradition that I did not know when I started here is that new talk should be added at the bottom of the page rather than the top.  To do that, click on the + sign next to "edit this page", then type the subject heading and then your comments.
If you think the article is POV now, you should have seen in six months ago!  We're working on it.  That said, I do think that the Republican Party in the United States has made a concerted effort to smear the word "liberal" for purely political purposes, to the point where a large number of people hate "liberals" without having any real notion of what the word means. Rick Norwood 14:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its much more convenient to believe that a large number of people hate "liberals" without having any real notion of what the word and that their hated is created by a Republican smear campaign than what I think; that they really do hate what liberals have come to stand for and the almost constant personal attacks originating from them.  But can you explain how the word "liberal" has been smeared? -- Lawyer2b 03:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I would have to disagree with you strongly here. The reason for Bush's low poll numbers is not because of Republicans disliking the term "conservative", and "liberal" is much more deragatory in today's society. Wherever you get the idea that it is the other way around, I have no idea. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, I think it must depend on which state you're in. In New York what I said is indisputable. Maybe if you're from a VERY red state and listen to FoxNews you could argue the other way. luketh 17:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not from a "VERY red state" at all and I try to watch ALL the news, and maybe in New York you could argue your way, but I think that's because you are stuck in the NY state of mind. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV section 

message: The previous editor of this page changed "civil rights" to "(supposed) civil rights" on the grounds that abortion is not a civil right.  I tend to agree that abortion does not clearly belong under the heading "civil rights", but is rather a question of competing rights, the rights of women vs. the rights of fetuses.  Therefore, I've moved "support for abortion" onto a line of its own and removed the word "supposed" from the heading.  This is not done to support one position or the other, but in the spirit of compromise. Rick Norwood 12:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  move abortion out of the civil rights category 

message: "Knee-jerk" liberal is not a particularly 1980s phrase. It was certainly already current in the 1960s, and I didn't have a sense then of its being a new phrase. Someone may want to revisit that passage and look for citations on when this phrase, and other phrases, each actually became common. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Knee-jerk"  

message: I've heard political liberalism equated with "liberal spender", but never with "libertine", even when Bill Clinton was providing a horrible example.  I think that entire paragraph should go. Rick Norwood 18:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberals definitely tend to be in favor of greater social liberty but I don't even think an extremist like O'Reilly would equate "liberal" and "libertine. In this case, O'Reilly was probably making a hasty generalization from the fact that most liberal strongholds have greater social liberties. The reason Seattle considered the lapdance ban was to curb prostitution which was becoming a safety hazard. Safety of the community is one of the highest liberal priorities. I think if anything most Americans have the impression that liberals are against libertine behavior and want to regulate their lives. This would also be untrue. Watch carefully and you will see extremists like O'Reilly try to play both sides in their attacks on liberals. luketh 01:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  liberal = libertine 

message: Internationally, liberalism (especially the word "neo-liberalism") has a very different meaning in most other countries, so it would be good if the difference could be clarified a bit more in the intro. --Revolución (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you try something out here and see if it flies? Rick Norwood 22:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberalism (this definition) vs. Liberalism (the other one) 

message: and what about WW2, Korea and Vietnam? This seems like a thinly-veiled swipe at Bush and Iraq, and a pretty controversial/hypocritical claim for the intro. Everyone is for "peace" when their own agenda isn't at stake. keith 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus-building liberalism opposed to the use of force?