228
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 87:
Line 87: + + + +
no edit summary
The definition of liberal as 'weak' should be in there somewhere, as like it or not it has become a subtext in the political culture as influential as any points of substance. But to include that emotive definition in the same page as political philosophies of other countries could be too confusing. This could tie in with the idea of partitioning the article into two sections. <small>unsigned comment by [[User:TraitortotheCause ]]15:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)</small>
The definition of liberal as 'weak' should be in there somewhere, as like it or not it has become a subtext in the political culture as influential as any points of substance. But to include that emotive definition in the same page as political philosophies of other countries could be too confusing. This could tie in with the idea of partitioning the article into two sections. <small>unsigned comment by [[User:TraitortotheCause ]]15:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)</small>
==Slight syntax change==
I propose that this sentence: ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals' ''be changed to read '''The following views are often associated with those who consider themselves 'liberals'.''' The way it reads now suggests that all liberals hold all of these views, when this is not the case. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:06, 4 July 2007 (EDT)