| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | Archive below this line! Do not remove anything above this line. | | Archive below this line! Do not remove anything above this line. |
| | ========================================================================================= --> | | ========================================================================================= --> |
| − |
| |
| − | ==No Entry for liberal==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <b>Ed Poor</b>, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term <i>liberal</i>, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :This is a redirect to a "disambiguation page". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I would have thought that wikipedia didn't have a term for liberal because it is a world wide encyclopaedia and so has liberalism disambiguation. Also the brief definition given as evidence Wikipedia is biased is clearly not a NPOV and liberals in many countries think differently. Many liberal political parties in other parts of the world don't support tax payer paid abortion (whatever is wrong with that) and think that gun ownership should be a personal choice.
| |
| − | :Sweden for example has national service and at the end people keep the guns. Most people would agree that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world if not the most liberal.[[User:Monkey998|Monkey998]] 23:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | What's the difference between redirecting Buddhist to Buddhism and Liberal to Liberalism? It's not like they're doing anything to hide the Liberal entry - I mean, otherwise the redirect wouldn't exist.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)
| |
| | | | |
| | == Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia == | | == Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia == |