Template talk:Liberalism

It seems that there are so many terms and articles related with liberal characteristics that there is a need for a navbox to link them all together. BrianCo 06:04, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Hrm. I would say take out the ones which don't have "liberal" in the title, like global warming and gun control, as there's nothing inherently liberal about them. They are topics which have liberal and conservative viewpoints. HelpJazz 16:10, 27 February 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, I added them as they are categorized under things like "Liberal Bias" or "Liberal Falsehoods". I know that this could be perceived as some sort of parody so I have refrained from using the template as I think it needs some discussion first. However, there are so many topics on Liberal-related issues that I think it is useful to unite them through a navbox. BrianCo 17:23, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Oh I didn't realize that! I should probably head over to the talk pages of those articles and petition for the removals of the categories.... I didn't think there was anything wrong with your navbox itself though, it looks very nice. It would be very helpful to keep track of all the liberal articles. HelpJazz 09:07, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Template name

Shouldn't this be renamed/moved to Template:Liberal or Template:Liberals instead? Liberalism is a much specific subject and is not necessarily relevant to these subjects. Hammet 18:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Use of the template

Since this is being added to several pages and disputed on those same pages, it seems the best place to discuss the use would be here, instead of on every page where it is used. I'll start this discussion. (No need to follow my formatting, btw).

• Pro: handy link to "liberalism traits" on all liberal topics
• Con: is it really needed on all liberal topics? Does the ACLU espouse Hollywood values, or liberal grading, for example?
• Suggest: use this the same way we use every other link template on CP (see, e.g., {{Nb mythology greece}} or {{Scientology}}, or {{Nb_US_universities}}

Discuss. HelpJazz 10:08, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Navigation boxes such as these are designed to be put on the pages with the terms or names in the box, not in other pages. Philip J. Rayment 10:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Philip. Its use on Richard Dawkins, for example, looks just silly. The list of terms in the template has nothing to do with Dawkins. Its inclusion there looks like an attempt to make the subject of the article look as bad as possible by chucking in a load of other hate-topics (a slur-by-association), rather than an honest attempt to lead the reader to other relevant topics. Use only where appropriate. Unless of course this encyclopedia really has redefined "liberal" to mean "any viewpoint I disagree with". Humblpi 10:35, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, HelpJazz, for inviting me. I absolutely agree with PJR/HumblPi's assessments, too. I'd also like to state that this statement by TK, on the matter, was RIDICULOUSLY inappropriate, and I'm offended for PJR for having to suffer through an insult like that.-DParker 11:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Request for sysop

Philip (or any sysop who reads this), since TK's talk page is protected, can you please direct him to this conversation? He has made no comment in this discussion and is adding this template to every page which involves a liberal. Thanks. HelpJazz 10:42, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Done. Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Gentleman, I add the template to pages having to do with well-known liberal organizations and people because the template is informative! It directs users to other pages having to do with how and why a liberal thinks, and do what they do. For example, adding the "liberalism" template to Obama and Clinton, users can then use the links in the template to read more, and discover the "tools" or "tricks of the trade" liberals use to obfuscate and shape the public dialog. Adding it to the ACLU allows users a handy "go to" where they can read more about things that explains the tactics and agenda of the ACLU. Now I am not going to be drawn into yet another non-productive argument made by liberals, who hate the articles the template directs users to, and will seek any means they can to modify or change the POV CP has. You knew what that was coming here, and unless you wish to argue CP has no right to have a conservative voice and POV, you are on shaky ground.

What I see is a very few people not agreeing with CP's point of view, and doing whatever they can to hide it. First and foremost, this is meant to be an instructional wiki. It is also a Conservative and Christian POV friendly one. Our "job" is to teach! We provide tools to users that lead them to discovery, IMO. The template in question can put into context what is read on the pages involved. It acts exactly like a "which-see", helping to explain and expound on what the user reads. It also helps call attention to other CP articles, linking to them, and that is a good thing. So, I reject the reasoning above, as having none. --₮K^/Talk 16:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

TK - You say that those who disagree with you are trying to hide CP's point of view. In my case, not at all. I am trying to defend it by not letting it turn into self-parody. Slapping that template on all sorts of tangentially relevant articles like Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion makes the encyclopedia look silly, and risks making a mockery of it, as if the aim was to indulge every half-opportunity to take a swipe at liberals, rather than to produce a reliable and family-friendly encylopedia. It's unfocused, evidence of sloppy thinking, and ultimately self-defeating. Humblpi 07:47, 3 April 2008 (EDT)