Talk:Liberal
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberal page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wow, oh-so-biased article. Consider for deletion? Mac OS X 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This page should either be cleaned up or deleted. The author(s) really need to keep a neutral point of view; the page reads more like RNC talking points or an editorial piece from Fox News. The "Brain of a Liberal" image is especially offensive--it adds absolutely nothing factual. Also, the More Information link at the bottom of the page to the wikipedia article on "Deceit" is clearly editorial opinion. Again, the article has been sabotaged and needs cleanup. Formaulhaut 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that this page has been flying under the radar, so to speak. One of the primary editors of this page in particular even has "conservative" in his name--I'm not saying people of opposite viewpoints should not edit pages like these, but just that it can indicate bias. It should be noted that there isn't a page on Wikipedia for "Conservative," but that it instead is redirected to "Conservativism." This page should redirect to Liberalism, since that page has much more depth and neutrality. This page simply isn't needed as the definition of "liberal" is best described as "one who identifies with the 'liberalism' school of thought." All of those with (any) bias that edit (any of the) pages on Wikipedia should seriously reconsider their hobbies--you're not going to persuade/fool anyone by claiming the opposite viewpoint represents "moral ambiguity" or "deceit" on Wikipedia. Mac OS X 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
How did you not notice this one?
[edit]I agree wholeheartedly with the first commenter. This article is extremely negative, biased, and skewed. It is also far too short to cover the topic adequately. It uses very loaded and one-sided language. Examples:
- "Denial of inherent gender differences" might instead say equality of opportunity regardless of sex/gender.
- "Taxpayer-funded abortion?" How about taxpayer-funded welfare checks to mothers not prepared to raise children?
- "Opposition to a strong American foreign policy" - perhaps you mean opposition to an Imperialist foreign policy?
The list can go on and on...and this one seems obviously put together by a liberal-hating American conservative (bias and the origins of articles on Wikipedia should not be this obvious).
"Bleeding-heart liberal" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bleeding-heart liberal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Bleeding-heart liberal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
"Bleeding heart liberal" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bleeding heart liberal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Bleeding heart liberal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
liberal as in Democrat
[edit]Shouldn't the politics section also note that in American context liberal is often another name for Democrat.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)