Talk:liberal
shouldn't the Noun section come right after the Adjective section? It does in most all the dictionaries I have — This unsigned comment was added by 74.128.241.187 (talk) at 04:10, 9 July 2006.
Revisions and Contributions
Please discuss any revisions and contributions. I feel that I have cleaned up this definition correctly, and still retained content! please use wiki de rigueur.--MadDogCrog 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr. brown you have reverted many changes without regard to other editors, not including myself. And made changes by cutting and pasting an older edition instead of making a revert the honest way! I see you have made many contributions, but your lack of diplomacy is very disturbing. lets not have an edit war, but work together to make this definition correct and educational.--MadDogCrog 04:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since I also have a penchant for Civil disobedience! As one of my censors seems to also! So when confronted with this fascism of its administrators. I shall do, as my ego must!
- I would think the administrators would have an affinity to conduce. And tell me what was wrong with my contribution--MadDogCrog 07:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Left-wing ?
Liberalism is not "left-wing." This definition is disinformation.--98.196.235.55 05:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
RfV discussion
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I think we should define it ourselves instead of pointing to wikipedia. After all, we are supposed to be the dictionary here. Pass a Method (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- What definition do you think is wrong or otherwise needs verification? Do you have any citations which suggest a usage that is not covered by the existing definitions? DCDuring TALK 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think the sentence about wikipedia should go. A simple "(see wikipedia)" link would be sufficient. I'll make the change now. Pass a Method (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- It might need to be expanded but i'm not sure with what. Pass a Method (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and delete the tag. Pass a Method (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- This looks more like a WT:RFC issue. It definitely needs work, but redefinition of the term has been used to further heavily ideological and partisan ends in US politics, so it will need considerable sensitivity and judgment to hit the right balance. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- It never hurts to have citations to support senses, especially in an entry that is in any way controversial or sensitive. They also help us remind each other that this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Finally, they help us get around the natural tendency toward PoV pushing. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree it definitely needs some work. Pass a Method (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- It never hurts to have citations to support senses, especially in an entry that is in any way controversial or sensitive. They also help us remind each other that this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Finally, they help us get around the natural tendency toward PoV pushing. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Being bold, I overhauled the entry... revert (though note the format fixes I also made) or modify as needed. Hm, I'll try to compile a bunch of citations this weekend for us to work with, like I did for ]. - -sche (discuss) 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you sche. Pass a Method (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've started gathering citations, though not many of the political sense(s) yet. Some are in the entry, others are in Citations:liberal. I've looked in my first pass for books that write of "such liberals as...", which will (I hope) let us know what those books mean by "liberal". - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Striking as closed; this is no longer an RfV matter. bd2412 T 14:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)