Talk:Free Democratic Party (Germany)

Expanding the History

I've re-written sections of this article and re-arranged it. I think it would be useful to expand the early history/origins of the FDP in this article. As it stands now, the article seems to imply that the party miraculously emerged for roll of creating majority governments. --metzerly 08:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

- One should at least mention that despite of the small number of party Members, the FDP has since the late seventies topped any record of politicians charged before the courts for tax evasion and corruption. In Germany it is therefore quite common to associate this party - more than any other - with greasy business and black money transfer.

- The situation on coalition negotiations after 2005 election is described in a very misleading way. Although the FDP won a lot of "second votes" (The second-vote being the decisive, proportional vote in German electoral system),this meant that the CDU lost these votes and consequently turned out surprisingly bad. On the whole, the christian-democrat-liberal "camp" could not improve vis-a-vis 2002. The "problem" in coalition negotiations was then simply that greens and liberals (esp. on environmental and social policy issues) hold a clear opposite position within a left-right spectrum, so any three party coalition including both of them (CDU-Green-FDP) or (SPD-Green-FDP) was simply ruled out. On the other hand, most political observers acknowledged that SPD and CDU were not "miles apart" in their programme and could indeed form a coalition which they finally did (Chancellor Merkel in 2006 even said she would prefer CDU-SPD coalition in view of large legislative projects). As no two-fraction coalition had a majority, the other alternative would only have been a so-called real left (Left Party-SPD-Green) coalition, which was however ruled out rather quickly by practically all SPD-frontmen already during the election campaign.

- Some more nick names for FDP apart from party of the better-off (Partei der Besserverdienenden):

- eternal co-governing party ("ewige Mitregierer") - fun party (in 2002 elections)("Spaßpartei") - "frühere dritte Partei" - former third party (due to lack of support in the eighties and nineties compared to very good results in the fifties and sixties) - "fast drei prozent" (nearly three per cent), due to very bad results in some regional elections. - dentists' party

I don't really think that social issues had anything to with the fact that the FDP and the CDU didn't end up as coalition partners; I'm not going to delete this line because I can't verify that social issues weren't a problem in talks, but in the end the two didn't coalition simply because they couldn't. Also, economics and international policy so dominated the campaign, that I don't think there was much room for internal strife based on social issues.

Can someone with better knowledge have a go at clarifying the 2005 federal election section. It currently reads as though a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition was unviable because of social issues and the CDU/CSU weakness. My recollection is that these parties were all prepared to form a coalition but the problem was the creation of the Left Party and absorption of fringe votes meant that it qualified for top-up seats and put a fifth element into the Bundestag that meant both normal coalitions lacked a majority. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone also add a paragraph about the attempt of a Nazi overthrow of the young federal Republic in the 50s by former Nazi-party members who had undermined the FDP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.114.3 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro paragraph to the History using the german version of this page so it would be less google-translate-ridden, but although I know very little about the topic itself I'm pretty sure the information is just wrong. Seltsameseeds (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ideology

The section on flat tax reads like party propaganda, it's not even remotely neutral and there is no citation

I originally changed the ideology section to remove [Right Wing] and replace it with [Libertarianism] because I thought that more accurately reflected where the FDP really sits on the political spectrum. While I understand the desire to simplify the whole listing to [Liberal], I don't think that explains things well enough, nor does it help to differentiate the FDP from the SPD. I think including [Conservative Liberalism], [Libertarianism] and other qualifiers helps to better explain the positions of the party.Nsfreeman 06:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the FDP is not a libertarian party. The FDP is a liberal party and was correctly associated with the three previously named ideologies, including right-wing, as you can see by reading the right-wing article it also includes certain forms of liberalism, which the FDP has adopted since ca. 1984 (Freiburger Beschluesse). Poeloq 13:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Libertarianism is a pretty exclusively American phenomenon, which should not be used to describe European liberal parties. john k 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily exclusive to the US, but more predominant there. However, libertarian parties do exist in Europe and other parts of the world, however the FDP is not such a party! Poeloq 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much more predominant in the US. Obviously, continental liberals share some similarities with libertarians, but the two are quite distinct, and should not be confused. john k 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

However, it is not an American thing, as is easily seen by studying its roots, i.e. for example Hayek and Mises. Still, I think we can conclude that the term libertarian is not right for the FDP. Poeloq 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are citations for the FDP representing libertarian viewpoints:
From Political Compass: The Free Democrats, like the US Libertarian Party, advocated certain social freedoms while remaining focused on the freedom that actually matters to them - the free market.
From The New Republic: The Greens biggest competitor, in fact, was Germany's longtime third party, the libertarian, pro-business FDP
From Teachersparadise.com: liberal/libertarian
Even if all of this is incorrect and the FDP does not represent Libertarian viewpoints anymore, historically, they do. From "The Libertarian Forum," Nov. 15, 1969: The FDP's policies have been characterized as the traditions of libertarianism and economic neo-liberalism.Nsfreeman 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No one would dispute that the FDP has certain similarities to American Libertarians. Certainly when writing for an American audience, as the New Republic is doing, american Libertarians are probably closest to the FDP today. But the New Republic is not an expert on German political ideology, and the party does not describe itself as libertarian. It has affinities with libertarianism without being libertarian. You have also quoted a wikipedia mirror (teacher's paradise) as a potential source for wikipedia, which is very lame. And of course an explicitly libertarian organization (the Mises site) is going to claim as much as it can for libertarianism. The basic fact is that the FDP does not describe itself as libertarian, and that its form of liberalism, while having much in common with libertarianism, also has significant differences. The libertarian attempt to claim the entire legacy of classical liberalism for itself must be resisted. (Among other things, libertarianism is dogmatic where liberalism is pragmatic - even when the two come to similar conclusions, it is usually not for the same reasons.) john k 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving us some sources for your claim. Still, you may be correct that the FDP historically could be seen as libertarian, however it has not been so for many years (25+ at least). Part of there logo used to be "Die Liberalen", "The Liberals". Liberals and Libertarians would not use the two terms interchangeably, ever. I myself have been a member of the FDP for more than 5 years, so I do have some knowledge on what it is all about;) Poeloq 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally apologize for the teacher's paradise reference. I did not notice that it was a wikipedia mirror. My mistake. I also see the validity in many of the points made above but there still has not been a response to the Political Compass reference. They are a UK organization whose sole purpose is to identify where individuals and parties fit on the political spectrum and they call the FDP libertarian. Moreover,to argue that because a party doesn't refer to itself as something, it can't be that thing seems troublesome at best. Every totalitarian calls himself a democrat but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call him a totalitarian. Obviously this is less extreme, but if an objective source like Political Compass says that the FDP fits the Libertarian mold, shouldn't we at least list it along with the other descriptions? I have no problem with keeping the other terms up, it just seems to me that libertarian should be included.Nsfreeman 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we have one source left to deal with: The Political Compass. It does not call the FDP libertarian at all. Take a look at the diagram: the FDP lies above the middle line, downwards being libertarian. The description only states a similarity in some points with the US Libertarian party. Poeloq 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But they're as close to libertarian as any party on their specturm gets. If you require that a party be in the bottom right corner to be considered libertarian then you'd have to remove the word libertarian from the ideology of every libertarian party in the world. By that logic, we should require that for the american Democratic party to be listed as liberal they be on in the bottom left corner. We'd have to remove the word liberal from the FDP, too, for that matter. Nsfreeman 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Neoliberalism (especially German neoliberalism) has nothing to do with libertarianism. Intangible2.0 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, would it be fair to say that maybe the FDP falls more in the realm of [Classical Liberalism]?Nsfreeman 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The FDP does also not fall into the realm of classical liberalism, as it incorporates many elements of social liberalism. In this case conservative liberalism may not be 100% true, but the most accurate as well as economic liberalism. Nsfreeman: To be honest, I don't think this discussion is going to turn to your favor! How about the just leave it as it is? It describes the FDP in the most accurate way...Poeloq 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Political Compass is not an impartial site, and it is not an authority on anything. It is a site created by unknown authors of unknown credentials (the only credits i can find are that it is by "Pace News Limited", of which I can find nothing on the web save the reference to it as the creator of the Political Compass site), and it is specifically trying to create a new paradigm as to how political ideology is to be conceived. That particular paradigm, by the way, is one that is not really very much more useful than the standard left-right spectrum, and that, furthermore, advances a libertarian POV. The site is basically subtle libertarian propaganda. To summarize, Political Compass is a) not impartial; and b) not actually a reliable source by any measure. Even if we ignore that, there is nothing in the quotation which says that the FDP is a libertarian party, just that they share certain ideas with libertarians, which I don't think anyone would dispute. But I really don't see how the Political Compass is any kind of authority on anything. john k 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The party is not conservative liberal. This is the only liberal party in Germany. Intangible2.0 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it a mildly libertarian party - I have yet to hear them calling for the privatization of the Autobahns. By American standards, it's center-right economically (but with perhaps more willingness to continue social benefits than all but the most leftish of US Democrats who actually manage to get elected to Congress) and socially quite liberal (Guido Westerwelle as a prime example - the US Democratic Party would not dream of placing an openly gay man with a partner in charge of the party!) Texmandie 09:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Liberal has a different meaning in the USA that outside the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.237.159 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be classified as a liberal party since they are members of Liberal International and the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. Anything else is a POV and not worthy of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELDR1985 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So - to sum everything up that has been said: Can the FDP be called "center-right" (as they are currently) in good conscience? (Especially since the Political Compass's definition of left/right obviously jars with the traditional perception of left vs. right) -- megA (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes; they are a party that advocates economically right-wing policies, and are on the centre-right within the German political spectrum, being the default coalition partners for the conservative CDU.--Autospark (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That might have been true in the 90es, but a lot has happened since then. (I wouldn't take the Political Compass into account, since their views and definitions are in no way established consensus.) The FDP are not the CSU, who indeed ARE the default coalition partner of the CDU. There are and have been many coalitions involving FDP/SPD or CDU/SPD coalitions without the FDP. Their views differ from the conservative views of the CDU. In many aspects, they are rather on the left side from the CDU. Associating them with the (according to this wikipedia article) "center-right" Austrian FPÖ (Freedom Party) is taking it too far, IMO. I think we need to differentiate them from CDU and CSU. -- megA (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Conservative Liberalism" is wrong. Especially in Questions relating to the society the FDP is very liberal, and the last conservative party! No conservative party would elect a homosexual politician to their own chairman with more than 98%! The FDP is liberal in econimic questions, no doubt. There is a quite good article about conservative liberalism - and theres a definition:

"Firstly, they are usually socially liberal on such social issues as same-sex marriage, abortion, secularism, stem-cell research, and euthanasia but may place less emphasis on them than do most social liberals" <- The FDP is on that point 100 % social liberal. The have a gay chairman how's elected with 98 % on the last Bundesparteitag!

"Secondly, they are mostly strong supporters of economic globalization. Most conservative liberals support the foreign policy of the United States and, in NATO-member states, support that political alliance" <- Yes, but I wonder if that really differs from "normal" liberalism.

"Thirdly, conservative liberals are often in favor of stricter punishment of illegal immigrants and are usually tolerant of multiculturalism. Conservative liberals often identify as law and order-parties, which are tougher on crime and support higher levels of punishment and are more committed to fighting terrorism, while social liberals tend to emphasize prevention and are more committed to civil rights." Actually the civil rights are a holy cow for the FDP! As you see, Conservative Liberalism does not fit with the FDP!

On that point Germany differs from the most other european Countries: There does really just one liberal party exist. A really european conservative-liberal party is e.g. venstre in Denmark. By the way: in the article "Conservative Liberalism" Germany isn't listed at all, and I think that's right. So please change it in this article. -- Finnjack (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean "sacred cow". "Holy cow" is usually reserved as an interjection meaning "I'm surprised!".

Anyway, what really matters is what the sources say. Der Spiegel and DW both say the party is "pro-business". That should settle it, since these are major, respected German media describing the party for English speakers.Bdell555 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal heißt im liberalen Sinne nicht nur liberal..." ("Liberal doesn't just mean liberal in the liberal sense") FDP politician's repeated line in a political discussion sketch by Loriot.

The only time that I wondered whether the FDP was actually libertarian was after the 2008 financial meltdown when they proclaimed that its cause had not been the economic liberalism in the US but rather the lack thereof. This was surprising, especially since before they had always said that they did not want to mimic the social system of the US (no amerikanische Verhältnisse). But I think they just panicked; I've never heard such an extreme point of view from them since then (though still their fair share of market theology). --Mudd1 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"has participated in all but four/six governments"

This has recently been controversial. However, it is problematic to word it this way as it is unclear how "a government" is defined. Does it go per cabinet (which seemes to be Mogelzahn's view)? Or per legislature? Or by coaltion (which seems to be the IP's view)? Things are further complicated by short-term departures of the FDP from the cabinet during the Spiegel Affaire and in 1982. Therefore I suggest replacing the ambiguous calculation by "governments" by a calculation by years, which also avoids treating short-term "governments" equally with longer-lasting ones. My calculation goes like this:

• CDU/CSU/FDP/DP coalition (Chancellor Adenauer): 1949-1956 = 7 years
• CDU/CSU/FDP coalition (Chancellors Adenauer and Erhard): 1961-1966 = 5 years
• SPD/FDP coalition (Chancellors Brandt and Schmidt): 1969-1982 = 13 years
• CDU/CSU/FDP coalition (Chancellor Kohl): 1982-1998 = 16 years

which summs up to 41 years. I'll change the passage to that effect. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to other European parties such as the LDP in the UK?

Is the Free Democratic Party (FDP) the analog of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in the UK? Does it make sense to include comparative information in the article itself, or should a separate article ("Comparison of European parties") be created? 99.41.104.179 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by 'analog'. If you mean, like the Liberal Democrats the FDP it is the main self-described "liberal" party in its own nation then yes. They are also in the same Europarty (ELDR) and European parliamentary group (ALDE). Ideologically however they are not similar. The Liberal Democrats, being a fusion of the Social Democratic Party with the historical Liberal Party have been most of their existence been pretty much a centre-left or centrist party and generally follow the ideology of social liberalism. The FDP however is much to the right of the Liberal Democrats, particularly on economic issues, and thus fiscally are more ideologically analogous with the British Conservative party. (I'd argue that describing the FDP as a party of conservative liberalism is pretty much accurate.) --Autospark (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

From the Economist magazine, Sept 17 2009:

"the FDP is not only the most pro-business of the parties but also the most pro-American. It has also been the boldest in suggesting tax and welfare reforms. For all these reasons, if this newspaper had a vote in Germany's election, it would cast it for the FDP"Bdell555 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In 2003, FDP chief Guido Westerwelle said that trade unions are a "plague on our country" and described union bosses as "the pall-bearers of the welfare state and of the prosperity in our country."Bdell555 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have removed the following from the introductory section: "The party's motto is: Wer mehr weniger als 100.000 Euro verdient und FDP wählt, ist dumm, wer mehr verdient und FDP wählt, unmoralisch." Translated it means: "Whoever earns less than 100.000 Euros per year and votes for the FDP, is dumb, and whoever earns more and votes for the FDP is immoral". This quote implies that the FDP's opponents attack the FDP with their allegation that the FDP doesn't place any value on social justice, which is a factual error.

Place on political spectrum

The political position of the party in the infobox needs a citation. I remembered reading the article in Der Spiegel after the election where they had a chart demonstrating the number of seats each party has. FDP was in the right-wing bloc, along with CDU/CSU, but was immediately right of the border (center). I tried to find this online but the closest I found was this, which includes it in a pie chart on the right side (here, they are to the right of CDU). This chart is probably in order of economic policies. Anyway, liberal parties have long been hard to place on a basic political spectrum, but it does seem that the party is considered to be among right-of-center parites in Germany. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The placement in the Bundestag is purely for traditional reasons. The (leftist) Green party, for example, sits to the right of the Social Democrats, (contrary to the link you posted) because the SPD in the 1980s claimed "nobody is more left than we are". In the meanwhile, the SPD has shifted to center, basically "overtaking" the Green party, which has followed later, in the 2000s. For the same reasons, the FDP was placed on the right side in 1949, because it was considered right-of-center, and when the FDP allied with SPD, and adopted "leftist" ideas later on, neither CDU nor FDP wanted to swap places.

The FDP was initially considered as more right-wing than CDU/CSU. They were more firmly capitalist than Christian Democrats, some of whom toyed with the idea of Christian Socialism; also, the FDP was more critical of de-nazification than the Union parties. This changed in the 1960s, when the social liberal wing took over in the FDP.Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Logo

The logo in the infobox is outdated. The actual logo can be seen in German Wikipedia. Please update. -- Felix König ✉ 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

Why is the party classed as classical liberal? I find that very off, considering the mentions of internationalism and civil rights. Classical liberalism implies isolationism as well as gov't non-intervention on civil rights. Civil liberties are different. The FDP is very much not classical liberal. 68.227.163.169 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting 'civil rights'. The article explicitly states 'civil liberties', as is the party's principle, and states that the party rejects egalitarianism. 'Internationalism' does not mean invading other countries, but engaging in multilateral diplomacy - which is not either classical liberal or anti-liberal per se. The party is well-documented as a classical liberal party: indeed, the world's most prominent and successful classical liberal party. Bastin 14:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Euroskepticism

I propose rewriting the section on Europe. In the last couple of weeks and months, a new internal movement developed in the FDP: The Liberaler Aufbruch. It claims that the FDP is not a classical-liberal party. The goal of the Liberaler Aufbruch is to promote classical liberalism inside the FDP.

They are oppposed to the development of EU into a centralized government. They want to go back to the Treaty of Rome.

I think, this wing of the FDP is best described as soft-eurosceptic.

Source: http://www.liberaler-aufbruch.net/europa.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.198.7 (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

There's already a reference to a soft eurosceptic national liberal faction. Note that any additions will need to be better referenced than the nonsense that currently inhabits the article. Bastin 09:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

EURO opinion poll

Poll is missing. 2.210.43.153 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you stupid?

Since when does one translate proper names into another language?--78.42.129.158 (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I realize that all German parties have articles where the party name has been (badly) translated. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For political parties, kings, popes, etc. this has long been the practice in English. It is also not unusual in German: the FAZ talks of "Großbritanniens Konservative Partei", Obama's "Demokratische Partei", etc. and writes "Cameron muss mit den Liberaldemokraten unter Clegg zusammenarbeiten". So what is the problem?--Boson (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see that "Wilhelm Külz" was also translated. I presume this was done by Google Translate. --Boson (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 election =

I'm surprised there isn't more on this. going from 93 seats to none was a major event--both for the FDP and German politics as a whole. (29 May 2014)

Infobox

I tried to put more information in the info-box, which I took from the German page.

All of the new information occurs in the source, but unfortunately only some occur in the visible info-box while some old information does not appear visible any longer. May someone try to fix it?

The order of information as seen in the source is correct, this shall be transferred in the visible info-box.

Thanks! --Johannnes89 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120925021313/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705072802/http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/europawahlen/EU_BUND_14/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/ to http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/europawahlen/EU_BUND_14/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150903224113/http://www.freiheit.org/files/288/1948_Heppenheimer_Proklamation.pdf to http://www.freiheit.org/files/288/1948_Heppenheimer_Proklamation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925082144/http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/nach-der-wahl-in-bremen-eine-rundum-ratlose-kanzlerin-1688143-infographic.html to http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/nach-der-wahl-in-bremen-eine-rundum-ratlose-kanzlerin-1688143-infographic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad translation in the section titled "1969–82: Social changes and crises"

The section titled "1969–82: Social changes and crises" is nearly incomprehensible in places. It reads like a machine translation from German that hasn't been corrected by anyone who can communicate in English. For example, this sentence is impenetrable: "After the federal party congress in Bonn, just a week later supported the policy of the party leadership and Scheel had confirmed in office, founded by Siegfried party rights Zoglmann 11 July 1970 a "non-partisan" organization called the National-Liberal action on the Hohensyburgstraße - to fall with the goal of ending the left-liberal course of the party and Scheel. However, this was not." What?! What in the world does this even mean?! It isn't English. It's gobbledygook that contains English words jammed together in no coherent fashion.

DonaldMWright (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You are completely correct, and it is not the only section with impenetrable false translations, apparently from German, which garble the sentence structure and thus the meaning.

Yet, although your comment is over 5 years old, no one has bothered to correct the problems here. I am not planning on tackling it, but I certainly wish someone would. Actio (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Flag"

Hello @ThecentreCZ: Please provide a source for the purported use of your "flag" by the FDP. How is it even possible to use a gif as a flag? Is the flag in real life covered with LEDs that constantly change their colours? --RJFF (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Both liberalism and classical liberalism?

Autospark, is it really necessary to list both "liberalism" and "classical liberalism"? It seems redundant to me, especially because it's clear that the FDP is, and has always been, predominantly classical-liberal. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts to leave 'generic' liberalism prominently in the Infobox and lede for now, particularly as "liberal" in the broadest sense is a common description for the party in sourced material. (Also, while "classical liberal" is widely sourced and should definitely be included, it seems more of an Anglocentric term which could be problematic for an international wiki. I would prefer to wait for more editors to provide their opinions on this matter.)--Autospark (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yeah, let's wait for more editors to provide their opinions. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the FDP covers different variants of liberalism, social liberalism as well as conservative or national liberalism, but classical liberalism is the predominant tendency. I agree that "...is a liberal and classical-liberal political party..." is a somewhat awkward wording. How abot replacing "and" by "especially", "particularly" or "mainly"? --RJFF (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible solution, I guess! My main issue with solely using classical-liberal is that it's mostly an Anglo-centric term – what would be called "classical-liberal" by a British person would be called simply "liberal" to a French or German person (rough example). Personally, I prefer to describe the FDP as a classical and conservative liberal party, as that emphasises its nature as a party on the centre-right of the political spectrum. However, I realise that some here may disagree with me on that.--Autospark (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, RJFF! Maybe it would be best to only say "liberal" in the first sentence and begin the next sentence with "Predominantly classical-liberal,…"

Autospark, I think the same problem applies for Americans like me, but in the other direction. We tend to view "liberal" as meaning "social-liberal"; we just don't really think about classical liberalism at all. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Very true, and very good point! It's the same in Britain, where "liberal" almost always means social-liberal, due to the British Liberal and LibDem parties being ideologically slanted to the centre-left.--Autospark (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand the issue at stake here. Basically, some people will misinterpret the word "liberalism"; others won't understand what "classical liberalism" is. Thus, we maintain both to make sure people understand. Thanks for the help! Ezhao02 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about the possible solutions here. At first, I thought that we could have the first sentence only mention liberal and change the second sentence of the third paragraph to say, "Predominantly classical-liberal, the party is traditionally considered centrist or centre-right." However, I feel like we should mention "classical-liberal" a bit earlier. Any thoughts? Ezhao02 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideological and political positions

• Ideology : Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Pro-Europeanism
• Political position : Centre to Centre-right

The ideology and political position of the FPD has long been maintained by this. I think this should be maintained. Even if FPD is more economically liberal than CDU, it is socially close to SPD. Moreover, it is absolutely undeniable that the FPD is a liberal party, both economically and culturally, and that it is located in the 'Centre' in that it does not belong to the main two parties and is in a casting board position between the two parties. 2001:2D8:957:F02E:CC41:A97F:970D:8BFC (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am also opposed to writing down any ideology other than "liberalism" and "classical liberalism" in the infobox. "Economic liberalism" overlaps with classical liberalism. The FPD also has a stronger cultural liberal tendency than the usual European "conservative liberal(ism)" parties.2001:2D8:957:F02E:CC41:A97F:970D:8BFC (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Swedish L is arguably more progressive than FDP, for example in 2017 they ran on a quite right-wing platform when it came to migration Braganza (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Honestly, I'd rather not list anything but "Liberalism" in the ideology section of the Infobox, and "Centre-right" in the position section. That's all we need to list.--Autospark (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Since FPD has a stronger classical liberal nature than social liberal, "classical liberalism" must be mentioned. Also, the FPD is clearly a third party, politically aligned with both the CDU and the SPD, so it is hard to say that it is a complete centre-right. FPD is centrist to centre-rightist. 2001:2D8:6666:9F3F:84FD:F725:A951:CB41 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The ideology of FPD should be evaluated as the center right wing. It has been mentioned as a right wing in reliable media in Korea. https://www.donga.com/news/Inter/article/all/20220714/114460697/1 Lazt9312 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I commented above that the spectrum should be written as simple centre-right. If there are no objections, I will amend it. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

In fact, if there are no objections, I'd like to write:

Ideology

liberalism

classical liberalism

economic liberalism

neoliberalism

Pro-Europeanism

political position

Center-right (including centrist and right-wing factions)

I will write in this situation. If you object, please discuss. Thank you. Lazt9312 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I strongly object to the proposal of Lazt9312 – as few ideologies and positions should be listed in a political party Infobox as possible. I would list only “Liberalism” for ideology and “Centre-right” for position (or, at a stretch, “Liberalism” and “Conservative liberalism” for ideologies, and “Centre-right” for position).-- Autospark (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Fewer ideologies, the better in infoboxes. I agree with User:Autospark. I would have just "Liberalism" for ideology and "Centre-right" (or, possibly, "Centre") for position. I would prefer not to see "Conservative liberalism" included, as the party is liberal broad church and includes also social liberals. --Checco (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Very tough and absolute Opposition. I think FDP should be recognized by readers because it is closer to centrist than CDU. The FDP's political position should remain "Centre to centre-right", NOT "Centre-right". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I can give way to ideology, but "Centre" must be included in the political position. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

CDU and SPD are not considered centrist parties in Germany, but FDP and GREENs are considered centrist parties. The same is true in terms of support.Mureungdowon (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The reason for the deficit as a simple center-right is because it is all described as right-wing, center-centered, and center-right. The Free Democratic Party is economically to the right of the CDU.

Regarding sects, most of the other parts can be conceded, but I think pro-Europeanism and economic liberalism must be included. (Because less liberalism tends to look like American Democratic liberalism.) Lazt9312 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the FDP is more economically right-wing or conservative than the CDU. Conservatism is a clearly right-wing ideology rather than liberalism, and traditional conservatives have opposed economic liberalism. Since the CDU does not support equality over the FDP, its economic policies are just conservative, not more progressive than the FDP. We should not apply to European politics the American view of dividing the left and the right with a position on economic intervention. FDP is centrist because it is not conservative in every way than CDU. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The CDU is not described as centrist but as right-wing. Then should we describe the political position of the CDU as "Centre-right to right-wing"? I don't think so. FDP is clearly centrist in every way than CDU. CDU is "Centre-right", FDP is "Centre to centre-right". Mureungdowon (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the CDU looks more conservative than the FDP because the Christian Democratic Party system has shifted to the right. At the time of Chancellor Merkel, there was a case in which the Christian Democrats took measures to increase taxes and the FDP protested.

https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/005/0000250211?sid=104

And since it is described as right-wing, center-right, and centrist, I think it is reasonable to write it as center-right. CDU is also rightly described as right wing. However, it is also described as centrist.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/06/europe/thuringia-germany-far-right-afd-coalition-merkel-intl-grm/index.html Lazt9312 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Because the FDP is a liberal, it opposed the tax increase. The Historical Left opposed tax increases rather than the Historical Right. Opposing tax increases can never be proof of being more right-wing or conservative. European politics should not be brought to the standard of American politics. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

What you said above is somewhat acceptable. However, it seems a bit difficult to see it that way by current standards.

There are also instances where the Liberal Democrats are referred to as "conservatism".

https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/international/europe/1055664.html

It seems that a description by source is necessary.

What do you think about adding pro-Europeanism, economic liberalism, and neoliberalism to the ideology I asked above? Lazt9312 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In an article on German politics in the English Wikipedia, I don't think Korean sources that are not related at all mean much. Hankyoreh's "conservatism" is close to the political meaning of the United States. In the United States, classical liberalism is called conservatism. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand the position of Mureungdowon, but it must be written according to the source. Do you have a position on the addition of pro-Europeanism and neoliberalism to the above ideologies? Lazt9312 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the ideology, if there is no objection for a longer period of time, it would be good to revise it to the center-right. It seems that a good direction is needed to add pro-Europeanism, economic liberalism, and neoliberalism. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Pro-Europeanism is a policy position, not an ideology; Economic Liberalism is redundant/tautological with Liberalism; Neoliberalism is an economic doctrine, not a political ideology. Therefore, I object to those being listed in the Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Autospark. "Liberalism" should be the only ideology mentioned in the ideology. Regarding the political position parameter, I quite dislike the "Xxxxx to xxxxx" format. One position is enough. In this case, it can be either centre or, probably more accurate, centre-right. Just one—and I do not care which one, please! --Checco (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Opposition. If I have to write down one thing, I think both FDP and GREENs should write down their political position as "Centre". But this is something that everyone will not agree with. I think there are times when "xxxx to xxxx" is inevitable. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems that a description by source is necessary. I will insist on a simple center-right narrative. As for ideology, then it would be better to write down the only mentioned conservatism. Lazt9312 (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

conservatism -> liberal conservatism It is sometimes described as simple 'conservatism' in several sources.

https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/international/europe/1055664.html He said that extending the operation of the nuclear power plant would take “a few years” under the current circumstances. Minister Lindner is the leader of the Liberal Democrats, a pro-business conservative party'.

https://www.sedaily.com/NewsView/22RMMCW3Q3

'Conservative Liberal Democrat Party (11.5%), which is pro-business.

https://newsis.com/view/?id=NISX20170925_0000104688&cID=10101&pID=10100 C

hancellor Merkel is expected to need long and tough negotiations with the leftist Green Party and the "'business-friendly conservative Free Democratic Party (FDP)"' in order to lead the country in the future. Lazt9312 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

https://newsis.com/view/?id=NISX20170925_0000104688&cID=10101&pID=10100

https://www.donga.com/news/Inter/article/all/20220714/114460697/1

News from the right wing. All are credible sources. Lazt9312 (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I will not claim to write "conservatism" in the info box, but I think it is necessary to lightly indicate it in the article. (In fact, because the FDP is also called the pan-conservative camp like the CDU) Lazt9312 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

In the future, if there is no one who continues to present an opposing opinion, I will change it to a center-right description. Thank you to everyone who discussed. Lazt9312 (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Despite being part of a centre-left coalition government, the FDP is and has always been a centre-right party. I thus favour having "centre-right" as the political position indicated in the infobox. However, as I strongly dislike the "xxxxx to xxxxx" format, I would rather have "centre" than "centre to centre-right". --Checco (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Then, what do you think of writing "conservative liberalism" for the ideology and writing it as center right? Lazt9312 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong opposition. The political position must be "centre to centre-right", not "centre-right". Mureungdowon (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A description by source is required. In fact, since the current description is the original description, it does not matter how much it is maintained. Lazt9312 (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I oppose "conservative liberalism" and I favour the more encompassing "liberalism". I would have only "centre-right" as political position, but, as I have already explained, I would accept also "centre": the only option I strongly oppose is "centre to centre-right". --Checco (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to simply writing "centre-right". I am in favour of simply writing "centre" on the condition that the same applies in the GREENs article. By German political standards. If the political position in the GREENs article cannot be simply "centre", then the political position in the FDP article should never be simply "centre". GREENs are more centrist than the FDP. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The FDP is a centre-right party; it is to the right of the CDU/CSU on economics issues, which is well documented. In terms of the Infobox, I support having simply “Liberalism” in the ideology field, and “Centre-right” alone in the position field.-- Autospark (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

FDP's political position is centrist. Unlike the FDP, the CDU does not refer to the party itself as a centrist. If the FDP is simply "centre-right", then the CDU is "centre-right to right-wing". Mureungdowon (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The current CDU is center-right to right-wing (by German standards). But in the past, Merkel's leadership has been centrist to center-right. In fact, I think that each leadership should have a different position, but I think others will oppose it, so I'm just leaving it to the center right. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't you have any additional comments? Lazt9312 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

In Germany, CDU and SPD are the main parties, and FDP and GREENs are minority parties, which in fact exhibit alternative characteristics between the two parties. So the FDP and GREENs should be described as centrist. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither Grünen nor FDP are “centrist” parties in German politics – they are centre-left (with a left-wing history) and centre-right respectively. You’d have a stronger case arguing that the SPD and CDU/CSU are “centrist”, given their status as the main Volksparteis of Germany’s political system.-- Autospark (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

GREENs and FDP are based on centrist voters hovering between CDU and SPD. The voters of the FDP and GREENs differ from right-wing Christian voters and left-wing worker voters in terms of being centrist, living in the city, and being young. This is also an issue acknowledged by Deutsche Welle. I know that historically the FDP has been more nationalistic and right wing than the CDU, and the GREENs have been more radical and left wing than the SPD. However, 2020s German political standards, the FDP and GREENs are clearly based on a centrist voter base. Mureungdowon (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

then

Historical, now minor:

What do you think about writing the right wing with ? Lazt9312 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong Opposition. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Despite one user's "strong opposition", I think there is a consensus on having just "liberalism" and "centre-right" in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It should be described in a political position that it serves as a casting board between FDP and GREENs and CDU and SPD. Therefore, "Centre" must be maintained absolutely. It's more beneficial. Mureungdowon (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Then I won't object to writing liberals and center-rights, but as I said above, there is a right-wing basis, so it's hard to ignore this. Lazt9312 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact is that there are different ways of being centre-right or, by the way, any political position. Both the CDU and the FDP are centre-right parties, albeit in different ways. Indeed, the former is a (liberal-)conservative party and the latter a liberal one. In my view, ideologies are more distinctive that positions when describing political parties. Thus, I am glad that we all agree on the obvious reality that FDP's ideology (the only one deserving to be mentioned in the infobox) is "liberalism". In this respect, the political position is secondary. Also because of this, I hope that the only user who is supporting "centre" will accept to describe the party as liberal and centre-right. Finally, it does not really matter that currently the FDP is the most centrist party in a centre-left government coalition. Governments come and go, while ideologies and positions are more enduring. The FDP would be the same even in an alliance with the CDU: it is a centre-right liberal party and it has long been so. --Checco (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that when dividing political positions, traditional social democratic parties and traditional right-wing opposition parties should be described as "centre-left" and "centre-right", respectively. A casting board party that does not belong to it must include "centre" if its political position is center-left or center-right. In the Netherlands, the liberal VVD is absolutely "centre-right" and the conservative CDA is absolutely "centre to centre-right"; in Germany, the conservative CDU is "centre-right" and the liberal FPD is "centre to centre-right". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not be offended if I tell you that this reasoning looks flawed, too strict and bordering original research to me. By the way, there is consensus on describing the FDP as a centre-right party, while "centre to centre-right" lacks support. --Checco (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is important for Wikipedia, but sources are just as important. The CDU and SPD form the mainstream right and left in German politics. They are not considered centrist. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No-one is saying that, indeed. The problem is that also the FDP is not centrist and is rarely described as centrist by sources. That is basically your own opinion and, frankly, I do not event understand why re-branding the FDP as centrist is so important to you. --Checco (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I can bring in countless sources that FDP is centrist and CDU is centre-right at the same time. It's one of them.:

What's your point? There's plenty of erroneous sources that refer to the CDU as "centrist: if you specifically seek out and cherry-pick them (see: Example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4).--Autospark (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The FDP's voter base is closer to GREENs than the CDU. (If the FDP is not more centrist than the CDU, FDP voters should be closer to the CDU, not to the GREENs.) Mureungdowon (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This is probably a different story from the argument. I am relatively less interested in how to write ideology in infobox. However, I am more supportive of Helper201's proposal. The infobox ideology of the FDP article should be "Liberalism/Classical liberalism/Conservative liberalism", not "Liberalism". However, this is no more important to me than the issue of the political position of the FDP. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I oppose bloating the Infobox; listing three ideologies is too many for the vast majority of political parties, certainly when one is redundant (namely, classical liberalism, a term used for a 19th century ideology, or a term used as an alternative to "continental liberalism" to describe the centre-right variant of liberalism in British English). If two ideologies are to be listed, it should just be liberalism and conservative liberalism.--Autospark (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree to add Liberalism, Classical Liberalism, and Liberal Conservatism.

However, what do you think about adding 'economic liberalism' and 'social liberalism'? If you add these two, it seems that you can express economically liberalism and culturally liberalism well. Lazt9312 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I strongly oppose “economic liberalism” (that’s even more redundant than the questionable “classical liberalism”), as economic liberalism is already a key component part of (political) liberalism. Social liberalism I also strongly oppose as being plain factually inaccurate – the FDP is neither social-liberal in the sense of being part of the interventionist, welfarist strand of political liberalism, or arguably even particularly “socially liberal” [sic] in the sense of cultural liberalism.- - Autospark (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

i would be in favour of Liberalism, Classical Liberalism, and Conservative Liberalism

Classical Liberalism is not just a 19th century thing and can be applied to multiple parties like Liberalerna, Squirrel in Estonia or LRLS which are not really "conservative" in the way that they're moderately liberal on social issues (depending on the topic) in contrast to VVD or Venstre which are mostly conservative Braganza (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Then economic liberalism has a source, of course, but why don't we add neoliberalism with a clear source? I agree with you about cultural liberalism. I'm not against adding cultural liberalism either.

How about something like this:

liberalism

conservative liberalism

classical liberalism

neoliberalism

cultural liberalism Lazt9312 (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

“Neoliberalism” is an economic doctrine, not a political ideology, so has no place in the Infobox. “Cultural liberalism” strides the line between being factually a bit too inaccurate for the FDP and outright redundant. I’ve already stared my opposition to “classical liberalism” being placed in the Infobox. Again, with rare exceptions, there just needs to be one or two ideologies listed in any political party Infobox, as the Infobox is meant to be the broadest overview (with detailed descriptions with references left to the article body). For this particular party’s Infobox, “liberalism” alone is enough for describing the FDP, although if some users insist on multiple ideologies, “liberalism” and “conservative liberalism” would be an acceptable compromise for me.-- Autospark (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of only listing "liberalism", as this is the ideology that FDP is mainly associated with. I'd recommend @Lazt9312: to read MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" and "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". It is clear that FDP has been also described as conservative-liberal, classical-liberal, liberal-conservative, neo-liberal, etc, though these descriptors do not appear to be "key facts", in this case main ideological descriptors, so there is no need to list every single one of these in the infobox as it would just clutter the infobox even more. This is a high-profile party, so we should abstain from original research and instead see what reliable sources and experts have to say. The case regarding its political position: it is correct that there are reliable sources for both the centre, centre-right, and right-wing, and one would be skeptic about the fact that with a quick search you would find out that there are more sources for centrist than centre-right for example. Although I wasn't involved in this discussion until now, it seems like this is getting out of hand. Bludgeoning should be avoided and it is clear that editors have expressed their opinions regarding this topic multiple times. Again, editors should be aware of certain policies such as MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which I've already mentioned. Continuing this discussion, imho, would be unhelpful as this can be easily resolved via RfC. If there's no opposition to starting a RfC, I'll start one asap. Vacant0 (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lazt9312: Oh god no. I'd recommend "Liberalism (German)", while expanding the German page about liberalism from Prussia through to now. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I support Valencia Thunderbolt's opinion. It must be either: "Liberalism / Classical liberalism / Conservative liberalism" or "Liberalism (Germany)". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mureungdowon: I will say, for a country as politically rich as Germany and Prussia, the page on liberalism, conservatism etc. aren't that expansive compared to others. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not particularly fond of the “Ideology (nationality)” format, but I’d take “Liberalism (Germany)” as a compromise if it helps to keep the Infobox as streamlined as possible.-- Autospark (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Liberalism (Germany)

liberal conservatism

classical liberalism

I agree with the description If you write only simple liberalism, it is difficult to express the party's ideology well. I think at least 3 is simple. Lazt9312 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lazt9312: Have you even read what I've said? Vacant0 (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Vacant0 I now doubt that that individual is even acting in good faith.-- Autospark (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I advocate for liberalism, classical liberalism and conservative liberalism in the ideology section of the infobox and retaining the position of centre to centre-right. Helper201 (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Me too! I think so, too! Mureungdowon (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Helper201: Is there any indication that the party is socially conservative, to warrant it having "conservative liberalism". ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@ValenciaThunderbolt: Conservative liberalism is explicitly cited in the Ideology and policies section with three supporting citations. Helper201 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Helper201: I can't believe I didn't see them. Anyway, as they each have three citations, I support having all three. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not there to list every single ideological variation a political party is described with. It is for the article body to elaborate on that. A party like the FDP doesn’t need a single ideology in its Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Autospark: In my eyes, it should just be "Liberalism (Germany)". However, a rule I have is that the one that has the most ideologies, or of an equal number, should be listed. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@ValenciaThunderbolt: I am now questioning whether you are also replying on good faith. I will again state, there is no need to bloat the Infobox with three overlapping ideologies (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) and there is no requirement for any or all ideologies referenced in the article body to appear in the Infobox. Do you understand?—Autospark (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Autospark: Oh come on. All I'm saying is that I have two opinions on the subject. As they are all liberal ideologies, I say go for "Liberalism (Germany)", or if that can't be agreed upon, go for the three ideologies that have the most citations. There is no need to be like that with me. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's stay civil. I'll open a RfC now and the consensus will be determined in that way then. Vacant0 (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Thank you :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any chance that instead of debating where the party lies, we can discuss the party's policies on two fronts?:

Fiscal: Centre-right to right wing

Cultural: Centre-left

And I am not sure if there has been consensus with regard to ideologies but I believe that perhaps we could have liberalism and classical liberalism, as conservative-liberalism implies that the party adopts conservative cultural views. I don't mean to push any view, but I am just stating how I feel. 67.83.107.150 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the consensus was reached a while ago, but this one was never closed. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

References

RfC: Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which ideology/ideologies and political positions should be listed in the infobox? --Vacant0 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Options for ideologies (backed up by reliable sources): Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Conservative liberalism, Liberal conservatism, Neoliberalism, Cultural liberalism, Economic liberalism
• Options for political positions (backed up by reliable sources): Centre, Centre-right, Right-wing

Survey (Infobox)

• Liberalism and Centre to centre-right or just Centre-right As I've stated in the discussion above, we should be following the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE guideline which states "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" and "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". I believe that regarding articles like this, the ideology section should only contain an ideology (or ideologies) that is/are mainly associated with a party while listing every single one of these ideologies would only clutter the infobox even more and this would then not fall under "key facts" (key ideologies in this case) part. In the case of FDP, this ideology would be liberalism, as this ideology is more commonly used by reliable sources and it already encompasses its variants that are listed above. Regarding its political position, a quick search would show that "centre" is the most used one, followed by centre-right and right-wing. The right-wing descriptor is in the minority here, so it should be avoided, while the "centre" descriptor does outweigh the "centre-right" one, I would accept either one of these to be listed in the infobox including the current status quo "centre to centre-right", as FDP does lean very much on the right regarding economic issues, so IMO, leaving only centre in the infobox would create a false perspective regarding its position. --Vacant0 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Conservative liberalism and Centre to centre-right. FDP is clearly a centrist close to GREENs. Ideology is supported in the article. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Liberalism and Centre-right only. Again, referring back to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the Infobox is not for bloating with redundant information best elaborated upon in the article body (including needlessly listing half-dozen overlapping political ideologies). As for the FDP, it is clearly not a plain “centrist” party to anyone who understands German politics, and a tautological description such as “centre to centre-right” is an utterly nonsensical construction. --Autospark (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Liberalism and centre-right per Vacant and Autospark. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Conservative liberalism but neutral on position (so Centre to centre-right or just Centre-right) Braganza (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Would you mind stating your rationale? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  i already discussed this above Braganza (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Liberalism as it is the only encompassing ideology of the party (all other variants of liberalism would be redundant). Centre-right as the party, despite being currently part of a centre-left coalition, has a long history of being a centre-right party, its nature cannot be changed by a temporary coalition and the "xxxxx to xxxxx" format (for instance "centre to centre-right") is only a bad compromise—"centre-right" already includes "centre", as well as "right-wing". --Checco (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Liberalism and Centre-right. As there are recent citations for neoliberalism. However, I'd like to see more citations/references for "conservative liberalism" as the current ones are over ten years ago, with one dating back to 1996, as parties can change over years. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Conservative liberalism, neoliberalism and centre-right Without adding neoliberalism, it's hard to show the party's economic right wing. I think writing like this will describe the party's ideology well. The reason for claiming a simple center-right is that the center-right can be read as broadly encompassing from centrist to right-wing, so I think it would be more clear to describe one. Lazt9312 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Liberalism and centre-right per Autospark. @Lazt9312: I don't think infoboxes need to reflect the party's "economic right wing", the lede is good enough for that. Infoboxes are simple summaries. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Liberalism, classical liberalism, and conservative liberalism, with a political position of centre to centre-right. Helper201 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Would you mind stating your reason? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Each and every one of these ideology and position claims have supporting citations given within the page. We should go by what the sources state. Helper201 (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Infobox is for summarising information contained in the article body itself, not repeating every possible variation of overlapping ideologies.-- Autospark (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Liberalism and classical liberalism, with a political position of centre to centre-right. Classical liberalism is the main variant of liberalism with which the FDP is associated (and this is well-supported by sources). "Centre" and "centre-right" are also both well-supported in sources, and I view the "centre" part as important to distinguish the FDP from parties like the CDU. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  The concept of the political spectrum does not work that – there is no ‘rule’ stating that there can only be one political party in each nation on a specific named part of that spectrum. Besides, “Centre and centre-right" is tautology (or redundancy, if you prefer), and to take an absurd argument to its conclusions, the SPD and CDU could be argued to be “centre to…” parties more so than the FDP.-- Autospark (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't agree with that opinion. The SPD is a mainstream social democratic (centre-left) party, and the CDU is the opposite (centre-right). The FDP and GREENs, on the other hand, are third parties (centre), based on urban middle-class centrist voters who have nothing to do with established right-wing Christian voters or established left-wing workers voters. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

All sourced ideologies and Centre to right-wing - I strongly disagree with the notion that infoboxes should be as slim as possible. I think quite to the contrary they should be as all-encompassing as possible, as many readers will not even read past it. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"I strongly disagree with the notion that infoboxes should be as slim as possible" notion is the complete opposite of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" and "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". Vacant0 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

How can you argue that this information is not crucial. As you quoted so nicely, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. This should then encompass all key facts and I think any ideological description is relevant information, since it usually describes different factions inside the party. As I see this compressing of ideologies has taken root in articles about German political parties, but I see it mostly as a thinly veiled attempt at hiding divergent viewpoints. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 23:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Centre-right and Liberalism, Economic Liberalism The FDP has repeatedly dabbled with right-wing populism, but long term centre-right seems most accurate. They self-identify with Liberalism, but their core has been Economic Liberalism since at least the late nineties. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Centre to centre-right as political position (if both are supported by reliable sources, both should stay in the infobox) and just Liberalism as ideology.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Infobox)

I hope we'll see an outcome through this RfC as the discussion above has turned out to be large with users repeating their opinions several times. Let's abstain from original research and state the evidence that is provided by reliable sources regarding this party. --Vacant0 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, would you kindly provide a summary of the discussion above? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above was about the ideology and political position of FDP. It turned to be a rather large discussion, with editors expressing their opinions multiple times. I don't think that a clear consensus would come from that discussion as some editors also kept changing their opinion on what ideologies should be included in the infobox and edit warring already occurred a few days ago, while the discussion was still ongoing. Vacant0 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources that are once classified as right-wing include: In the discussion above, discussions were held on whether to go from 'center to center-right' or a simple center-right, but no conclusion was reached. Regarding ideology, there are many ideologies, but it would be better to write liberalism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and conservative liberalism mentioned in many sources. The Free Democratic Party is described by many sources as a right-wing party. Lazt9312 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lazt9312: The only problem I have with your references is that they are South Korean, where they view things politically different from other countries. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Placing the FDP on the left-right spectrum is not trivial. One problem is that during it's long time as junior party in CDU/FDP governments (Kohl/Merkel) it wasn't always clear which policies they supported because they believed in them and which policies they supported for whatever-it-takes-to-be-in-power reasons. Another problem is that it has moved around a little in the past. There were definitely times where they tried their hand at right-wing populism (e.g. around 2000 under the influence of Jürgen Möllemann). But long term I would say centre-right is probably most accurate. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to refer everyone to this graphic: [1]. It summarises how 361 experts place the political parties in Germany on several spectra. These are (left to right, top to bottom): left-right, economy, society, law and order, immigration, integration, climate, education, EU integration. It is from the article Die Positionen der Parteien zur Bundestagswahl 2021: Ergebnisse des Open Expert Surveys (in German). Notice that regarding the left-right spectrum the FDP is placed about the same as the CDU. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The best thing to do is look at the Estonian Reform Party as a guide, as it is similar to the party. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@ValenciaThunderbolt: their ideology list was changed Braganza (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Braganza: It was changed back. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@ValenciaThunderbolt: no i mean it used to be Liberalism+Classical Liberalism just a few weeks ago Braganza (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Braganza: Right :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

fair Braganza (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The political position of centre should certainly be restored to the infobox. Before Jan/Feb this year this was the long term cited position in the infobox and was removed without a consensus to do so. Helper201 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Infobox is meant to be merely a summary, not a long list of everything described or referenced in the article body, particular cramming every redundant or tautological piece of information that is best elaborated upon inside the article.-- Autospark (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but since when is two political positions, or three political ideologies a "long list"? A huge array of political parties across Wikipedia have multiple of both in each section and this is not commonly flagged up as a problem by many editors other than yourself. A wider Wikipedia consensus is needed on what constitutes as "too many" ideologies and political positions for the infobox. One or two editors making drive-by arbitrary edits of removing what they personally think consisted as "too many" ideologies or positions is not how this should be done. Helper201 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Two political positions that heavily overlap; three ideologies which overlap (one of which arguably problematic as a descriptor). There is a common problem on en.wiki articles about political parties, where editors cram Infoboxes with information that does not need to be there, including policies position; two ideologies are enough. More detail, should and can be provided in the article body. There is no requirement to list every reliably-referenced ideology or position on the Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may interject, it's like when there is "nationalism" and "social conservatism" in the infobox. It's better to have "national conservatism" since it encompasses both. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Combining ideologies with references that do not support the claim is WP:HIJACK. I've just noticed that you've done that to Amanat (political party). I've reverted it. Vacant0 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Autospark please stop enforcing your own point of view without a consensus. You have no consensus to remove stuff like "centre" from the infobox. You are removing what is supported by sources and what has long been established and cited on the page. What constitutes "enough" is entirely subjective and does not get to be determined solely by yourself. Just because something isn't "required" doesn't mean it cannot exist within the infobox. No one should be gatekeeping what is allowed in the infobox if it is supported by sources and has no consensus to remove. There was clearly no consensus to remove what you have removed and it seems one has not been established, so the infobox should return to how it was before you starting removing cited information from it. Helper201 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The survey above and several other discussions show that what User:Autospark wrote above is consensual. --Checco (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus in favour of Autospark's views here. Helper201 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The user that ends up closing this RfC will determine whether there is consensus or not. Vacant0 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, refrain from edit warring, especially while the RfC is ongoing. Vacant0 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Quick question, when shall this close, as it is nearly a month since it began. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The RfC expired so I'll ask someone now to close it manually. Vacant0 (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Right. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vacant0 - I have closed it. If you or any other editor has questions regarding my rationale, please ping me or ask on my talk page. casualdejekyll 18:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incomprehensible paragraph

The last paragraph of the section 1949–1969: reconstruction of Germany reads:

The opposition also pioneered a course change to: The former foreign policy and the attitude to the eastern territories were discussed. Opposition leader for the FDP in Bundestag was Knut von Kühlmann-Stumm. The new chairman elected delegates in 1968 Walter Scheel, a European-oriented liberals, although it came from the national liberal camp, but with Willi Weyer and Hans-Dietrich Genscher led the new center of the party. ... Here, the Liberals approached to by their reorientation in East Germany and politics especially of the SPD.

I am a native speaker of English and I can't understand what this is trying to say, mostly due to its awful grammar. I guessed that the first sentence was a typo and "to" should be "too", which is redundant so I deleted it. In the third sentence, "Walter Scheel" has no coherent syntactic role, it's just tacked on the end of a sentence, so it's unclear what its role is supposed to be. Did Scheel elect delegates? That makes no sense: one does not unilaterally elect anyone, that is an appointment, not an election. Did the delegates elect Scheel? That makes more sense, but what delegates are they? Should it say "members of the Bundestag"? Who was Scheer anyway – the chairman? His name needs to be somewhat near the word "chairman" to make that anywhere close to clear. The final sentence is totally garbled and incoherent. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Political position

I would like to open a new discussion regarding the political position of the FDP, since I do not at all agree with the removal tout court of its centrist positioning: this positioning is indicated by multiple authoritative sources, including the encyclopedia Britannica ([2]) and several books ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), and its removal seems to me unjustified. The consensus to include only the centre-right as a political position was very weak, so I would like the choice to exclude a political position attested by numerous sources to be reconsidered. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to add those references to the article body if you wish. Are you talking about the Infobox? Well, that’s meant to be a summary, not an exhaustive essay in itself. The elaborations and wider range of descriptions can be in the Ideology section. If summarising the FDP as a party, centre-right is the most accurate description for a brief summary, and is well-referenced.— Autospark (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, if a political position is widely referenced, it seems to me a rather arbitrary choice to want to exclude it from the infobox. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The Infobox is only meant to be a brief summary, and centre-right already includes “centre”.— Autospark (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Centre-right has a different meaning than centre, if the party is very often described only as centrist, I find it wrong not to point this out. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No-one is denying that. However, this discussion is seemingly about what to put in the Infobox. We have sources describing the party as right-wing as well, but I wouldn’t put “right-wing” as the primary description of the party in the Infobox either.— Autospark (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, "centre-right" is the more correct political position and it already includes "centre". Please also note that the party is surely not centre-left, but a centrist party oriented toward the right, thus "centre-right". This said, I take also this opportunity to point out that political positions are quite deceptive and confusing—I would remove them from infoboxes altogether. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Scia Della Cometa that centre should be restored to the infobox. I've outlined my thoughts about this in a discussion above. However, I also support the retention of centre-right, so it would read "Centre to centre-right". IMO this is in no way exhaustive and provides important nuance. Nor do I agree the statement "centre-right includes centre", as if this justifies the reduction of one when it can be well cited with multiple reliable sources. Helper201 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I also believe that the position in the infobox should be "center to centre-right". I think an RFC on the political position of this party should be repeated. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201:“Centre-right” includes “centre”. It’s inherently there. “Centre to centre-right” makes zero sense. One or the other. I’d prefer no position to be listed in the Infobox rather than that, frankly. (The FDP is a centre-right party anyway, being to the right of the CDU/CSU. And no, “centre-right” isn’t some kind of ‘slur’ description, or a more controversial one like “far-right” which needs careful supporting evidence via suitable references. If we can describe the British Tories, Dutch VVD, Forza Italia et al as centre-right, we should be able to do the same with the FDP.)—Autospark (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the narrative framing of "centre-right includes centre" so therefore centre-right shouldn't be included. You could say the same for centre-right includes "right" so you can't call a party centre-right to right-wing, or a party right-wing to far-right because they both include "right". Many editors would have a problem with this, as position frames like this have frequently achieved a consensus across many Wikipedia pages. Also, I never called anything a "slur", so I'm not sure where that's coming from. I disagree that assertion that the FDP is to the right of the CDU/CSU as well. Maybe this could be argued to be the case on some economic policies, but certainly not socially and even just generally on non-economic matters. Helper201 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the FDP is not to the right of the CDU/CSU, furthermore it is not even comparable to parties like Forza Italia (which is indeed comparable to the CDU/CSU).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about a party with a history of containing both liberal and conservative factions, the latter stretching rather far to the right at times. We aren’t talking about something identical to the British Liberals/LibDems, namely a centrist party with a centre-left tilt.— Autospark (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

For this reason the proposal is to indicate "Centre to centre-right", the FDP is a centrist party with conservative inclinations. If the Liberal Democrats' position is "centre to centre-left", I see no reason why the FDP's position cannot be "centre to centre-right".--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Why should another article dictate this one? I usually try and avoid articles about UK parties, often unsuccessfully, but would not leave the “centre to centre-left” nonsense there either. Not that it matters. (Also, why is everyone focusing on Infoboxes recently? Why not actually contribute material to the article bodies?)— Autospark (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Helper201 I’ve noticed a general pushback recently about describing centre-right liberal parties / ALDE member parties as centre-right or right, as if it’s a slur or extreme description, not a perfectly acceptable description for a mainstream party backed up by sources. This of course may not be your motivation here.— Autospark (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It was you who cited the Liberal Democrats as a comparison, and if a lot of parties' articles indicate Centre to centre-left/right as a political position, it means that it is not nonsense as you say. And why shouldn't I focus on the infobox? If you have intervened in this discussion it means that the infobox is of interest to you too.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There are too many poorly-written en.wiki articles about political parties. I’m trying to not let this become one of them. Honestly, if articles commonly have tautological nonsense like “centre to centre-x” in their Infoboxes, that isn’t an excuse to use that trope here – quality control is never a bad thing. I’m beginning to think we would be best off without the Position field in these Infoboxes, or at least have very strict rules about only listing one position per article.— Autospark (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If authoritative sources indicate a broader spectrum of positions for a party, choosing just one would be an arbitrary decision by users, who would instead have to consider all the most authoritative sources. I don't think there would be consensus to completely remove the political position from the infobox, since it is very useful information. However, I believe this discussion should be resolved through a new RFC. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Scia Della Cometa. Helper201 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Broader spectrum? That’s for the article body, particular the Ideology section to describe, not the Infobox. I’ve already put the legwork in, adding dozens of references for this article adding to describing the trends in and nuance of the party. I’m not denying a “broader spectrum”, quite the opposite.— Autospark (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, I totally agree with User:Autospark. And, let me say it, there is much nonsense in this discussion. --Checco (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if maybe English is your second language, but "center-right" is not considered to imply the inclusion of "center" by most English speakers. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Rfc: political position

Which political position should be indicated in the Free Democratic Party's infobox?

• Centre
• Centre-right
• Centre to centre-right

Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey (political position)

Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Discussion section. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Centre or Centre to centre-right: there are countless reliable sources that describe the FDP as a centrist party, ([8],[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), excluding "Centre" from the infobox is misleading at all. In particular, the FDP is a party "with politically progressive but economically conservative values" ([17]), so it is definitely a centrist party, but since there are also sources that describe it as a centre-right party ([18], [19], [20]), I am also absolutely open to including both positions (centre to centre-right).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right only. The FDP is a party of the centre-right, primarily economically liberal / neoliberal in terms of its main ideological “hat” and raison d'etre, and is described by reliable sources as centre-right. “Centre” listed separately is redundant with “centre-right”, which already includes “centre”, indicating a party spanning centrist to right-leaning positions. (My second preference would be for no position to be listed in the Infobox, which I would prefer over tautology and/or claims which could be misinterpreted by lay readers.)—Autospark (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right. This is a reasonable paraphrasing of the totality of the sources in the article; the existence of some sources that say "centre" (or "right-wing", which is also well-cited in the article) does not contradict it because centre-right encompasses both of these. Additionally, the sources that describe it as being on the right are generally ones that go into more depth on the party's political position, while the ones that only say "centre" or "right-wing" tend to be more general overviews or passing mentions. I'd oppose "centre" because there are many sources that make it clear that it is on the right and no sources that actually contradict this; and I'd oppose "centre to centre-right" because this implies that the views within the party represent a broad range that is not actually attested to by the sources. In the discussion above, the argument was made that the sources attest to a "broader spectrum" but that isn't actually what they say - sources that use different terminology can simply mean that those particular sources use more vague or specific terminology in general. To say or imply that the party represents broad spectrum, we would need sources saying so specifically, ie. sources that actually say "centre to centre-right" specifically; likewise, to contradict centre-right, we would need sources that actually contrast the centre-right with the party in a way that distinguishes its position or which makes it clear that the centre-right is only part of the party's base. Neither of these are in evidence; the most reasonable reading of the sources is that it is a centre-right party and that some sources therefore call it "centre" or "right-wing" because those are both valid ways to refer such a party. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre to centre-right. This is what can best be cited with reliable sources. To omit one possess weight and balance issues. Helper201 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right only. While article also contains few other sources, which call it "Centre", info-box should reflect what majority of the sources tell us. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right, for the reasons explained above by other users. Please let me add that, while I would remove the quite controversial and deceptive "political position" from infoboxes, I think that we should at least find common ground on avoiding "Xxxxx to xxxxx" positions. In this case, "centre-right" already includes "centre"! --Checco (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right (Summoned by bot) per Aquillion's detailed arguments and those of others. This is a reasonable summary of the sources and the fact that such a party would sometimes be described as 'half a notch' to one side or the other in specific contexts is to be expected. Pincrete (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Fiscal: Centre-right, Social: centre-left. I believe this describes their position most accurately. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Discussion (political position)

@Aquillion: you affirm that "there are many sources that make it clear that it is on the right and no sources that actually contradict this": this is not true at all, there are many sources that say the opposite. Some examples: the FDP is "centrist, a smaller party with politically progressive but economically conservative values" ([21]); "classical liberals would present a firm economic liberalism and a centre-left position on cultural issues (e.g. the German FDP) ([22]); another source describe the FDP as "centre-left liberals" ([23]); the social liberal wing of the FDP in 1966 highlighted German liberalism's democratic and progressive tradition that overrode national-liberals' anti-Communism" ([24]); another source: "in the early 1970 the nationalist strain largely left the party, so throughout the 1970s the FDP could be more comfortable in the center-moderate left coalition with the SDP" ([25]); then "the FDP, ever since its Freiburg congress in January 1968, ad acquired such a progressive image in matters of Germany policy, eastern policy, and domestic reform that it now had more in common with the SPD than with the Union" ([26]). As you can see your statement can be easily refuted, there are multiple sources describing the FDP as a politically progressive or even centre-left party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Saying something is centrist doesn't contradict it being centre-right necessarily. The latter is more specific often. Pincrete (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete I don't pretend to change your mind, but... do you seriously think that a party described indiscriminately as centrist, centre-left and centre-right should be described solely as centre-right? How can we justify excluding a vast amount of reliable sources from the page? It seems against Wikipedia principles to me...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

the fact that such a party would sometimes be described as 'half a notch' to one side or the other in specific contexts is to be expected. Such descriptors are rarely universally applied in all contexts, they are a broad assessment of their principal - often economic - policies. You write as though being centre is a fundamentally different thing from being centre-right or centre-left. We cannot record every description ever made of every political position. If a party is, for example, consistently described as centre-right in one policy area, but centre-left in another, those specifics are worth describing. Otherwise it's fudging the issue that they are most commonly described as centre-right. Pincrete (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I didn't understand your reasoning well, could you explain it to me again. In any case, here we are faced with a case similar to the Christian Union (Netherlands) (in reverse parts): in fact the FDP is a centre-right party on fiscal policy and centre-left on social policies, this cannot be denied: describing the FDP just as a centre-right party means taking into consideration only part of the policies of this party (and only part of the sources).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It means following the broad sweep of the majority of sources - which don't, as far as I can see, make the fiscal/social distinction that you do. I have commented on this RfC. I did so in good faith based on my assessment. I don't have to justify my assessment any further than I have already. Nobody thinks that a centre-right party is, or has to be, perfectly centre-right in everything it does, it's a broad descriptor. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I don't question anyone's good faith, and I don't pretend to change your mind, each user's preference is legitimate, even if I don't agree with their motivations: in particular, it doesn't seem to me that most sources describe the FDP as a centre-right party, but as a centrist party. Furthermore, a centre-right party does not have centre-left social policies, otherwise it is not a centre-right party! The sources explain it well. I wanted to point this out, even if I don't think that either you or the other users who indicated "centre-right" will change their minds... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Political position

Isn’t The FDP simply a centrist party? 2A06:C701:4F3B:ED00:1426:E750:5CB7:C1BC (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have a look in the "Ideology and platform" section of the page there are multiple sources that call the party centre-right and right-wing, as well as those that call it centrist. Helper201 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)