Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Liberalism

Welcome to the talk page for the Liberalism task force of WikiProject Politics.
Here you can find discussions, notices, and requests for articles that in some way deal with liberalism. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article within the scope of this task force, please post notice here.

Shortcut

WP:LIBERALISM

Refurbishment

I’ve refurbished the task force page today, as it was quite out of date. I hope this suits the task force’s needs. RGloucester (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refurbished again, as it seemed to have fallen apart since my last refurbishment. RGloucester (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More opportunities for editors to access free research databases!

The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to liberalism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Liberal Asian American infobox representatives open nomination period

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Liberal Asian American infobox representative nominees. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Asian American representative approval period (Now until 18 December)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors Invited to Laissez Faire article

There's discussion about the criticism section and a talk thread. Comments or additions to this section of the article would be welcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberal" vs "progressive"

Do we have any guidelines or standard practices on use of the terms "liberal" vs. "progressive"? I see these used apparently interchangeably in our articles and I often wonder which term I should be using. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I've been introduced to the terms is that "progressive" means using the power of the state to achieve a socio-economic change, whereas the term "liberal" is generally interpreted as making use of the sovereign treasury to effect socio-political change, with the ultimate aim an egalitarian society. Though as I'm writing this it comes to my attention you wrote this nearly four years ago. --wh1ter0se (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2017.

RFC regarding Anarcho-capitalism

Please see this RfC re including content on the Anarcho-capitalism page re its relationship with mainstream/traditional anarchism. – S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism sidebar - change from Libertarianism to Right-libertarianism

An editor has been changing a link in the Template:Liberalism sidebar from Libertarianism to Right-libertarianism. I have opened a discussion about this at Template_talk:Liberalism_sidebar#Libertarianism_or_Right-libertarianism. Your input would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest

The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group: [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikiquote, article about "Left-wing politics" could use attention

FYI, on Wikiquote, it looks like all or almost all the quotes about "Left-wing politics" are criticism of the Left.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:E5AF:9B7A:1B77:B9B4 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]