Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Liberalism"

Revision as of 01:42, November 17, 2008

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

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

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

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

Template name

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

Use of the template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree that the template makes us look like a parody of ourselves, or that it's necessarily being used to try to take a swipe at liberals. However, I agree that it shouldn't be used, and not because I don't like it, but because it's being improperly used. Navboxes are used to connect articles within said navbox (see the examples above, along with {{2008_presidential_candidates}}, which is another one I just remembered), not as a "see also". I wouldn't be against adding conservative links to the See Also section of these articles, since that article has on it all these liberal traits as well as many other resources which serve the same purpose that TK is trying to serve by adding this template to the page.

Two other minor things: would it be possible to discontinue adding this template until we have decided here what's to be done? Additionally, if the template is added, I think it should be added at the very bottom of the page, not in the middle. Since it takes up the whole screen, if it's placed in the middle it cuts the article in two. HelpJazz 10:18, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed Poor has created {{Atheists}}, apparently as a replacement for using this on articles about atheists. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Request for sysop

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

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

How is this to be used?

I thought we had decided the use of this template, but it's being used inapropriately again. HelpJazz 22:34, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I asked for the templates creation, so I know why I asked for it. But of course I could be wrong. The idea for making and using it, was to put on an article, about people or things, similar traits that all liberals share. --₮K^/Talk 22:39, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Then fix it like you agreed to offline. Navtemplates are to be used to link together the articles on the template, not to be plastered on any marginally related topic. HelpJazz 22:42, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry, I reject your opinion as to NavTemplates needing to be used in only one way. Ease of use trumps your idea of how it must be used. When that template is put on an article of a liberal person or institution/organization, it enables our readers to easily find and read information on liberal traits. Why would anyone object to that, unless they are trying to hide liberal traits? --₮K^/Talk 22:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Then I'll do it myself. Are we to add this template to every single liberal or liberal act described on Conservapedia? That's a big job, not a very easy use. HelpJazz 22:48, 15 November 2008 (EST)

• I hardly think anyone needs to be dogmatic about it, or slavish in its application. Isn't common sense enough? In the case of Dawkins, it is entirely reasonable to expect that not everyone will know who he is, or be familiar with what liberal means in America. By adding that template to his article, it will enpower users to click the examples listed on the template, and understand what qualities he exhibits make him a liberal. That make sense? --₮K^/Talk 00:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Can't the same be said for Barack Obama or Ted Kennedy or FDR or the ACLU -- where do we stop? You don't have to be dogmatic about it, but in a community website you need to at least have some consistency. You can't just make up new uses for things -- how is a new editor supposed to know what to do? HelpJazz 13:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, the only people I see making up uses is you and Brianco. I requested the template to be made. I discussed it before asking for it, with Andy, Ed Poor and a couple of others. As I have repeated several times, my intent was to place it on the article for everyone/thing, that is identified as being a liberal in the article. Period.

And I did not intend to link all articles with each other, as you insist a nav template must be used. I respectfully submit that there isn't just one way to use such a vehicle. The intent was to allow users to easily look up those qualities that caused whatever person/institution to be labeled a liberal in the article. It isn't such a big job as compared to the thousands of articles where a persons liberal nature has been obfuscated. One simply adds it whenever one comes across an article about a liberal. It allows a reader to easily click the links included in the template to read in more depth what makes a liberal a liberal:

Bias • Deceit • Denial • Evolutionary Ideology • Friendship • Global warming • Globalism • Gun control • Hate speech • Hollywood values • Homosexual agenda • Hypocrisy • Ideology • Liberals • Logic • Media elite • Myths • Obfuscation • Quotient • Redefinition • School grading • Style • Values

What I cannot fathom is why anyone would go to the lengths you and BrianCo have gone to not use it, complain about it. Oh, wait, neither one of you is a conservative! I forgot. So neither one of you like calling out liberals, or making them, and their qualities transparent and easily identified by others. So be it. If you are not interested in showing liberals for what they are, my suggesting would be to edit Wikipedia. Here, the decision was made long before you, Brianco or me came here, to showcase liberal attributes, liberal values, identify liberal people and institutions, and clearly show their deceit. --₮K^/Talk 15:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

At Wikipedia, they pay lip service to the idea of "assuming good faith". But then, once they find out you're on to them, the gloves come off. Well, the gloves are off here too.

Some people tell the truth; others lie. Liberals tend to do this much more than conservatives, although they don't have a monopoly (not any more than Bill Gates has a monopoly on operating systems. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

First of all, TK, you are the one who added "this might be an unorthodox use for a navigation template", so Brianco and I are not the one chenging the rules, you are. (If, as you claim, you invented this template, can you please show me where? Not that that actually makes a difference in how a navtemplate is supposed to be used, but it would be nice to finally see what the original intent of this template was).

Secondly, stop saying that I'm out to destroy this wiki because I'm a liberal. It's a stupid argument and it makes no sense: "HelpJazz and Brianco want to use a navtemplate in the way that every single other navtemplate is used because they are dirty liberals". You know I'm not a liberal (as you have told me numerous times on IM), and you are only saying it here in order to discredit me. If you continue your disruptive behavior I will block you, just like I would any other editor who does the same.

<Deep breath>

Now that that's out of the way, thank you for finally explaining the use of this template. Are you going to take up the project of adding it to every liberal? Of so the liberals category is a good place to start. HelpJazz 16:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I would not be adding it to yet another template, as this one is informational in nature, and not intended to be linked to all other articles about liberals. Nice try, using a Red Herring, Jazz. I didn't call you a liberal, I stated a fact, that you are, self-admittedly so, a libertarian, and not a conservative. Do I need to provide links to where you posted that fact? What several of us are wondering is, why you would take this fight to public postings, instead of your usual contact via AIM? To many it appears it is done to better coordinate with others who agree with you. As I said, if you have a problem calling out liberals, Wikipedia is the place for you and anyone else who has trouble doing that. Our job here is to identify liberals, liberal deceit and Liberal myths wherever it/they exists. Ours is an educational mission, to educate the public about what makes a liberal a liberal, and clearly show their deceitful methods of obfuscation, deflection and arguing-without-end to ensure liberal deceit is not exposed. --₮K^/Talk 17:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I didn't say you should add another template, I'm not sure what you are talking about. You said "One simply adds it whenever one comes across an article about a liberal"; I was pointing out that many such articles can be found in the liberals category.

"Red hearing", yeah right. First of all, you were the one who started the red herring by bringing up ideologies at all. You are correct, you didn't call me a liberal, you called me a non-conservative. (You didn't call me a libertarian). Either way, your implication that the only reason I want to use the template in the manner discussed back in April is because I am a "non-conservative" and I have trouble identifying liberals or liberal deciet is patently false, and is only being used to derail this conversation. I have already stated, in the above discussion, back in April, that your line of reasoning has no bearing on why I want to use the navtemplate as a navtemplate. If you would please read that discussion and stop using the same faulty line of reasoning it would be greatly appreciated.

Lasty, AIM is not my usual contact, it's yours. Ask any other editor if I ever contact them through AIM. I used to contact you over AIM only because you did it, not because I wanted to. The reason I'm not using AIM now is because I'm tired of you saying one thing in AIM and then doing something else online. HelpJazz 17:59, 16 November 2008 (EST)

• Well thanks for coming out of the closet and exposing yourself for the deceitful liar you are. What on AIM, did I say I was going to do, and didn't? When I sign into AIM, and it shows you there, that is a clear indication, since I have been gone from CP for 7 months, that you are indeed on it for reasons other than me. This case and matter is now closed. --₮K^/Talk 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

What makes you think that I only use AIM for CP? I have friends, you know, and my friend list doesn't overlap with the people I interact with on CP. So, I'm not a deceitful liar when I say that you are the only editor I talk to about CP, and it's because you want to, not because I want to. HelpJazz 18:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Can we stick to the point? Liberals are related to Liberalism. It helps educate our readers to use templates that are chock full of links.

I don't think we have to put every article, that uses a template, in that template. But if it's a major article, go ahead.

We can also split this template up into Template:Liberalism and Template:Liberalism if it gets too big to be useful. We can start with Teddy Kennedy. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Did you mean to say Edward Kennedy ? --₮K^/Talk 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

So since Ed has protected it, are you going to be in charge of adding major articles to the template? TK doesn't seem to want to do it, so I'll start adding the template to every page we have about a liberal. I'll need Ed's help, though, because some of them will probably be protected. HelpJazz 18:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

• HelpJazz, it is not up to you, nor is it up to you to organize how it will be done. Let me repeat one final time. You were given blocking rights to fight off vandals, not to decide policy. I know that to be a fact, because I was one who pushed for your blocking rights, for months. You inserting yourself into something, and arguing your POV endlessly, without an end, isn't exactly wanted. Not everyone can just drop what they are doing, and jump into doing what you suggested immediately. I think Ed is trying to finish some code. I am trying to finish off two articles and dealing with a horrible backlog of emails, so please forgive us for not getting it done when you demand it to be. I previously posted that one shouldn't be dogmatic, and we can add it catch-as-catch-can, a few at a time, as we see pages it would benefit. Jeeze. --₮K^/Talk 19:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Ok, I see a problem off the bat. The template adds the category "liberals" to the page, but clearly the category can be applied to more than just liberal people. I think the category should be removed, and the "liberals" or "liberalism" or "liberal organizations" category can be added to the article, as appropriate.

TK: I'm not arguing POV, I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that you are wrong. Secondly, you keep calling things "dogmatic" when you really mean "consistent". I'm sorry if I want things to be applied equally across equal cases. If we added it on just willie-nillie then clearly pages will be missed. So, I volunteered to do it systematically (not "dogmatically"). HelpJazz 19:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)

• Do what you will, HelpJazz. Ed has a bot than can do/undo anything in minutes, not hours. It is a simple matter to change the Cat to Liberal not Liberals no? That way it would fit people and institutions, right? --₮K^/Talk 19:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Switching auto-tag for category

Seems fine to me, but would it not be far less work to simply re-name category Liberals to Liberal? As I understand it, Jazz's objection was that Liberals didn't fit with some article names, and simply dropping the "S" seems to be easier. I might be wrong. Adding yet another new category name seemed silly. --₮K^/Talk 20:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)

The first part is correct (Liberals, with an s, doesn't fit many of the pages this template is to be used on). However I suggested that the category be removed from the template entirely, so that we can add categories on a case to case basis, instead of adding one category across the board. HelpJazz 20:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)