WikiProject iconPolitics Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Why exactly does the Liberalism template include all those "Other ideologies outside the series"? Wouldn't it be a better idea to create a separate Socialism series, a Conservatism series, etc.? - Mihnea Tudoreanu

I am pruning some of the entries. This article box has gotten quite large. --Twinxor 05:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I saw the pruning, but restored the timelines and the liberal international. --Gangulf 06:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This template includes many articles that have more to do with politics in general than liberalism in particular. I'm talking about the "middle section": Democracy, Freedom (political), Individual, Liberal democracy, Rule of law, Utilitarianism. The only one that really belongs there is liberal democracy. All the others are shared by liberalism and a wide variety of other ideologies. A better place for them would be Template:Politics. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer to delete the articles Classical liberalism, Green liberalism, Individualism, New liberalism, Neoliberalism, Small-l liberal, Social liberalism and to concentrate the template to the main articles about or on liberalism. In the main article Liberalism there are links to the articles I would like to delete from the template. --Gangulf 12:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suppose that would be a good idea, since the articles are mostly stubs. But, in that case, shouldn't we merge this template with Template:Liberalism (II) ? After all, without the list of stubs, this template gets too small to justify the existence of 3 separate liberalism templates. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletions from the template[edit]

I am doubting about what to do with small-l-liberal

--Gangulf 19:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I patterned it to socialism's template, why should the socialists alone have the colorful stuff. --Humble Guy 14:28, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Changed the blue in a lighter blue. Electionworld 17:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this template using Disraeli's colour? Septentrionalis 18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding color[edit]

Liberalism has recently turned blue and, conservatism, especially the christian democrats in Europe, started to use yellow. It used to be the other way around but not anymore, so it should be blue now. But instead of arguing each side just regarding simple color, I'd rather finish this now with a vote. Old liberal yellow or new liberal blue, take your pick. Oh, ya, the earlier status quo was yellow, so blue needs a majority to win.... This vote is a response to the unknown guy who keeps who prefers yellow, he just gave his IP address.

Any blue, to stay current, blue really common in Africa, Asia --Humble Guy 05:15, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Light blue or the old color. The new blue of Humble Guy is quite ugly at my screen. BTW, blue is not the general color of liberals, it is quite diverse. If one ould like to use blue, it should be blue on a white background. BTW 2: my liberal party uses green, the British use yellow etc. Electionworld 06:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow would describe liberals best, because it is generally used by liberals, but not often by representatives of other ideologies, so it is distinctive. Blue, on the other hand, is often used by conservatives and christian democrats, red by socialists and green by greens. I have never seen a European conservative or christian democratic party using yellow. Which ones, precisely?
Its already almost 2 weeks, and there are only 3 voters. Even though blue won 2 to 1, it really does not represent the majority. So I guess the color should go back to the previous status quo of light yellow. --Humble Guy 10:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Yellow was not the original color in the template, but I like the combination of yellow background with blue characters, So I agree. Electionworld 11:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yellow it is, so I guess that resolves the color issue. --Humble Guy 05:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I believe the Yellow flag used as symbol for the whole liberalism portal should go. Three reasons:
1. Yellow is the colour associated with a bunch of modern liberal political parties. But not more than that, a mere association. The colour yellow does not have the same meaning as for example the colour red has for socialists.
2. Flags like these symbolize resistance and revolution. Modern liberals don't do that stuff.
3. Classical liberals did, but this colour is completely anachronistic when discussing classical liberalism. They would use the national colours or the colour red (jacobins). The image on the front page of liberty sporting the tricolore is a good example. --Two-and-twenty (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, yellow flag has to go. Twafotfs (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the second meaning of "yellow flag" in U.S. English. To "wave the yellow flag" means to surrender, typically in a cowardly manner. When I saw it as a symbol for liberalism here, I immediately thought that it was a prank, intended to be insulting, perpetrated by someone who disagrees with liberalism. Therefore, I think it should be changed to... well, *anything* else. --tgeller (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the flag and color are proving problematic, why not try another symbol like the torch of liberty. Or is that too American? --RainyDayCrow —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here, votes only upstairs[edit]

Note: for the unfamiliar, above section are for votes, pls discuss below.

The Christian-Democrat Party of East Timor, and the Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats party of the Philippines use yellow. Just because yellow is not a common conservative color in Netherlands, Belgium or Finland does not mean it the rest of the world is any less valid. These parties use yellow with respect to the Vatican's flag which has yellow portions. --Humble Guy 13:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Just because blue is used by Democrats in the United States (who I don't think even know what liberalism means) does not mean it the rest of the world is any more valid. And did you know, that East Timor and Philippines are not located in Europe? ("especially the christian democrats in Europe...")

My response is now in my talk page --Humble Guy 09:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Back to Liberalism[edit]

I believe we should have an expansion for this template. Seems rather limited, especially when compared to Socialism. I'll try to make a branches article for this template one of this months. --Humble Guy 03:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Socialism has a larger template isn't a reason to expand this one. It might rather tell, that socialism is more fragmented ideology and therefore needs a longer template, or at least that the Socialism template lacks a total conception. If links to an article will be added to the Liberalism template, it should be because it is essential to liberalism, not because somebody wants to make the template longer.
I agree completely. Electionworld 10:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, I won't do the branches article :)....--Humble Guy 09:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Entry points[edit]

See Ideology#Political_ideologiesKaihsu 19:32, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, nice entry points, --Humble Guy 05:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


I think this template shouldn't be called "Liberalism and Centrism", but just "Liberalism". Centrism is a much more vague conception, and can mean for instance Christian Democracy, which is liberal neither in the social nor the economical sense of the word. 12:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I agreeElectionworld 17:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New layout no improvement[edit]

The new layout is no improvement, so I made a rollback. Electionworld 15:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new layout fits in the norms with the professional templates on Wikipedia recently featured on the main page. A professional article benefits by having an easily navigable template. I think you are being rather defensive -- I noted you do this rather often. Let some other people have a chance. Ogo

I missed the feature on the main page on the professional template. Where can I find it. In Firefox the template was just not an improvement. It might be in IE. In reverted to Ogo's version, but restored some deletions of links, e.g. List of liberal parties and Contributions to liberal theory. I have some doubts about the Figures section. When we start adding persons, where will it end. E.g. Shouldn't we then list also Adam Smith, John Locke, Ralf Dahrendorf etc. Where do we stop? Then a personal note: You might find me rather defensive, but if you see my comments on this page, I agreed with a lot of modifications. The version I saw yesterday had some disadvantages. - Electionworld 06:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, miscommunication: what I mean is this template looks like other templates of featured pages, not that there was a Wikipedia feature actually concerning templates themslves. Featured pages, at least the ones with templates, usually have the little solid bar submenus and they usually have the title of the series in larger, bold font above. (I tend to think appearances matter.) If you think that the aesthetics can be improved, by all means -- I generallly have a rather poor sense for what looks good, only I think the template currently is more navigable. Forgive my impetuousness on yesterday's post. I feel I often get reverted for no cause and I was acting poorly by taking it out on you. Ogo

No problem. I will look for the layout. See e.g. template:elections - Electionworld 11:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I do not think Capitalism belongs in. Economic liberalism is allready in and I don't see the extra value of capitalism added in. Capitalism is not typical for liberalism, and some whould say it is not liberal, since liberals will act against monopolies and cartels. If you read the articles on capitalism, it is clear that it is not a current of liberalism. I deleted it from the box Electionworld 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You deny that Adam Smith was a liberal or you deny that he was a capitalist? RJII 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe strongly that Adam Smith is a liberal, but I believe one can be a capitalist without being a liberal. e.g. the present-day communist regime in the PRC (see the comments of Gibby at talk:Communism. Electionworld 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some figures[edit]

Why are "some figures" raised up? They are all already mentioned in "Contributions to liberal theory" (some of them twice), and I think that listing them in this box is unnecessary and gives some of the (like Dahrendorf) disproportioned attention regarding their true influence to liberalism, while some other important names are left outside. So if you don't want to make this box a copy of the article "Contributions to liberal theory", it would be better to leave all the names out.-- 12:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind leaving out all the figures. Electionworld 15:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The box would be a lot better with the people removed. For one thing, it makes the box enormous, and since everyone wants their figure mentioned, it will attract drive-by additions that will further grow the template. But also, when you're reading an article, a list of thirty-odd people connected with liberalism is not very helpful or useful. Relevant figures should be mentioned in the article or placed under see also. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It just makes the box too big. Removing figures... --JW1805 04:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


shouldnt Neo-liberalism be one of the main liberalisms?

Given that it's not actually liberalism at all, it shouldn't even be on the list. (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What the hell is a "current"? RJII 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I used the wrong translation for the Dutch word stroming. The correct translation is trend or tendency. Electionworld 12:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in the dictionary and it said a current is "a tendency or course of events that is usually the result of an interplay of forces." I think, as you said, "tendency" or "trend" would probably be more in line and understandable. RJII 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional trend[edit]

Are we going to include Asian liberalism, African liberalism, French liberalism, Scandinavian liberalism? Please stick to the old schools. Especially you (RJII) should agree with labeling American liberalism as a school or trend of liberalism, since it is so different from your admired classical liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that modern liberalism in America is a "school." It's simply "modern liberalism" as it's practiced in America. Modern liberalism is the school. (That article really needs to be renamed, to something like "Liberalism in America" to avoid this confusion. There is really no such things as a school of liberalism called "American liberalism," otherwise that school of liberalism could be practiced in other countries. A "school" of liberalism would be transferable to other countries, beause it would be the philosophy itself.) RJII 17:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why can't American liberalism be exported to other countries?

I suppose it could, but there is no source saying that I'm aware of saying that "American liberalism" exists, or has existed, in any other country. What it actually is is social liberalism. RJII 01:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed American Liberalism from the template, as it is the wrong article with a confusing name. Liberalism is about free-market and individual economic ability... "American Liberalism" is about a social awareness and intervention in the economy... Perhaps there is an article about (classical) liberalism in the US? Myciconia 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Please follow the discussion on diverse pages. There is an article about libertarianism and one about classical liberalism. But American liberalism is a regional trend of worldwide liberalism in its variations. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion ended the regionalism has returned: Austrian? Australian? Canadian? This is becoming non-sensical
I'd prefer to remove all regional variants, including U.S. liberalism from this list. Maybe the best solution is to create a template:Regional variants of Liberalism.
C mon 19:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User:BoDu removed most schools of liberalism in this edit. His reason was "Most political scientists recognize only 2 schools of liberalism:classical liberalism and social liberalism". I dispute this edit, because I believe political scientists have recognized more schools of liberalism. The burder of proof is on BoDu, because he claims to have proof. Can he provide references for this deletion? - C mon 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small or large?[edit]

I reorganized the template following reorganizations of templates like ((Socialism sidebar)), ((Anarchism sidebar)) and ((Communism sidebar)). The reason for this is that smaller templates are preferable for two reasons

  1. Having a large template can lead to strange lay outs on the screens, especially if articles have multiple large templates, it can become very messy
  2. Large templates can be pretty strange on small articles, when half the page is white, because the template continues but the text does not

Making templates expandedable with the "show" button deals with these issues quite nicely. - C mon (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer not to have templates with "show" buttons. --Checco (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear C mon, your opinion counts exactly as mine, so I don't understand why we can't return to the previous version of the template. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageble. For these reasons I ask you to rollback your edit, which has only your consensus. For now. In the meantime, can you at least use brighter colours? --Checco (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manageable for who? The editors or the users? I think that this benefits the users because the text is not distorted when these larger templates clash. I think that 1) we should centralize this debate and 2) probably use dispute resolution to get more than one opinion. C mon (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After six days, I can only observe that there is no consensus on the edits of C mon, as he is the only one defending them in this talk page... Dear friend C mon, we definitely need to centralize the debate. I don't think that our discussion is exactly a dispute, but we definitely need to know what a larger number of users think about the issue that comprises a handful of templates. --Checco (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Do we want thinkers/persons on this template, like on the ((Social democracy sidebar)) and ((Communism sidebar)). I think John Lock, J.S. Mill and John Rawls are the most fundamental liberal thinkers in history, not including them on the template liberalism, would be like making a template on christianity, but not including Jesus. C mon (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want thinkers in this template and a I strongly disagree with the fact that John Rawls is a fundamental liberal thinker: he is liberal only from an American perspective. I disagree with the section on thinkers and there is no consensus on it. If there will be consensus on it, I ask either to take away Rawls from the template or to put near him Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, another kind of American "liberals", more representative of liberalism from an European perspective. --Checco (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with a lively discussion about which authors should be included. If there are more people who disagree with adding thinkers I also welcome a debate about that. We can make a longer list of possible thinkers. But I certainly think that Rawls is a prominent liberal. He revolutionized liberal thinking. C mon (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can put him, basically a social liberal, if he is accopained by some classical, conservative and economic liberals. In any case the more I think about having thinkers in the templates the more I strongly prefer not to have them: having List of liberal theorists is just fine and fairly better for me. --Checco (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think that it is fairly better not to have thinkers in the template. Any list would be partial and not complete as liberalism is a broad movement. I think that it is fairly better to have only the link to List of liberal theorists which is more complete and useful to read.

No user other than C mon and me stated his opinion on the issue, so I observe that there is no consensus in having thinkers in the template. Anyway, in the meantime, I add to the template the two thinkers I proposed to C mon above: von Hayek and Friedman. I still hope that it will be possible to take them away from the template. --Checco (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would use brighter colours for the template. Everyone agrees? --Checco (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nozick, Hume[edit]

As the most important philosopher in the English language and a critical contributor to liberal theory, David Hume certainly must be mentioned. I don't understand the inclusion of Nozick, however, as he is a marginal figure in philosophy. It would seem that figures such as John Dewey, Kant, Rousseau, and Humboldt deserve placement over him. CABlankenship (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded tag[edit]

For some reason the template does not show as expanded, neither individual sections or 'all' when the correct tag is embedded in pages. Can anyone fix this? Thanks. Maguire09 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than 10 years after Maguire09's comment above, this still appears to be an issue, at least for the recently renamed "Schools of thought" section at the current time. If someone more tech-savvy than I could describe or demonstrate how to successfully indicate expanded=Schools immediately below, I and probably others would be much obliged. I'll watch this space. Thanks! - Babel41 (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant[edit]

I do not understand why Immanuel Kant is in the list of important liberal thinkers, since he wasn’t really a political thinker in the first place – not mainly, and not at all important – and even when he expressed political views, they were not specifically liberal. (See Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant.) If someone does not agree with this, please explain why he should be here! CaspianRehbinder (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism or Right-libertarianism[edit]

Another editor has been removing the link to Libertarianism and replacing it with one to Right-libertarianism. I think that such a major change to a widely-used template should not be made without clear prior consensus here, and have reverted him. DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restate what I wrote in the edit summary: "There are popular libertarian schools of thought that are not liberal. Only 'right-libertarianism' is accurate." The article on libertarianism refers to all forms of libertarianism and to the entire history of the term, which is largely non-liberal. Outside of anglophone countries cognates of the word "libertarian" aren't even associated primarily with right-libertarianism.JoshuaChen (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been four days with no objections. I doubt many people who would care to respond will see this in a reasonable amount of time, and it's absurd that I should have to wait months to make a small change that is, frankly, objectively correct.JoshuaChen (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was obviously one objection, mine. I think you have missed the point of both the sidebar and the articles Libertarianism and Right-libertarianism. You have selected one variety of libertarianism, largely confined to one country, and decided that a global sidebar should ignore all other forms of libertarianism in its favour. Whether this is to promote this particular form, or to denigrate Liberalism in general (outside the USA few would regard Right-libertarianism as being a liberal position) I do not know.
The emphasis on personal freedoms and civil liberties in Libertarianism in the broad sense seems to me to be a very strong argument for its inclusion on this sidebar.
I also do not see the urgency - Libertarianism has been on the sidebar a long time with no objections, yet now a single editor has decided that it is imperative to remove it and replace it with a dubiously liberal concept.
I am removeing Right-libertarianism as I do not believe it belongs on the sidebar, I object to you closure of the debatre in your own favour, and I think this needs to stay open longer. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should've objected earlier. My closure of the debate? There was no debate. You just told me to wait around for no reason.
Support for capitalism is essential to liberalism. Left-libertarianism is anti-capitalist, and left-libertarians, like all socialists, do not consider themselves to be liberals. The article on libertarianism is about both forms of libertarianism; it's about two radically opposed ideologies, one of which is anti-liberal.
"outside the USA few would regard right-libertarianism as being a liberal position." The truth is precisely the opposite. What's known as libertarianism in the US is distinct from "liberalism" because Americans have an unusual definition of the latter. According to the international definition, American conservatives are liberals, American liberals are liberals, and, guess what, right-libertarians are liberals too, because they support capitalism and civil liberties within the context of the nation-state. It says so in the article on right-libertarianism itself. Come on, man. Do some basic reading before you try to debate.
If anything, you could argue for the removal of anarcho-capitalism from the list. That's it.
If you still disagree, please familiarize yourself with the definitions of "right-libertarianism," "left-libertarianism," and "liberalism" before responding.JoshuaChen (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeesh, please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF before responding. I also object to the inclusion, as it's using a navbox to try and make a finicky, controversial point about the "true" definition of liberal. This isn't the place to make these kinds of distinctions. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one's arguing about the definition of "liberalism." We're talking about the definitions of "right-libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism." The former, at least when it comes to its predominant minarchistic form, fits the definition of "liberalism" that's presented in Wikipedia's article on liberalism. The article on right-libertarianism literally describes minarchist right-libertarianism as "liberalism." Libertarian socialism, on the other hand, is not liberal. Ask any anarchist or libertarian Marxist. Or do some basic research of the definitions of these political terms.
Yeesh, I'm repeating myself, aren't I? Please don't make me do that again.
(Addendum: . Read the second paragraph.) JoshuaChen (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that other experienced editors haven't done basic research, or are less knowledgeable than you because we disagree, is not assuming good faith, and it's also a very poor way to build consensus. WP:Consensus is what's needed to change the template. Libertarianism and liberalism are both broad enough that there is overlap and ambiguity. Claims that left-libertarianism unambiguously isn't liberalism while right-libertarianism unambiguously is would need reliable sources, and because this is a navbox, this needs to be demonstrated as being the academic consensus. This cannot be accepted as your perspective, this needs more. Just saying "do the research" isn't good enough, and is almost never productive for any mature discussion or disagreement. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken markup[edit]

This template produced broken HTML at Germaine de Staël. The text of the "In popular culture" section was hanging off the left margin on mobile, which is usually the result of a div being closed too early (in fact the list starts with a <li> with no enclosing <ul>). Adding a blank line after the transclusion worked around the issue. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Figures[edit]

Instead of separating Politicians from Philisophers, and excluding Jurists, Activists, etc, I think it would be better to have a general "people" category. Who agrees? (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Burke[edit]

What is Burke doing here? He was the father of modern conservatism! I tried to delete him once before, but my edit was reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burke was a Whig, and is still a very significant figure in Liberalism. See, for example, Duncan Brack; Ed Randall, eds. (2007). "Edmund Burke". Dictionary of Liberal Thought. London: Politico's. pp. 51–54. ISBN 1842751670., or Foot, Isaac (1948). Liberty & the Liberal Heritage. The Ramsay Muir Memorial Lectures. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd. You have previously been referred to Brack & Randall in edit summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Anarchism is an anti-thetic theory; Liberalism promotes the existence of the rule of law.

--RVD3 (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)RVD3[reply]