Category talk:Liberal parties

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Politics (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject iconThis category 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.
Category This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Inactive taskforces:
 
Taskforce icon
This category is within the scope of the Liberalism task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Ought the Australian liberals be listed here? They started out as a liberal party, didn't they? john k 06:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to do it by affiliation - so they are liberal if they are in the Liberal International. However there are lots of grey areas in all these categories. Also do we split social liberal and economic liberal parties for example? I know nothing about the Australian Liberal Party to know how to categorise them. We need to work out how to categorise conservative parties that are not Christian Democrats - i think a category of conservative party is probably too broad as it doesn't really work in the CIS for example. Any ideas? Secretlondon 06:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


The Australian Liberals are the principal party of the right in Australia. But they are more moderate than, say, the National Party of Australia, and could be considered comparable, I think, to the Free Democrats in Germany. As far as non Christian Democratic Conservative parties, I think you'd probably need a Category:Conservative parties, although I agree that it'd be odd. Such a category could easily include, though, say, the U.S. Republican Party, the Tories in Britain and Canada, the old German Conservative Party (which may not yet have an article) and German National People's Party, the various different Gaullist groupings in France, and so on. Probably Forza Italia, too. The Liberal Democrats in Japan, maybe - but obviously the task of classifying all political parties into ideological groupings is ultimately doomed to failure, isn't it? Far right parties could perhaps be classified as Category:Fascist parties or Category:Far right parties, or something. We should probably have Category:Regionalist parties and Category:Separatist parties, as well (although which would, say, the Parti Québécois fall under? john k 06:58, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Australian Liberals are in the International Democrat Union rather than the Liberal International - I guess that makes them a Conservative Party. I agree that we cannot categorise all parties by ideology. We could cheat and categorise as Category:Member of Liberal International which should be indisputable. Secretlondon 02:58, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that would make a lot of sense. Just saying "liberal" or "conservative" parties, or whatever, is confusing, especially as party ideologies change over the years. Weird that the US Democratic Party isn't a member of the Liberal International? A group that includes the FDP is apparently too far too the left? Sigh... john k 03:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just saw this in Secretlondon's contribution log, and thought I'd drop in. I don't think it's unreasonable to be trying to categorise parties, but I think we need to be careful. While the Liberal Party of Australia is confusingly named, it is undoubtedly a conservative party. Their policies differ little from the Republicans in the USA, and the Conservatives in Britain. Don't be fooled by the name. Ambivalenthysteria 04:13, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it is conservative now. I was under the impression that perhaps, at one time, it was a liberal party, but that does not appear to be the case, so never mind. On the other hand, by the standard of continental "liberalism," it (and the GOP, and the Tories) would probably qualify as "Liberal," being in favor of representative government and neither socialist nor christian democratic. The FDP in Germany is quite conservative on economic issues, and would likely be considered a "conservative" party in the anglophone world... john k 05:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the libertarian parties -category be a subcategory of this one, as libertarianism is a direction of the classical liberalism? Classical liberals shouldn't be called "conservative liberals", that is a term used only by adverseries, usually social liberals. I have never heard anybody call him/herself a "conservative liberal", and I have met many liberals. It would be as appropriate to call social liberals as "socialist liberals". The correct term searched here is "market liberal" of "free market liberal".

Libertarians should not be a subcategory, I think. Although libertarianism shares traits with classical liberalism, I think the differences between them and actual liberal parties are large enough that they are not merely a subset. As to "conservative liberals" or "classical liberals," I would agree that the term "conservative liberal" is not particularly in common use. I have heard the term "Liberal-Conservative" used - for instance to describe the Octobrists in Tsarist Russia. On the other hand, I think that "free market liberal" is even weaker - were the National Liberals in Germany to be distinguished from the Progressives by their commitment to the free market? No, they were distinguished by their greater jingoism, and by their greater adherence to the interests of Germany's cartelized big industry. Personally, I prefer "left liberal" and "right liberal," as that is fairly simple, and usually clear enough when there is more than one liberal party in a single country. If there is only one liberal party in a country, I think we should avoid subcategorizing it, and just explain what it was. That is to say, the National Liberals and their successors the German People's Party were "right liberals," the Progressives and their successors the DDP were "left liberals", but the FDP is just "liberals," since there isn't another liberal party for them to compete against. john k 00:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Debate on deletionEdit

The debate on deletion has been closed. See [1]