Talk:Liberal conservatism

In the interest of parsimony and brevity
The first paragraph of this article says nothing about the nature of liberal conservatism. It is pedantic and round-about rather than direct and to-the-point. The round-about business is for later in the article--some of just want a brief paragraph synopsis---just like the way newspapers and good magazines structure their articles: only about 5% of your audience reads the whole thing and we're all busy people...I think. So I'm not lectured enough on the subject and don't feel like doing the RS work, but if someone feels like undertaking the project, the intro needs some work.71.12.74.67 (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Economic and Social Spheres?
The article says the following: "In this way it contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres."

Can someone explain to me how the economic sphere differs to the social sphere? For example, in the issue of freedom of sex, how can we distinguish between the economic and social issues? --Knowledge-is-power (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have some doubts that this is a common usage (although I believe that there have been political parties with both "liberal" and "conservative" in the name of a single party). Can you provide citations for the use/history of this terminology and in exactly what respects "liberal conservatives" are, respectively, liberal and conservative? -- Jmabel 16:41, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

To me, it seems that this article should be moved to New Right. Djadek 10:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I believe the more popular term is Fiscal Conservative.  I propose a move. 71.162.255.58 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Liberal-Conservatives usually espouse strongly free-market liberal economic policy, mixed conservative/liberal social policy & strongly nationalist foreign policy. I believe they usually also define themselves as anti-Socialist & anti-Communist : they form as the main opposition of Social-Democrats where/when they appear. --143.238.79.184 05:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrase was used in the FTmagazine (April 30, 2005) so the page should stay. -- Joolz 20:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a very loose usage of "liberal", which should be more carefully explained. The term is a hijacking of the word "liberal" for use to describe adherents of a free market. Most "liberals" are not gungho for the free market. Joolz, that a neologism has been used once or twice doesn't necessarily make it encyclopaedic. It doesn't mean either that the discussion here is accurate, which is more to the point. If another article describes the idea more closely, a redirect is a good idea. Grace Note 03:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not know what gungho means, but outside the USA most liberals clearly favour a more or less free market. WIkipeida is not an American encyclopedia but is a global encyclopedia. See for an extensive discussion on liberalism the main article liberalism. Electionworld 11:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Grace Note, "liberal conservative" has no currency in the U.S., but it is a meaningful term in (for example) central European politics. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * And in Australian poltics. Increasingly, in fact. I can think of no better an example of a liberal-conservative than John Howard.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I must express how deeply incorrect that analysis is, and how ironic it is; it is actually that definition of "liberal" that is the hijacking. In the U.S., "liberal" seems to have the connotation of meaning economically Socialist, which is very strange, when the free market is indeed, as others have stated here, very important in Liberalism. --Palpatine 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds kinda like libertarianism to me --gnomelock 06:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A lot like, in terms of economics; liberal conservatives tend to be a bit more socially conservative than libertarians: for example, they don't typically believe in drug legalization, legal prostitution, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Liberal doesnt have the connotation of meaning "socialist" in the US unless you are part of the far right propaganda machine. Liberal in the instance is referring to classic liberalism and not modern liberalism. Classic liberalism is economic and social freedom. Modern liberalism is economic and social justice. So another way of putting it is economic freedom conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.99.55 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

American Conservatism
"conservatism" in a america mostly means neoconservatism, whereas this article seems to be talking about paleoconservatism. this doesn't really work for american "conservatives" and republican party members to be called liberal. Bob A


 * Neoconservatism is hardly dominant even within the Republican Party. But I have a different disagreement: the article currently says "In the United States, this tradition refers mostly notably to the notion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which would currently read as a form of anti-statist liberalism." In fact, in the United States, this term is almost completely unknown: while these politics may be common in Anglo-Saxon countries, the term is mostly continental European and Latin American. - Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've used scare quotes for the American situation. Intangible 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In America, when you say Liberal you usually mean the Democratic Party, and when you say Conservative you usually mean the Republican Party. The Person Who Is Strange 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The article currently lists the Republican Party as the U.S. party representing liberal conservatism. Based on the definition of "liberal conservatism" given in the article, would the term as applied to a U.S. party more aptly describe the Libertarian Party rather than the Republican Party? While the GOP has certain liberal fringes, these seem to be currently quashed by voting quorums and leadership. In fact, the Blue Dog Democrats may tend more to liberal conservatism than the GOP. I have not reviewed the micro parties in any detail, but am unsure if any warrant particular reference. I trying to avoid any political bias, just wondering from a technical, definitional perspective.--Rpclod (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not changed the article, in particular the June 16 change in the political party list from U.S. Republican to U.S. Libertarian. I am not sufficiently knowledgable in political philosophy and history to fully comprehend the nuances of liberalism in conjunction with conservatism, especially as applied to the parties' seemingly fluid platforms.  I would prefer that whoever makes such changes indicates on the discussion page why such change is appropriate, applying the relevant elements of liberal conservatism to the respective parties' platforms.--Rpclod (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The liberal in liberal-conservative doesnt men modern or social liberalism it means classical or economic liberalism.


 * American conservatism in Europe is called liberal conservatism with it having classic liberal thought with regard to tradition.
 * American liberalism in Europe is called social democracy with it having welfare capitalism and regard for social equality.
 * american liberalism is not the same as social democracy 14:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)~
 * nor is american conservatism the same as liberal conservatism
 * there are some overlaps and some similarities but they are not the same at all 14:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)~

The liberalism in "liberal conservatism"
Shouldn't this also mention support for liberal democracy? - Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is obviously a joke. If Ann Coulter gave birth to the illegitimate child of Ted Kennedy, perhaps the offspring might adopt a political philosophy of liberal conservatism, but I doubt it. danshawen | Talk 19:00, 18 December 2006 (UTL)


 * Believe it or not, the U.S. is not the only country in the world. And, believe it or not, in many countries, there is nothing at all contradictory about "liberal" and "conservative". I suggest that you might consider reading the articles liberalism and conservatism. - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please give examples of these countries. The Person Who Is Strange 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * David Cameron, the leader of the UK Conservative Party has regularly described himself as a "liberal conservative". Unlike the US, most countries in Europe have a true left-wing, aka socialism. Thus Liberalism and Conservatism have much in common which they do not share with Socialism, mainly revolving around an individualist outlook. The Enlightened 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Japan, for one. But I would say that "liberal conservative" would be pretty clear most places in Europe: free-market in terms of large enterprises, but possibly a bit less so at the level of small business; tending to favor the existing social hierarchy in broad terms, but not seeing it as the government's job to enforce it; favorable to a free press; in favor of public education (with a somewhat conservative agenda for what that education should be). Most European countries have parties like this, not too far from Christian Democrat but more secular and with a little less commitment to social spending. - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes this term exceedingly confusing (and nearly meaningless imo) is that Liberalism and Conservatism as historical ideologies have precise meanings, mainly related to Early Modern European politics. Liberalism advocated for capitalist economic policy and electoral democracy, while Conservatism rejected revolutionary Liberalism and advocated for the continuation of traditional social structures (Church, Monarchy, etc.). I think this point is pretty much clear.

I agree with the above, that the problem arises with the 19th C. introduction of socialist ideologies, which are opposed not only to the traditional social structures but also the new liberal capitalist social structures. In the context of 20th C. anticommunism, the Conservative position came to adopt the Liberal position in economics. However, this does not mean that the free market economic position originating in Liberalism then becomes "Conservative"! (or does it?)

The problem of definition is quite widespread, as many parties that self identify as "Conservative" enthusiastically support liberal economic policies. This varies however, as certain Christian Democratic parties (which would be considered conservative) are known to support social spending policies (as stated above). Meanwhile, in Europe, minor parties that are considered "Classical Liberal" still exist and occupy a center position between the socialist and conservative parties.

Taking into account the distinct historical development of these 3 mainstream ideological strands, terms like "Liberal Conservatism" (and "Conservative Liberalism") seem to be more like superficial heuristic devices than actual ideological descriptors. Part of the problem is that some people (mostly Americans) tend to think in terms of the two-party system (liberal/conservative) and are confused when certain "Conservative" policies are referred to as liberal or neo-liberal (even when the American GOP can be described as classical liberal in origin!). Even so, it can also be argued that the the absence of a conservative alternative to capitalism makes it necessary to re-evaluate what "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean in the context of 21st century politics, and whether mainstream center-right parties ought to be called liberal, or conservative, or both. Until further research is done though, it just seems like a confusing misnomer.

69.12.129.253 (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also parties like the D66 in the Netherlands and the Social Liberal party of Denmark that use the term "liberal" to describe themselves and support strong social spending. They are to the right of Socialist parties but are usually far more supportive of individual liberties.  I think it would be a mistake to automatically equate them with American Liberalism though.  The history of liberalism is confusing.65.0.82.131 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Liberal conservatism shortened to just conservatism. American liberalism stands alone, in Europe it is referred to as social democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10:30, 13 October 2011 (talk)

Capitalization
The article is inconsistent about "Liberal Conservatism" or "Liberal conservatism". Unless there is a distinction (I don't believe there is) we should stick to one or the other, and the title of the article should be consistent with the body of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Came with the non-sensical criticism. Intangible 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberal conservative media
(Germany) Junge Freiheit Are there more examples, so we can add a section? 85.178.93.135 20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * according to the german wiki-article version the Junge Freiheit lies inbetween conservatism and far-right extremism, so if that is true than it's definatily not liberal conservative 134.3.76.108 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism vs. Neoconservatism
Before reading this article I was completely unfamiliar with the term "liberal conservatism" (as it sounds like an oxymoron in the US). The description makes it sound similar to neoconservatism. Has anything been written about the relationship between the two? How similar are they? I think if you could add something into the article comparing it with neoconservatism or whatever is most similar in the US, it would help American readers to understand what is meant by "liberal conservatism". Kaldari 06:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's not really much of a relationship. Neoconservatism is primarily a foreign-policy ideology, and liberal conservatism is primarily a domestic-policy ideology.  Basically, liberal conservatism is economically liberal (in favor of market mechanisms, free trade, etc.) but socially at least moderately conservative (in favor of traditional values, society, and institutions).  Neoconservatism is not defined by either of those two things, and indeed many neoconservatives are neither. --Delirium 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hence the confusion, I guess, since in the US so-called "economic liberalism" is considered to be more a conservative ideology. What for example Britain would call "liberal conservatism", we call just conservatism. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

editorializing moved from article Intangible 20:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
At the 2006 Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth, England, party leader David Cameron emphasised his credentials as a Liberal Conservative and stated that he was "not a neo-conservative". Indeed the term "liberal conservatism" is likely to be used in contrast with social conservatism.

Confusing wording
Does anyone else find the phrasing of the article somewhat a bit complicated? I had to re-read a few bits just to get my head around what it was trying to communicate to me (I'm not politically naive, I personally got an election article to FA status). Timeshift 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think this is a particularily confusing article because it's flatly stupid to call what pretty much is liberalism, that is, social and economic liberal policy, to be called "liberal conservativism." It makes [i]very little sense[/i] at all in the first place and as such the article will be extremely confusing to even people who are politically aware. This term is another example of people either being afraid to use the word "liberal." 24.242.139.226 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The current intro reads "It contrasts with classical liberalism and especially aristocratic conservatism, rejecting the principle of equality as something in discordance with human nature, instead emphasizing the idea of natural inequality." The words "rejecting" and "discordance" effectively function as a double negative, meaning that the principle of equality is seen as being in accord with human nature; yet, the next clause claims that liberal conservatism emphasizes the idea of inequality. So, which is it? 64.105.36.23 (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think the article is confusing, but primarily for failing to sufficiently explain the difference between liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism. Can you please provide examples of how they differ on specific policies? Bwrs (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon cultures
Saying that liberal conservatism mainly is found within Anglo-Saxon cultures sounds a lot like original research to me and, frankly, suggests more about with which countries the contributor may be familiar. I will remove it unless some hard evidence can be brought forward to support it. MartinTremblay 05:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Article
This article is confusing because the subject isn't defined properly. Liberal Conservatism refers to the acceptance of liberalism, broadly defined, by people who support traditional institutions, like monarchy, aristocracy and church. The most obvious example is the UK Conservative Party. The fact that David Cameron likes the term and uses it as a slogan does not change its meaning. In fact his definition of "liberal conservatism" does not depart from the tradtional meaning. I will try to find a source to improve the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Conservatism and Libertarian Conservatism
Isn't liberal conservatism in the United States called Libertarian conservatism? --Novis-M (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so because libertarianism would not fit within this definition of conservatism. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just edited the article to make clear that "liberal conservative" isn't used in the United States and would be considered an oxymoron. I think it just corresponds to "conservative" in the U.S., or more specifically to fiscal conservatism as opposed to social conservatism.  Part of the definitional problem here is that the entire mainstream of U.S. politics is made up of "free market" advocates, although I realize there is some debate about that these days within the U.S.  But from a European perspective, we in the U.S. are missing the entire left side of the mainstream.  "Left" parties that in Europe (and Israel) often win elections or at least are part of coalition governments -- social democrats, socialists, labor, Greens -- are considered fringe parties in the U.S.  I'm not talking about someone (like the President for example) who calls himself a progressive (or whatever he calls himself) and some other people call him a socialist, Marxist, etc.; I'm talking about people who call themselves socialists, etc.  In Europe they win elections; here, they don't have a chance.  Neutron (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In the US liberal-conservative is referred to as free-market conservative or since it is the wide view of American conservatives its usually just referred to as conservatives. Libertarian conservative is also free market conservative who are also anti-statist on social issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.99.55 (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011

Slovakia
Slovak Democratic and Christian Union – is a christian party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.241.243 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Australia
Is the Liberal Party of Australia not a Liberal Conservative party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.41.77 (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Sentence
The sentence "As "conservatism" and "liberalism" have had different meanings over time and across countries, the term "liberal conservatism" has been used in quite different senses, and in some countries like the USA would be considered an oxymoron, even in the Continental Europe represents a particularly natural concept." is way too long and someone should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.95.67 (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reagan?
I see this is not a country-centric article but Ronald Reagan is a major figure in liberal-conservatism becoming the dominate ideology in the Republican Party. Before Reagan the Republican Party was largely progressive with Nixon and Ford and prior to that largely national conservative with Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article needs better sourcing and it seems to confuse conservatives who accept a degree of liberalism (e.g., English Tories), with liberals who have conservative attributes (e.g., Australian Liberals). TFD (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No. This doesn't seem to fit. Reagan is certainly not to be considered as an example of liberal conservatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.22.14 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For reasons that I explained several sections up, more than a year ago, I do not think this term should be used in connection with any U.S. politician, regardless of how much it might fit a particular person from a non-American perspective. However much Wikipedia may prefer a "worldwide view", the term "liberal" just doesn't mean the same thing here that it means in most of the rest of the world.  Neutron (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Liberal v moderate conservatism
User:DemitreusFrontwest has repeatedly moved this article (with no consensus) to "moderate conservatism", explaining that "moderate conservatism is more accurate because "liberal conservatism" can mean anything and differs in various regions". Before discussing DF's opinion, let me remind anyone that WP policies ask us to "avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content" and to seek consensus. This said, I agree that "liberal conservatism" may be misguiding in some geographical contexts (i.e. United States), but the term is consistently used in the other continents. An article on "liberal conservatism" is thus necessary, but there might be space also for a separate article on "moderate conservatism". --Checco (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Liberal conservatism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Liberal conservatism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bergqvist1999": From List of political parties in Greenland:  From Conservative People's Party (Denmark):  From People's Party (Faroe Islands):  From Moderates of Åland:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Rejecting those three tenets of Burkean conservativism not lauding them?
This article contains the sentence: "However, from a different perspective, American conservatism, a "hybrid of conservatism and classical liberalism", has exalted three tenets of Burkean conservatism, namely the diffidence toward the power of the state, the preference of liberty over equality and patriotism, while rejecting the three remaining tenets, namely loyalty to traditional institutions and hierarchies, scepticism regarding progress and elitism."

This very much does not appear to be the case. Perhaps it was, and perhaps "American conservatism" is no longer "Liberal conservatism", but whatever the case, modern American conservatism (in the popular sphere) seems very much to define itself by those last three tenets, much less reject them (particularly "scepticism regarding progress ('progressives') and elitism", culminating in the 2016 election of Trump). --RProgrammer (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence is based on an authoritative source—and I agree with it. We should not confuse the ideology of one President with American conservatism (is Trump a conservative, by the way?) and, more important, have a historical perspective rather than a "recentist" approach. --Checco (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism not to be confused with conservative liberalism
"We're the People's Front of Judea, not the g***m Judea's People Front."

"What's the difference?"

"Well, they're just a bunch of wankers."

God help us all...

--184.69.174.194 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In your example, the "Front" is the subject in both cases. In our case, "conservatism" and "liberalism" are different subjects, that is why "liberal conservatism" and "conservative liberalism" are entirely different and should not be confused. --Checco (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly they are confused: here "Liberal conservatism is a political ideology combining conservative policies with liberal stances" while the other article says "liberal conservatism which is a variant of conservatism combining conservative views with liberal policies", which between them seem to cover anything "conservative liberalism" might possibly mean. What would be helpful would be examples of policies a typical supporter of one group might be expected to endorse while a typical supporter of the other would not.2A00:23C7:7B18:9600:1581:18E4:1DBC:3963 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just as a sidenote, but that is what a lot of ideology articles lack in my opinion: specific policy examples. I can see that it's a bit murkier because you don't want to over-generalize and all, but it definitely helps explain the positions of an ideology, particularly for those largely unacquainted with the more theoretical side of things.  ¡Ay vi nd !  (talk)   ¡Ay vi nd !  (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Migration, immigration, asylum seekers policy
Are liberal conservatives "refugee friendly" or not? What about limiting immigration? Is there any differenсe between liberal conservatives, conservative liberals and national liberals?


 * There is no philosophical common line on these issues. --Checco (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What is "conservative" and what is "liberal" in economy?
Right now the article reads:

"combining conservative policies with liberal stances, especially on economic issues"

But isn't in traditional terminology that is used in other Wikipedia articles (as opposed to the new terminology of the media and casual speech) the terms "economically conservative" and "economically liberal" are actually the same thing, i.e. Laissez-faire? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that "economically conservative" has come to mean the same as "economically liberal" due to conservatives having historically come to accept the liberal philosophy of laissez-faire in economics, having incorporated it into their thinking. That is why most modern conservatives in the Western world would be typically seen as liberal conservatives, at least economically. This is explained somewhat throughout the article, especially in the "Classical conservatism and economic liberalism" section. I hope this helps! LongLivePortugal (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The fact is that "liberal conservatism" is mostly a European concept. In Europe conservatives are not necessarily economically liberal (there is a long tradition of protectionist and populist conservatives), hence "liberal conservatism". --Checco (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think much of it has to do with why they believe in laissez-faire or such things (which are traditionally liberal things). For example, Neoconservatives believe in economic policies that would be traditionally considered liberal (ie. laissez-faire and the like). However, they believe in it for very different reasons than liberals or liberal conservatives do: rather than seeing laissez-faire as a means of individualism and liberty (liberal ideas), they see it as a way to ensure social accountability and social order. I think because of this, Neoconservatives (despite believing in traditionally liberal ideas) would not be considered liberal-conservatives. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk)
 * One author I read used the term to refer to conservatives who had accepted elements of liberalism. For example, although Edmund Burke believed that society should be governed by the aristocracy, he acknowledged the role of capitalists in bringing wealth to the country and therefore accepted liberal policies such as private property and free trade. That was in contrast to reactionary conservatism that tried to stop industrialization which threatened feudal relations. Another author, writing about the U.S., used the term to describe classical liberals who placed emphasis on traditional values such as church and family. I am sure that other authors have their own definitions. This article must accept one definition, otherwise we will continue these unresolvable discussions. TFD (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Japanese Liberal Democratic Party and Free Democratic Party of Germany.
The Japanese Liberal Democratic Party is only Liberal under the name of the party. It is a political party founded in the Cold War era and has the meaning of anti-communism against the Japan Socialist Party The LDP's position on civil liberties is quite very conservative to be called support, and can it be seen that the LDP is more liberal than the British Conservative Party? While the British Conservative Party is limited to "(factions)" on the "3.1 Current parties" list, it is problematic to describe the LDP as if it were a liberal conservative party in itself. LDP should be removed from the '3.1 Current parties' list.--Storm598 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And although Germany's FDP is expressed as liberal conservatism in some sources, it is generally expressed as classical liberalism. FDP is closer to conservative liberalism or classical liberalism than liberal conservatism. Germany's FDP should also be removed from the '3.1 Current parties' list.--Storm598 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think both should be removed. I have not seen any comparative party tables that categorize it. It's conservative in the sense that the members of its predecessor parties had been conservatives and it is the more right-wing of the two major parties. The inaugural statement seems to conform with support for liberal democracy. It mentions individual rights, but makes no mention of the Emperor, aristocracy or church. Today, there is a convergence of center right parties. What separates conservative and liberal parties is their historical ideology as the parties of aristocracy and the middle class respectively. TFD (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I'll remove both of them. Thank you, but I think Germany's FDP is much more liberal to be called liberal conservative, and Japan's LDP is much more conservative to be called liberal conservative.--Storm598 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They should both be included. They clearly state in their referenced sources as being liberal-conservative parties (and indeed, the section is called "Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions", emphasis on factions as well). That matters more than the opinion of individual editors.--Autospark (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In that sense, Turkey's AKP was also described as a liberal conservative party in 2013. Many reliable sources in recent years describe LDP as an ultra-nationalist. Therefore, LDP should be written in the "Former parties" item, not the "Current parties" item like AKP.--Storm598 (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As indicated by User:Autospark, a section named "Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions" is broad enough to include several parties. Japan's LDP is quintessentially a liberal-conservative party or, at least, a conservative party with liberal-conservative factions. Germany's FDP is by definition a conservative-liberal party, but some of its factions can be considered liberal-conservative too and there are sources for that. I see the point on Turkey's AKP and I am less informed about it, but there might still be liberal-conservative factions in the party's ranks. --Checco (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Liberal conservatism is conservatism that supports civil liberties. South Korea and Japan are the only OECD countries that do not have anti-discrimination laws or civil rights laws. The LDPJ is also described as a ultranationalist party. I don't think the LDPJ is a liberal conservative party, but if you have to write it down, at least it should be limited to "factions" like the British Conservative Party.--Storm598 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Uhm, no, I think your definition of "liberal conservatism" is too narrow. Liberal conservatives are also conservatives who support economic liberalism. The LDP is generally-speaking an economic liberal party and, yes, it cannot be said that it does not support civil liberties because of what you just said. Would you say the same of the Italian or Romanian social-democratic parties on the matter of gay rights? --Checco (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Many LDPJ politicians advocate Shawa Statism and ultra-nationalistic tendency. Italy's Berlusconi has also defended fascism, but the problem is that the LDPJ actually takes a reactionary policy. (Junichiro Koizumi, Shinzo Abe, and even the current Japanese prime minister are members of Nippon Kaigi.) --Storm598 (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What is certain is that the political positions of the political parties written in the 'Liberal conservative' article do not deviate significantly from the "Centre-right". No matter how hard-line, it is "Centre-right to right-wing." However, the LDPJ's political cover is "Right-wing". Currently, is there any party written in the "Current parts" of the liberal conservative article whose political position is "Right-wing"?--Storm598 (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What is certain is that even in relatively conservative regions among Western countries such as Italy, there is law prohibiting discrimination between citizens and minorities. However, South Korea and Japan are the only OECD countries that do not have such laws themselves. Many South Koreans regard the social and cultural positions of American liberals as socialist and radical left-wing. South Korea and Japan are not only LGBT rights, but also civil rights and consciousness of minorities themselves are very extremely conservative. And Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil is also an economic liberal. Is he also a liberal conservative?--Storm598 (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * However, the economic liberalism of the LDPJ is only half, and Abenomics has many Keynesian tendencies. The LDPJ does not show a "liberal" tendency in any way, but rather is nationalistic statism in all aspects of economy, society, culture, and politics, and only social conservative tendencies are strong.--Storm598 (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This is where it is difficult for Westerners to understand East Asian politics. In South Korea and Japan, "liberal"(자유주의 / 自由主義) in Korean and Japanese and "liberal"(리버럴 / リベラル) in English pronunciation are completely different in context. #, # The former is used by conservatives in the same sense as anti-communism or economic liberalism, and the latter means liberalism in the West. And the 'real' liberals of South Korea and Japan refer to themselves as the latter.#--Storm598 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And although this is OR, the LDPJ is recognized as an almost far-right anti-Korean fascist party in South Korea.--Storm598 (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If standard grammar applies, liberal conservatism is a liberal form of conservatism, conservative liberalism is a conservative form of liberalism, while liberal-conservative refers to a coalition between liberals and conservatives. While sources may use these terms differently, articles are supposed to be about topics and therefore for example if a source says "liberal conservative" for a a conservative form of liberalism, then it comes under our topic of conservative liberalism.


 * Liberal conservatism traces to the late 1700s, when writers such as Burke tried to incorporate liberal ideas such as private property, constitutionalism and equal rights into conservatism. Since then, only liberal conservative parties, such as are found in the UK and Scandinavia, still exist. This reflects the decline of power of traditional elites such as royalty, aristocracy and the established church.
 * The LDP probably comes under the category of "uncategorized," which is used for parties that do not fit into the main categories such as liberal or conservative. Although it's constitution is liberal, it was established as a vehicle for holding power, rather than to pursue an ideological agenda.
 * TFD (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The current LDP is trying to return to a reactionary, nationalistic, and fascist era in many ways. This is clearly anti-liberal. And in the 21st century, LDP is not actually considered a common "liberal"(自由主義 or リベラル) in Japan. Rather, it is considered a "conservative" party. (See Liberalism in Japan --Storm598 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Japan's LDP is not liberal in almost all issues, including the economy. The economy is close to Keynesianism, and social and cultural policies are extremely conservative. It would be more of a far-right nationalist party than a centre-right liberal conservative party in Europe. --Storm598 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In Political Parties and Party Systems (Alan Ware, OUP 1995, p. 45), the LDP is not categorized because "it cannot be fitted easily into any one category." That means that while we can come up with various reason why it might belong to various categories, expert opinion is that it cannot be classified. Ware's book is the only source I have found that attempts to categorize political parties outside of Europe into party families.
 * Incidentally, liberal parties can be Keynesian or socially conservative. Keynes was a liberal and historically liberals were more socially conservative than conservatives. Liberals and liberal parties have also supported fascism in the name of anti-Communism.
 * TFD (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a very old source from 1995. The source cannot fully represent the current tendency of LDPJ.--Storm598 (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that liberals have historically been more socially conservative than conservatives? Liberalism has countless divisions, and what you say is close to OR.--Storm598 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Puritans were more socially conservative than the Royalists. (Hint - they called themselves Puritans.) Similarly, Unionists in Northern Ireland (aka Liberal Unionsists) are more socially conservative than British Conservatives. And in the U.S. (if you think that the Republicans can be called conservatives), William Jennings Bryan was more socially conservative than the Republicans and the Democrats rejected the Equal Rights Amendment supported by Republicans until the two parties switched positions. Social conservatism is a common position of some reformers and revolutionaries. TFD (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the LDPJ has nothing to do with reform, revolution, and liberalism, but rather is a counter-reform, counter-revolution, and reactionary conservative force. W. J. Brian was a Christian fundamentalist but a supporter of women's voting rights, so he was not unconditionally social conservatism by the standards at the time, and he was also very progressive in terms of labor rights. On the other hand, the LDPJ is a anti-feminist reactionary force against liberalism/progressiveism in every way. And Cheongdo people like Oliver Cromwell were socially conservative than royalists, but they are progressive because they clearly aimed for republicanism. The LDPJ is more of a reactionary far-right royalist.--Storm598 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clear to anyone that ideologies can vary from country to country and time to time. Likely, most French parties are more liberal than most Romanian parties, but that would not be a reason for adding "Progressivisim" to each French political party infobox and "Conservatism" to each Romanian political party infobox. In the Japanese context, the LDP is definitely a liberal-conservative party and, in my view as well as according to sources, it is liberal-conservative by international standards too. I really do see what we are talking about... --Checco (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a liberal conservative party, at least by international standards. I don't know how many OECD countries have more conservative liberal conservative parties than the LDPJ.--Storm598 (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And the source itself that the LDPJ is a liberal conservative party is old. Throughout the Abe administration, the LDPJ has become very Far-right Ultra-nationalistic, and even in Japan, it is not recognized as "liberal" (リベラル). (Even in South Korea, it is considered a far-right, militaristic (or fascist) party.)--Storm598 (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The LDP(J) should still absolutely be listed in this article. There are third-party references to back it up.--Autospark (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently, "liberal conservatism" articles are likely to make Germany's FDP and Japan's LDP misunderstand the same Centre-Right. Germany's FDP is closer to a centrist liberal party or a classical liberal party, and there are some social liberal parties. On the other hand, Japan's LDP is close to a right-wing social conservative party and ethnic nationalist party. This difference needs to be considered. A liberal conservative party should be limited to a Centre-Right liberal-conservative party in a general sense, such as the CDU in Germany, Les Républicains in France and the Conservative Party in the UK. It is not right for a political party that is too left or too right to describe it with very few sources.
 * Japan's LDP is clearly to the right than general Centre-Right liberal conservatism, and Germany's FPD is clearly more of a left than general Centre-Right liberal conservatism.--Storm598 (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, those parties are also characterised by other ideologies and position in their articles' infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The right-wing party under the name Liberal does not mean that it is a liberal conservative party. Is the Nazi Party a socialist party? The LDPJ is never a center-right liberal conservative party because it resembles a European far-right nationalist party in many ways.--Storm598 (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The LDP is not liberal. It is liberal-conservative, indeed. --Checco (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the LDP is not liberal-conservative. Is there any recent source of describing LDP as liberal conservatism? Even centrist within the LDP are hostile to feminism, oppose the wife's use of the same sex as her husband, and are often unclear about same-sex marriage, and have a strong nationalistic tendency. In recent years, most of Japan's major prime ministers belonged to Nippon Kaigi. Is there a liberal conservative in the LDP? Japan's Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is also considered to be middle-right, but he is also a nationalist belonging to Nippon Kaigi. moderate centre-right Japanese politicians are not liberal-conservatives, but more of a paternalistic conservatism. And now it is difficult to say that the centre-right is mainstream in the LDP compared to the far-right. The current LDP itself is very right-wing nationalist, social conservative and not liberal conservative, and the moderate within the LDP lacks too many liberal elements to be called liberal conservative.--Storm598 (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing liberalism and conservatism with modern American use of the terms that dates back to 1932. TFD (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, LDP is neither social liberalism nor classical liberalism, but traditional conservatism. Liberal conservatism is a combination of classical liberalism and conservatism, and mainstream conservatism in North America and Europe has an element to be seen as liberal conservatism. But is there any element of classical liberalism in the LDP? Classical liberalism is not limited to economic liberalism, and LDP has little economic liberal tendency.--Storm598 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about (social)liberalism in the United States, I'm talking about classical liberalism. Isn't classical liberalism or conservative liberalism in the United States part of the GOP? On the other hand, the LDP has no classical liberals or conservative liberals.--Storm598 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Liberal conservatives should support 'civil liberties', but LDP has too many traditional and feudal elements. The only element they are not feudal is nationalism. In what philosophical aspects is LDP liberal conservative? If the LDP should be viewed as liberal conservative just because of its name, should the Nazi Party be viewed as socialist conservative?--Storm598 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * LDP may be paternalistic conservatism, but it is definitely not liberal conservatism(classical liberal+conservatism).--Storm598 (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * South Korea's Liberal Party in the mid-20th century or the current Liberal Democratic Party of Russia have Liberal in their names, but they are not liberal political parties. The Nazi Party's case is similar. The name of the party does not actually mean the party's political orientation.--Storm598 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speaking of Germany, wouldn't the closest party be the National Liberal Party (Germany)? It's backing was large capitalists or big business which opposed free market policies and supported the Prussian state. But it was distinct from the German Conservative Party that was backed by the aristocracy. Is there any evidence that the LDP has taken the side of Japanese aristocracy over big business? TFD (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the Japanese Empire lost World War II, there have been no aristocrats in modern Japan. The United States abolished the aristocratic system, leaving only the emperor symbolically. However, not a few of the founders of the LDP were Kazoku during the Japanese Empire. Also, since the NLP is a political party in the 19th century, it is inappropriate to compare it one-dimensionally with the LDP, a political party in the 21st century.--Storm598 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the pre-modern factors of LDP is discrimination against Burakumin. Not a few politicians in the LDP discriminate against Burakumin. There are even a lot of people openly advocating discrimination, such as Tarō Asō. Of course, there is also a modern element of LDP. It is a nationalist incitement reminiscent of Trumpism or Conservative Revolution, and a subtle sympathy for Nazi Germany. This is close to authoritarian conservatism, how is this (classical)liberal conservatism?--Storm598 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Basically you are explaining why the LDP is not conservative - because it made no sense to defend institutions that had already been abolished or reduced in power. That's the same reason that the U.S. does not have a conservative party and the reason why the number of conservative parties drastically declined in the 20th century and only "liberal conservative" parties remain. In the UK for example, the rise of the Labour Party forced liberals into the Conservative Party. That's why it's called the Conservative and Unionist Party - Unionist refers to Liberal Unionists. TFD (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Conservativeism and reactionarism must be distinguished. LDP is basically a very very monarchist, so it is traditionalist-conservative. In addition, the LDP opposes the female Emperor, promotes discrimination against Burakumin, and advocates various feudal traditions. Also, not a few LDP members miss the days of the Japanese Empire. Western mainstream liberal conservatives, such as the GOD's moderates in the United States and the CDU in Germany, are at least not far-right reactionaries like the LDP.--Storm598 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If TED refers to liberalism, that is, conservative liberalism and classical liberalism, there are Japan's centre-right conservative opposition parties or Komeito. Democratic Party for the People is a political party united with liberals and conservatives, and Nippon Ishin no Kai has several factors to consider small governments and free markets as classical liberalism, and unlike LDP, far-right nationalism tendencies are relatively less. The LDP is the least liberal party among Japanese parliamentary parties. Liberals within the LDP had already escaped to other parties. The current LDP is only reactionary and traditional.--Storm598 (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you say that Japan is a capitalist state and if so do you credit the LDP? TFD (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that if Japan is a capitalist country, the LDP is a liberal conservative party? What are you talking about? Many of the LDP's political positions are based on modern ultra-nationalism and feudal conservatism. This is never classical liberalism.--Storm598 (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Classical liberalism is only one version of liberalism just as modern American liberalism is another. In fact classical liberalism was not even the first form of liberalism, despite its name. The objective of liberalism is the transfer to or maintenance of a capitalist state with due legal process and a degree of protection of individual rights, which they see as the highest stage of civilization. Of course that stage may include the retention of some feudal traditions, such as a figurehead monarchy, and also policies that seem reactionary today, such as slavery and denying most people the vote.

Conservative parties were originally formed in order to oppose the transition of power from monarchy and aristocracy to capitalists. Over time they tended to unite with conservative liberals as the common enemy became labor and socialist parties. If the objective of the LDP was to build a capitalist state with a degree of constitutionalism, rather than to concentrate power in the emperor or feudal landlords, then it was liberal.

You seem to be confusing the terms liberal and conservative with modern American usage. Women's rights and same sex marriage are issues that have divided Americans, but the opponents were within the American liberal tradition.

TFD (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you're trying to say now. However, in modern Europe and Latin America, right-wing populist parties, or political parties described as ultra-nationalism, are NOT often referred to as "liberal conservatism." The GOP in the United States does not defend the feudal status system. However, Japan's LDP openly justifies discrimination against Burakumin. This is no different from caste discrimination in India. Is this liberal conservative in general?--Storm598 (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my view. The GOP in the United States is liberal conservative because it is a completely modern conservative. Even if Japan's LDP advocates capitalism, it is not liberal conservatism because it advocates pre-modern and irrational traditions and discrimination before capitalism. Japanese women and minorities suffer from pre-modern discrimination more than modern discrimination.--Storm598 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fascist conservatives are generally not referred to as liberal conservatives. Even if they advocate capitalism, it is not liberal conservatism.--Storm598 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See Ian Adams,Political Ideology Today (2001), p. 32: "Ideologically, all U.S. parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone; how far should the state regulate or manage; and how far should government at federal or local level provide social security and welfare services? In American parlance, right-wingers are 'conservatvies', while left-wingers are rather confusingly called 'liberals'."
 * So if you use U.S. terminology, the LDP would be conservative. But that's not used for political party classification. While all the tables I have seen that categorize political parties into political families have shown Western countries, my guess is that the LDP would be classified as "uncategorized." It's a broad tent right-wing party
 * Extreme right ideologies such as right-wing populism and fascism are considered separate ideologies from liberalism and conservatism, although they contain nothing original and therefore borrow from other ideologies. But I have not seen any sources that classify the LDP within this group. There is however a party that has been described that way, the Japan Innovation Party. The emergence of these parties has moved politics to the right, so that otherwise center right parties as in the U.S. and UK have leaders who show elements of the extreme right.
 * TFD (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Liberalism is the support of civil liberties and free markets. Pre-Trump Republicans are liberal, but Trump is not liberal. Pre-Sanders Democrats are liberal, but Sanders is not a liberal. The LDP does not properly respect both civil liberties and the free market ground, and is full of feudal conservatism and collectivist tendencies.--Storm598 (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GOP are right-wing liberals who tend to be socially conservative, but they do not defend the feudal status system. However, the LDPJ or Indian BJP advocates a feudal status system. LDPJ or BJP do not respect basic civil liberties themselves. On the other hand, since this GOP is a classical liberal party, even far-right people like tea parties do not deny basic civil liberties.--Storm598 (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Japan's LDP
None of Europe's liberal conservative parties deny Nazi Germany and Japan war crimes in World War II. (In the case of war crimes in Italy, it is not comparable to Germany and Japan.) Mureungdowon (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

In the 2020s, the LDP has never been described as a liberal. Kishida's portrayal of a liberal is in a similar vein to Mitt Romney's portrayal of a liberal. It has a relative meaning, and it is difficult to find a source that describes the LDP as a liberal conservative among the sources in the last 10 years. Fumio Kishida has been trying to remove monuments of Korean wartime sexual violence victims of Japanese war crimes. Most South Koreans think Fumio Kishida is more right-wing than Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE


 * Holocaust denial is what Jews call the far right. Japanese war crime denial is what South Koreans call the far right. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Kishida glorifies war crimes in the Japanese Empire. Trump and Putin are not Nazis. If Kishida is a centre-right liberal, Trump is a progressive. Trump is a supporter of the Sunshine Policy. Rather, by South Korean standards, Trump is a moderate conservative and Kishida is a far-right. Western media is hypocritical. They call Donald Trump a fascist, but they don't admit that all LDP politicians are fascists. By South Korean standards, Donald Trump is a liberal and Fumio Kishida is a fascist. The English Wikipedia classifies Donald Trump as a fascist. Therefore, the LDP should not be classified as a liberal-conservative. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Donald Trump does not deny the Holocaust. Fumio Kishida denies genocide and sexual slavery crimes. Trump is by no means far-right. But Kishida is far-right. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Denying the Holocaust in Germany is considered a far right. So why do some people call the LDP liberal? It was removed by a Japanese editor. Even in Japan, the LDP is not viewed as a liberal-conservative party. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE


 * The LDPJ has liberal-conservative and even liberal factions, thus it can be listed here. --Checco (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source was before Shinzo Abe began his second term. There are no more liberals in the LDP since Shinzo Abe. The LDP may have been a liberal conservative in 2011, but that doesn't mean it's a liberal conservative in 2023. Mureungdowon (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I refer you to WP:Soapbox. Anyway, I support inclusion of the LDPJ on the list of parties for the article, as it is backed up with two reliable sources, and the section is after all inclusive for “parties with liberal-conservative factions”.-- Autospark (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no liberal conservative factions in the LDP. Kōchikai is a moderate, not liberal. Although Kishida is sometimes described as a liberal, but he is far from ordinary liberals, including trying to amend Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. What elements of the LDP are liberal? If LDPJ should be included in the Liberal conservatism article, Brothers of Italy should be included in the Liberal conservatism article. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * If the LDPJ should be added to the 'Liberal conservatism' article, Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP) should also be included in the 'Liberal conservatism' article. Although the AKP supports historical revisionism on the Armenian genocide issue, unlike the LDP, it does not support Nazism or Japanese fascism. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Again, WP:Soapbox. And are we discussing the inclusion of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan or another party? It is hard to view you as conversing in good faith if you frequently jump into whataboutism.-- Autospark (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We need the latest source that the LDP is a liberal-conservative party. Is there even one source that the LDP is a liberal-conservative party within 5 years? Mureungdowon (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * If the LDPJ takes power in Japan, it will be difficult for South Koreans to even demand legitimate compensation from Japan, and even demand compensation will cause great damage to South Korea through economic sanctions. In addition, they have used their national power to effectively remove sexual slavery and forced labor victims' memorial symbols that exist around the world. Under the LDPJ, many Koreans suffer from extreme discrimination and violence in Japan. How the hell is this liberal-conservative? Are there any other parties in German politics that have this position besides the Alternative for Germany???? You would describe this as whataboutism, but before 1945 Japan was the Axis Powers and Fascists like Germany.
 * Why did a (anti-Chins/anti-LGBT/anti-feminist) K-Trumpist (=Yoon Suk-yeol) who supports Pro-Japanesediplomatic lines come to power in South Korea? The reason was that when a liberal against Japanese imperialism came to power in South Korea, demanded fair compensation for the victims of World War II. Shinzo Abe then hit the South Korean economy hard due to the Japan-South Korea trade dispute. This caused negative emotions against liberals among the South Korean people. South Korean far-rightists like K-Trumpist and Unification Church are effectively political allies with the LDPJ.
 * Japan's LDPJ government prevented South Korea's Anti-'Japanese fascist' liberal regime from taking power again in the 2022 South Korean presidential election. Analysts say that the relationship between Yoon Suk-yeol and Japan in South Korea is similar to that between Donald Trump and Russia in the United States. If the LDP is liberal-conservative, then the United Russia is progressive. Yoon is more far-right than Trump. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Again, WP:Soapbox. And there’s no rule that references need to be <5 years old for extant political parties.- - Autospark (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But over time, political positions and ideologies of political parties can change. Even data from 10 years ago (2013~) does not portray the LDP as a liberal-conservative. The LDP before Abe and the LDP after Abe are completely different parties. Mureungdowon (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * This is a pointless exercise because there are no clear definitions for liberal conservative, conservative liberal or factions. Basically, the list could be expanded to include any centrist or right of center party.
 * While I appreciate your comments on the current leadership, the party has is not monolithic so it's possible there are at least two liberal members who support each other in party meetings. TFD (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also well aware of the unsavoury issues related to the LDP and historical revisionism, but this is meant to be a list of political parties which have references describing them as part of the liberal-conservative tradition, it's not meant to describe any of the parties on there in any detail, nor allowing editors to vent (and again WP:Soapbox, WP:NOTABLOG). The information on the revisionism expressed by members of the LDP should be kept within the article about the LDP, and/or on a separate article about the issues raised.-- Autospark (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The section is called Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions. So the party itself does not have to be part of the tradition. In any case, it makes no sense to refer to the tradition, since it isn't defined. Is it liberalism that emphasises elitism, social tradition or small government, Toryism that accepts some liberal views such as private property and the rule of law, or all of the above? TFD (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the TFD. The LDP has few liberal elements. LDPs should be removed from the list quickly. Mureungdowon (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Actually, I agree that, as "the section is called 'Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions'", a "party itself does not have to be part of the tradition" to be listed. --Checco (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * However, please do not remove footnotes. That is my compromise. I'm grateful you guys didn't remove footnotes. (Liberal conservatives may exist in a very small number among the main members of the LDP, but they are by no means the mainstream of the LDP. Fumio Kishida is hardly a liberal conservatives.) Mureungdowon (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I cannot find anything on this in books about comparative politics. Usually they are about European parties and sometimes include U.S., Canadian, Australian and NZ parties. So we don't have any reliable sources to classify the LDP or its factions.
 * The U.S. government only accepted Christian Democratic, liberal and social democratic parties in the defeated axis nations, so the LDP was founded as a continuation of the pre-war Liberal Party and was technically committed to liberalism and democracy. But whether not they actually were is something we need sources for before their inclusion. TFD (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing is for sure, even Donald Trump, the far-right by American standards, does not glorify the Axis powers. However, almost every politician in the LDP defends the Japanese Empire, which was part of the Axis powers. Therefore, for South Koreans, 'Japanese moderate' Fumio Kishida is more neo-fascistic than 'American far-right' Donald Trump. (I don't think Fumio Kishida is a moderate, and I don't think Donald Trump is a far-right. I rather think Kishida is the far-right and Trump is the moderate.) Mureungdowon (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE


 * All the parties with liberal-conservative factions should be included there, at least as long as we want to have a list. --Checco (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So do you also support United Russia being added to the list? Mureungdowon (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * As long as there is a list with the current name, any party including liberal-conservative factions (according to sources!) should be included. --Checco (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The first source has no page reference, the second refers to a party created by the defection of liberal conservative members of the LDP and the others say that the LDP was once described as liberal conservative but no longer is.
 * I don't think anyway that having someone sometime saying in passing that two or more members of the LDP were liberal conservative or conservative liberal without providing any definitions is encyclopedic. TFD (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is easy to find sources online on LDP's liberal conservatism or liberal-conservative factions. --Checco (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then go and find one and put it in. TFD (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some were already there, others were fixed and/or added by User:Autospark, whom I thank for his contribution. --Checco (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the issues with the sources have been addressed and I suggest we remove them.

The source added indeed calls the LDP liberal conservative, but it was published in 2010 and another source used says that the party stopped being liberal conservative after 2012.

I assume that you had not read the sources before another editor asked for the party to be removed. What makes you think they are liberal conservative and what does that mean to you?

TFD (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the opinion of the TFD. The LDPJ must be removed from the list of liberal conservatism articles. Mureungdowon (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * In common sense, it is wrong to regard a party that defends the Japanese Empire, which was morally the same Axis as Nazi Germany, and glorifies war crimes as liberal-conservative. LDPJ hasn't been on the liberal conservative politocal parties list for a long time. Mureungdowon (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I agree with you but for a different reason. Since the term itself has no clear meaning, it makes no sense to provide a list. However you make a good point that the party has moved from the mainstream to the extreme right, so it would no longer be categorized as liberal or conservative or some sort of hybrid. TFD (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The list should be kept – articles on political ideologies ranging from national conservatism to social liberalism to many others in between have lists of applicable parties listed in their articles. Again, it the section is called "Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions", factions within a party of a possible other "main ideology" therefore are valid, and there is no "time limit" for the age of references. As noted, there are defunct parties listed in the article section, which could have older references available. Also, again, it is a list, and should not be editorialised – information on controversies related to a political party should be on separate articles, and backed up by clear references as to avoid editors pushing WP:synth.-- Autospark (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed the "Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions" session to the "List of liberal-conservative parties" session. As I keep saying, there is no 'consensus' between users about LDPJ being added to the list. Therefore, the description should be fixed with LDPJ not on the list for a long time. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * You have no consensus behind renaming that section, and you are now engaging in disruptive editing. Please cease.— Autospark (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * LDPJ hasn't been on the list for more than a few years and no objection to it has been raised for a long time, but there is an editorial war going on by you adding LDPJ from the list without any 'consensus' about it. LDPJ should never be added until 'consensus' is done on the Talk page. In the first place, it is you, not me, who is opposed to maintaining the status quo. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * The party was listed for a considerable amount of time, and is now backed with additional references. You are the one WP:EW and pushing a WP:soapbox take in an article where it isn’t warranted. Write about the LDPJ’s controversial takes on WWII on the article about that party, or create a separate article. This is a list within an article about a specific poltical ideology.— Autospark (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Give a source that the LDPJ of late is a liberal-conservative. Sources more than 10 years old do not represent the current LDP. The ideology of a particular party is not fixed. TFD as well as me are against adding LDPJ to the list. (And how does it become a Korean nationalist view that the LDPJ is far-right in defending the Japanese Empire, which is on par with Nazi Germany?) Mureungdowon (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I don't understand at all why Autospark is obsessed with adding LDPJ to the list of Liberal conservatism articles. I have my own reasons. South Koreans are the main victims of Japanese war crimes. And I support the status quo. By describing LDPJ in 2023 as a liberal, what's good for Wikipedia readers? Mureungdowon (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * You are engaged in blatant trolling and are not contributing in good faith. It’s not about the Japanese LDP, it’s about creating a list of parties with "Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions". There are references for the LDP, therefore it goes on the list. Ideology articles should offer a list of parties with such ideologies, backed up by reliable sources. I see you have retroactively renamed the “Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions" section purely to attempt to push your own agenda, without consensus.— Autospark (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that I'm trolling, it's that you're obsessive obsessed. I've also searched countless times for data describing LDPJ as a liberal conservative. Unfortunately, no source has been found to describe the LDPJ as a liberal conservative since 2012, when Shinzo Abe came to power. What the hell does "consensus" you claim mean? Currently, two of the four users who participated in Talk, including myself, oppose adding LDPJ. Currently, there is no suitable "consensus". Therefore, it is necessary to maintain the status quo without adding LDPJ. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Again, trolling, insults, disruptive editing, not contributing in good faith. You rely on WP:NOPA ad hominem attacks and slurs rather than engaging with the issues at hand. I have been contributing to en.wiki for over a decade and a half and there has never been a rule that references for categorising political parties have a time limit of eleven years – that is a ‘rule’ you seem to have unilaterally have created in order to push your WP:soapbox editorialising of a list section.— Autospark (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You accused my view by calling it a 'Korean nationalist' view. It's you who do disruptive editing and insults. (See No personal attacks) Nippon Ishin no Kai, who is more policy moderate than the LDPJ by current standards, is never described as a liberal-conservative. If the LDPJ is a liberal-conservative, the more moderate Nippon Ishin no Kai should have a source that is described as a liberal-conservative. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Real Korean nationalists believe that the LDPJ was a fascist party from the beginning due to the influence of Nobusuke Kishi and others. On the other hand, I acknowledge that the LDPJ had at least a small number of liberal conservatives within the LDPJ until Shinzo Abe came to power, and even I think that the LDPJ was really a liberal party in the 1980s. The LDPJ has not ruled liberal-conservative since 2012. Currently, the LDPJ suppresses Asahi newspapers, supports nationalist education, and has a strong social conservative element. You're just making an argument based on racial prejudice that my views are biased because I'm a South Korean. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * WP:Soapbox. Autospark (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there an up-to-date source that LDPJ is a liberal-conservative? The ideology of a particular political party should be judged by the current standards. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * There is no “time limit” to the age of references used for political parties. That is a rule you’ve unilaterally created in order to be disruptive and push editorialising of a list. The issue isn’t the controversy related to the LDP, it’s that is isn’t appropriate to bring it up on a list – add it to the specific article on the party or create a separate en.wiki article for the issue of historical revisionism and the LDP (the topic likely merits an article of its own). (Additionally, please rename the section back to "Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions", as was its name.)— Autospark (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support changing the name of the session, but I kept the name of the session as it is because I don't want to cause an editorial dispute with you. Instead, you should also keep the status quo without adding LDPJ from the list of articles. Let's keep the status quo until other users participate. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * There is no "time limit" in the source used for a particular party, but shouldn't the ideology of a particular party focus more on the current standards, not the past? The ideology of a particular political party is often changed. Then it is not worth ignoring such changes and insisting on regressive old sources. For example, we do not describe Austria's FPO as a liberal party as a 'Current party'. Mureungdowon (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Austria's FPO and Japan's LDPJ used to be liberal parties, but now they are not even liberal-conservative parties, they are simply national conservatives. Mureungdowon (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Do you have any sources which explicitly claim the LDP no longer has liberal-conservative (or conservative-liberal) currents or factions, or are you relying on WP:Synth? It’s not as if the LDP has moved away from being the conservative party it was founded as – the example you cited in your original response before you revised it (a centre-left party shifting to centre-right) would be relevant to a party e.g. the Democratic Party (Romania) where a significant shift in official organised ideology occurred.— Autospark (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll look for more sources about that. However, ordinary liberal-conservative parties are not generally described as "illiberal" or "ultra-nationalist". "Illiberal" or "ultra-nationalist" and "liberal-conservative" are completely contradictory. Mureungdowon (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I'll ask the other way around. Is it really the mainstream view that the LDPJ is a liberal-conservative? In Wikipedia, the views of the majority take precedence over the views of the few. It is questionable whether it can be seen as the mainstream view of academia that LDPJ is a liberal-conservative. Because, as the TFD said, there is no data comparing the LDPJ with the liberal-conservative parties in Europe. See WP:DUE. I think it's a minority view that the LDPJ is a liberal-conservative. Mureungdowon (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

According to Factions in the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), "There are currently five major factions and two minor factions in the LDP; and while most factions have official titles, in the Japanese media they are usually referred to by the names of their current leaders." Can anyone please tell me which of these seven factions are liberal conservative? TFD (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those factions is directly described as "liberal-conservative". Kochikai is sometimes described as the only liberal, but as I said above, this has only a very relative meaning, and is overwhelmingly often not described as a liberal, but as a moderate. In Japan, "Kochikai" is synonymous with "Kishida factions," with Fumio Kishida leading an international lobbying effort to remove the symbol of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery, behind which is far-right (illiberal) ultranationalist Nippon Kaigi. And, as mentioned above, the LDP is not described as a liberal-conservative in any recent source, and the LDP is described as an ultranationalist. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Currently, most of the major politicians of the factions within the LDPJ belong to the Nippon Kaigi. Since 2006, all prime ministers from the LDPJ have consistently been members of the Nippon Kaigi, regardless of their factions, and have supported their historical revisionist policies. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Again, there is no "time limit" to age of references used to describe political parties, and the section is "Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions" – the references used can refer to the party as an aggregate, or factions therein. As noted in Culture and Power in Germany and Japan: The Spirit of Renewal by NJ Jørgensen, "LDP is a conservative party, an umbrella over many factions almost like separate parties within the party" – the party has a long history of being heterogeneous with different ideological currents.-- Autospark (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree at all with overemphasizing that there is no "time limit". The source you presented also focuses on the LDP in the past when the Japan Socialist Party existed. The ideology of a particular party may change, and sources should preferably be the latest source. The LDP in 2023 has no liberal conservatives in the European political context. Mureungdowon (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * That is your opinion only, unless you have evidence otherwise. Again, it's a rule you have unilaterally invented that references have "time limits".-- Autospark (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Since more recent sources say the party has taken a sharp turn to the right, you should find a source that the party is still liberal conservative.
 * The sources used are questionable anyway because of BESTSOURCES. For example, if I wanted to add parties to a list of "far left" parties, I would use a source such as Luke March's "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe". He's an expert, he defines the topic and explains the criteria for inclusion on his list, while your sources just mention the classification in passing.
 * TFD (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the section is called "Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions". The party could've taken a turn to the right (like many conservative parties in the developed world) while still containing liberal-conservative factions, and it does not change the fact that the party is 1.) still extant 2.) has referenced sources describing it in whole or part as liberal-conservative. I find the needless goalpost-shifting you indulge in to be exhausting. This is, again, "Liberal-conservative parties or parties with liberal-conservative factions" and any ideological shifts or leadership changes should be described on the article of the relevant political parties involved. I'm not contesting the other user's raising of the issue of historical revisionism or LDP politicians' links with Nippon Kaigi, I'm not denying either are serious issues which the relevant en.wiki article(s) should be describing, but this article is not the venue for it.-- Autospark (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, let’s reach a compromise. There are references (some not ideal, and could be replaced by better references if available) that refer to the Japanese LDP/Jiminto as liberal-conservative. I recognise the party has shifted in its leadership over recent years. I am aware of the controversy over historical revisionism, and agree that the topic deserves mention on en.wiki, if not a standalone article about the issue. However, the party has been 'historically' (depending on the definition) been described as liberal-conservative, and that should really be reflected in the list given the importance of the Japanese LDP. How do we go about this? Should we leave in Mureungdowon's disclaimer (something I would accept as valid, add an additional tag, some other form of recognition? Moving the party to the "Former parties" subsection seems incorrect as the party is still extant and active, while that subsection for defunct political parties..--Autospark (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This problem may be solved by adding a detailed session:
 * Present liberal-conservative tendencies
 * Former liberal-conservative tendencies (in current parties)
 * Historical parties or factions
 * There is an exemplary example of this. See Ultranationalism Mureungdowon (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * The "Former liberal-conservative tendencies (in current parties)" session can include numerous political parties in Japan, Turkey, and Eastern Europe. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

I don't know why you assume it is liberal conservative or has those factions then look for sources. That's backwards. We should be looking for sources about liberal conservatism, assuming they exist, and use it to identify such parties. In the meantime, I don't want to compromise between what sources say and what you have concluded.

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, a faction is "an organized group within a political party, especially in a country where they have semi-permanent existence, such as Japan or Italy." That seems pretty relevant to this article. You need to identify which of these factions is liberal conservative and then provide sources. A best source in this case would list the ideologies of every faction.

20:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The factions of the LDP are different from the usual factions of political parties in Europe or the United States. The factions of the LDP do not have an ideological basis itself. The factions of the LDP exist as a kind of personal interest relationship and personal friendship between politicians. Therefore, only the ideology of the LDP itself exists. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I canceled the proposal to create a 'Former resident-conservative tendencies (in current parties)' session. I support the status quo. Mureungdowon (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Two issues have been mixed here: the very existance of "liberal conservatism" and Japan's LDP being listed in this article. On the first issue, there is no doubt that liberal conservatism is a standard categorisation for political parties according to European political science and in most of the world. On the latter issue, this discussion has been unnecessarily long, as positions are quite clear and clearly, as of now, there is no consensus for removing Japan's LDP from the list. I do respect personal motivations against the LDP, but those motivations are indeed personal and have nothing to do with sources. Moreover, the very same user usually tends to see most political parties futher to the right than they actually are. I especially do not understand the business of depicting right-wing parties as far-right. The LDP, like it or not, is a large, mainstream party. Its policies and its historical approach might be nationalist, but it is the mainstream conservative party in Japan, a democracy. More important to us, the fact that it contains liberal-conservative and conservative-liberal factions is backed by sources. We should have a balanced and international perspective, otherwise all parties strongly supporting their countries' national identity would be described nationalist (surely, French and American parties tend to be more nationalist than German and Italian parties are, but this does not mean that all those parties are nationalist by international standards) and all parties opposing a specific social policy would be hard-right (when, in some contexts, there are even social-democratic or generally progessive parties opposing abortion or same-sex marriage). --Checco (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mainstream conservative parties in Germany, France, Itary or the United States are not described as ultranatonalists or fascists. And above all, there is no consensus in adding LDPJ to the article. It's a new edit, so it should be removed immediately. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * The mainstream conservative parties in France and the United States are center-right parties and the LDP is a not center-right party. Mainstream conservative parties in France and the United States do not defend the Nazis or the Japanese Empire. Germany and Japan were former Axis powers. In both countries, nationalism should be considered far-right in itself. Indeed, in Germany, German nationalism is considered far-right. The LDPJ is a Japanese nationalist political party. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Blatant lies, it is not a “new edit”; the party has been on the list section of the article for at least fourteen years (which was prior to references being added for any of the parties on that list). Please revert your removal of it. Also, please refrain from continually taking the discussion WP:OFFTOPIC.— Autospark (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, unlike 10 years ago, LDPJ was removed from the article 2 years ago. There have been no attempts to add back from the article for some time since. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * As of 2013, it is not a relatively old time, as there are sources in 2011. But now it's 2023. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I suggest a vote on whether LDPJ should be added or remove to the Liberal conservatism article. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE


 * There is no consensus on removing the party from the list. A new consensus is needed to remove it. Please seek it, instead of edit warring. --Checco (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. There is no consensus to add it. Let's not start an editorial war, let's keep the status quo until consensus is reached. LDPJ wants to be removed from the article immediately. Mureungdowon (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I disagree with Checco that "liberal conservatism is a standard categorisation for political parties according to European political science and in most of the world." The standard categories were communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative, extreme right, agrarian, nationalist and unclassified. "Left" parties have now been added. In some cases, further definition is possible. But the term liberal conservative remains undefined. To some writers, it means conservative parties that accepted some liberal principles, such as the historic UK Conservative Party that accepted liberal rights such as private property. To others it means liberal parties, such as the U.S. republicans, that place an emphasis on tradition and have never challenged liberal rights such as private property.
 * If Checco is right, they should be able to find a book about comparative politics in Europe that lists liberal conservatism as a party family. I have not been able to find one and so I see the list of parties and factions in this article as original research. The categorization reflects the opinions of Wikipedia editors rather than the consensus of political scientists. TFD (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also very support with the TFD's view. The entire list of political parties should be removed from the Liberal conservatism article. Or at least LDPJ should be removed from the article. Mureungdowon (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * I’m strongly against the removal of the list of parties on this article (as I would be with any similar article about a recognised political ideology). There is enough references added to the list section to back up the fact that there are countless sources which describe political parties as liberal-conservative.— Autospark (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If so, we should not oppose the removal of the LDPJ. Germany doesn't even deny the Holocaust by moderates in the AfD. Germany's major political parties never support ultranationalism or historical revisionism against war crimes. The LDPJ is no different from a neo-fascist by German political standards. LDPJ is more extreme than AfD so how do you become a liberal-conservative??? Mureungdowon (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Again, you’re going into wildly non-sequitur arguments, to the point of seemingly denying political science. Here’s one explanation of liberal conservatism; there are many more. Whatever your personal feelings about the LDP, that doesn’t invalidate the existence of existing literature on political theory. This is not being objective, so please engage with the topic at hand.— Autospark (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a political scientist's view that the LDP supports the same ideology as Europe's (generally center-right) liberal-conservative political party? The LDP is a nationalist and pathenalistic-conservative, not a liberal-conservative. Mureungdowon (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Since the LDPJ has not been removed, United Russia, an obvious liberal-conservative in equity, has been added to the list. United Russia can be seen as a liberal-conservative because it supports conservatism based on the market economy and private property. There is no updated data describing LDPJ as a liberal-conservative, but there is an updated data describing United Russia as a liberal-conservative. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * You haven't addressed by concerns. It certainly is true that various writers at different times may join the words liberal conservative when describing any center right party. However, there is no reason to believe that the words put together have a consistent meaning and no literature produced to show this is the case.
 * In the case of the liberal party family, there are countless books devoted to their ideology, books about party families that define their characteristics and books classifying (mostly) Western European parties that are liberal. To do this they use several factors such as the historical circumstances of their origins, party name, international affiliation and self-identification.
 * There is nothing like that for this topic. TFD (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I strong support your opinion very actively. The party lists in this article should be removed. Or at least the LDPJ should be removed. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE


 * It is pointless to support that "liberal conservatism" does not exist as there are several sources explaining what it is.
 * On the other side, once again, it is not a contradiction that a conservative party or even a nationalist one can also contain liberal-conservative factions. This said, I have the impression that User:Mureungdowon is not neutral on the issue. --Checco (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This ignores the fact that Japan was an three main Axis in the past. Japanese nationalism is pernicious. And none of the parties here are liberal-conservative: Ultranationalism. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * This ignores the fact that we are not in 1943, but in 2023. And, again, not all the LDP is liberal-conservative, factions of it are. --Checco (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the victims of Japanese war crimes are still alive in South Korea. There are bereaved families even if they die after more than 20 years. Most of all, you are contradictory; there are sources that the LDP is liberal-conservative, but there are sources that are ultranationalist. Why do you insist that the former has a source, but ignore sources that belong to the latter? Mureungdowon (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * A majority of the party may be nationalist, but still there are sourced liberal-conservative sources. --Checco (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you name one of the liberal conservative factions? My understanding is that factionalism in the party is based on personalities rather than ideologies. TFD (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look to the sources. However, factions can be organised groups or mere ideological trends within a party. --Checco (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think what Mu/Storm was getting at is that we shouldn't references to when a party that has changed in the last 10 years. I don't think has been referred to as a liberal conservative party really since Abe became leader, except for the one in 2011. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it’s irrelevant what a banned, aggressive, dishonest and disruptive, sockpuppet account has stated, really. There’s no rule on en.wiki for time limits to references for political parties.— Autospark (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then if a party shifts closer to the centre over time, but it no longer to the left or right, or vise-versa, then surely the position it was is the past should be listed as being historical? For example, the FDP in Germany used to be a social liberal party, but over the years moved to the centre-right, while the social liberals became a minority. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The German FDP was only officially social-liberal during the time of the Freiburger Theses being the party programme – it didn't just 'turn' to the right. Most of the party's history, the vast majority, it has been a right-leaning liberal party.-- Autospark (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , how would you summarize your source's definition? Spencer and Hayek are normally described as liberals. Spencer explained in his essay "The New Toryism" that he moved from the Liberals to the Conservative Party because he thought Gladstone's social reforms posed the greater threat to liberalism. Hayek expressed his opposition to conservatism in "Why I am not a conservative." The definition seems to be liberal factions within conservative parties. It's actually fairly common that liberals and conservatives group into an anti-socialist coalition, which is how the LDP originated. TFD (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why the scope of this discussions is widening more and more. Surely, conservatives and liberals gave birth to the LDP. The party might have shifted to the left or to right in different times, but still it is fair to say (and sources back it) that the party is home to liberal-conservative factions, tendencies and individuals, as well as conservative-liberal or liberal factions, tendencies and individuals (there is a parallel thread at Talk:Conservative liberalism). It does not really matter how much the party has shifted to the right over the last years or how small those factions are, but they exist. As a side note, I also agree with User:Autospark on Germany's FDP, which User:Mureungdowon saw as centrist rather than centre-right: the party has probably shifted to the left over the years, but it is still mainly a centre-right outfit. --Checco (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is clear that claims in articles must be reliably sourced and not be based on conclusions drawn by editors. Even if we accept your synthesis, the fact that liberals and conservatives founded the LDP does not mean it had a liberal conservative ideology. According to recent sources, it may have transformed into a far right party, which means the earlier sources have been made obsolete, which WP:AGEMATTERS warns about. Furthermore, while sources show that the LDP is divided into factions, none of these sources identify any of them as liberal conservative. TFD (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will just jump into this conversation you guys are having to add some context you may be missing, please check this:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Japan)_leadership_election
 * 33.4% and 8.2% of the party vote (41.6%) went to candidates that were and are in favor of same sex marriage, married couples having the freedom of keeping separate surnames, etc., (Kono and Noda). The other 33.6% went to Kishida, which is considered a center/center-right politician. The last 24.6% went to Takaichi, the only one in the election that was considered right-wing/far right. This is all public knowledge and the numbers are pretty clear. Liberalism is well and alive inside the LDP. The party as a whole may not be considered liberal but liberal members inside the party are many and enough for it to be in included in this page and those sources that called it liberal or as having liberal members/factions are relevant.
 * Unrelated to that discussion but I can't find any academic sources saying the LDP has "transformed into a far right party". I don't know where did you read that from to get that impression but academics studies on the party as a whole call it big tent and center-right to right-wing. That's the general consensus. Don't use sensationalist news sources, "analysis", travel books, or whatever for something like this. If you want to look at what an actual far right party looks like in Japan see "Japan First Party", which luckily as zero seats in the Diet. WetGlass (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What User:WetGlass wrote is certainly accurate. By the way, there are sources claiming that the LDP is partly liberal-conservative. --Checco (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the banned user was conflating the organisation that the majority of the party's reps. are a part of and the policies and positions the party expresses. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)