Talk:Liberalist

Support required for definition
You can't just declare a definition to be true, supply no sources to back yourself up, and then insist that your definition remain in place even though others can find no corroboration for your claim. Besides that, even if you were right, there is still no merit to this being an article with the dearth of content you've provided, since it would instead be appropriate to redirect it to Classical liberalism.

I ran my own search on and found that the word "liberalist" appears in the context of classical liberalism, occurring typically in the phrase "classical liberalist", implying that there are other kinds of liberalists. In fact, they are typically mentioned in contrast to neo-liberalists, making the point even more firmly.

As for dictionaries: Webster's Third Unabridged defines "liberalist" as "liberal". Period/full stop. American Heritage Dictionary lists it as a derived form of "liberalism". The Oxford English Dictionary says "An advocate of liberalism; a liberal" and qualifies it with "Sometimes used with pejorative connotation instead of liberal."

Unless sources materialize confirming your contention that "liberalist" refers strictly to adherents of classical liberalism, contrary to all of the above evidence, your contribution is inappropriate, and the redirect to liberalism should be restored. Largoplazo (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You even contradicted yourself in your own edit summary: "This is the correct definition, in the same way that a Feminist is someone who advocates for Feminism, and Islamist advocates for Islamism." Right, not "classical feminism" and "classical Islamism", respectively. I really don't see how you thought this argument made your case that "liberalist" is confined to classical liberalism. Largoplazo (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To second your post, I actually tried finding sources using the term in the way that it was being used in the (non-redirect form of the) article, and had no luck either. Barring some reliable sources that I missed, I agree that the redirect to Liberalism is the best course for now. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

2A01:388:22E:111:0:0:1:D (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)This is a movement that was started a week ago. There are no such sources yet beyond whats already been provided. If thats not enough then fine, can we add a tag or do some disambiguation? Because the redirecting to liberalism is the reason why the movement was started. Its NOT liberalism in its current form. It is an attempt to return to classical liberalism. The definitions you have quoted are essentially redirects to liberalism because the word wasn't being used but is so close to liberalism that these sites assume thats what you meant. Its not. Thats the point. You are essentially preventing the movement from explaining itself on the grounds that people don't know what it is.
 * Your first two sentences are expressing exactly why there can't be an article on it yet: too new to have received substantial coverage by reliable third parties not directly connected with it - or the fundamental requirement for notability as defined for Wikipedia purposes. Should this guy manage to sweep all before him with his political acumen in a fortnight's time, I'm sure we will see ample news articles, televsion appearances, agency statements, journal coverage etc., which would all do nicely. Bide a while. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)