Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States/Archive 3

Why aren't direct quotations in the article's text placed in quotation marks?
Just looked at this article for the first time. The second and third sentences in the opening paragraph are a direct, verbatim quotation from a footnoted source, but those sentences are not in quotation marks in the text. Is there a Wikipedia policy that approves this practice? Anywhere else it would be plagiarism, and footnoting the direct quotation would not be considered sufficient. Why not put the sentences in quotation marks in the text?Redound (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added them. In any case, we need to review the lead since it is ambiguous whether it refers to the shared ideology of what are today called liberals and conservatives or just liberals. Conservatives with the exception of a radical fringe have of course accepted modern liberal policies such as income tax, the end of the gold standard, and social security. TFD (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is a mess
It loses the thread after the 1960s, shifting focus from liberalism in the United States to simply listing issues in quasi-chronological order (environmental and labor politics by no means faded after the 1970s, or if they did, they very much have reversed that now.)

Worst of all is the "Return of Protest Politics" section, which not only ends in 2016 for some unfathomable reason (regardless of your thoughts on it, the Women's March undoubtedly is one of the most notable instances of protest politics this decade, and is more representative of "modern liberalism" than most of the protests in the section) but is mostly a recap of the Bush and Obama presidencies interspersed with mention of a few protests -- primarily Occupy and Black Lives Matter -- that are not neatly classified as "liberal" (as opposed to left, or mixed in the case of Occupy). The mention of Black Lives Matter is also accompanied, for some reason, by a quote criticizing the movement by someone of dubious relevance.

And really, the fact that the timeline of this article ends in 2016 is bizarre. I'm not even just talking about the Trump administration; the 2016 Democratic primary and now the 2020 primary were in part referendums on what kind of "liberalism," if any, the party would define itself around. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Then fix it. I agree though there is a problem. Modern liberalism was an agent of change in the 1930s to 1960s. It's not clear what it means today. Is it the establishment or progressive Democrats? TFD (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that it is a very charged topic I thought it would be best to bring it up on the talk page instead of slashing and burning out of nowhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a problem in the the early timeline too, for example the comment, "In 1900–1920, liberals called themselves progressives." But progressivism and modern U.S. liberalism are distinct, with the latter developing in the 1930s, long after the Progressive Era. TFD (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What adds to confusion is that Liberalism in the United States covers a lot of similar ground; perhaps necessarily. But if Modern Liberalism is mainly a term for changes 1930 - 1960 then the article could be reduced in scope with the excess parts merged with the fore mentioned article? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

summary picture
I question in the sidebar summary picture whether Hillary would be a better choice than one of Pelosi, Krugman, Bader Ginsburg, and certainly also Sotomayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:79D:B7DE:753C:28E1:669B:6456:F794 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi, a liberal? She's against Medicare for All & continuously backs every Pentagon budget. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt is not a liberal based on his era and today. He had populist view of conservation for his era should not be misappropriated for the 1960s environmentalism movement. Lincoln could be considered a liberal using similar misinterpretation by opposing conservative southern Democrat Congressmen and Senators. Since Lincoln would not be considered a liberal. Theodore Roosevelt should not be considered one either. Please remove him from the Modern Liberalism list which rightly should begin with Franklin Roosevelt instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:993C:1181:8074:73F0 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Modern liberalism and modern conservatism really begin in the 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt called his supporters liberals and his opponents conservatives. That happened because the two parties were not yet fully polarized along left-right lines. The most one could say about TR is that some of his policies anticipated liberalism and some of his supporters would eventually become New Dealers. TFD (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, Lincoln is universally considered one of the most important liberals in American history, alongside Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt. Some conservatives try to pretend otherwise, because he was a Republican, but as TFD points out, the polarization of the parties did not exist then.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Going back to the beginnings of the Republic, there has always been a left-right division in politics which has cut across party lines, unlike other countries where parties had much less overlap in ideology. But there has also been considerable realignment. So Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and TR can end up in the pantheons of both sides. TFD (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the list of proponent
Such a list would be chronically incomplete. Most of the names listed were unsourced. The list adds no benefit to the article and just takes up space. People on this list are not of the same era and some would disagree on key issues. Also the article is WP:TOOBIG. Mottezen (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Essentially all such lists, which are common throughout Wikipedia, are necessarily incomplete. Also, I noticed you first deleted just one name, and then decided to delete everybody else. I restored the list, you deleted it again. Rather than engage in an edit war, I'll request other Wikipedians to restore the list if they find it encyclopedic. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the essay WP:LISTCRUFT, it is stated that "Embedded (within-article) lists may also be crufty, especially when they are indiscriminate collections of unimportant or irrelevant miscellanea (trivia)". I feel this describes the list I removed perfectly. Mottezen (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any point of having a long list. If someone is important to liberalism, then their name should be in the article and readers can follow the link to their article. After reading about LBJ's Great Society and civil rights legislation, they may want to go to the article about him. But having his name in a list with dozens of other liberal politicians isn't helpful. TFD (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've moved the deleted list to a new article List of American Liberals paralleling the structure of the article List of American conservatives.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)