Talk:Modern liberalism
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | On 26 September 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Modern liberalism (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Untitled section
editFare: The important thing is not whether I like it or not. It is to clarify the concepts, to avoid confusion, and to give credits where it's due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)
New Liberalism versus Modern Liberalism
edit"New Liberalism", the previous name of this article is an established and relatively unambiguous term. "Modern liberalism" sounds coined specially for this article, maybe the person who changed it would like to see it widely used in this meaning, which it is not. "Modern liberalism" could be understood to mean the "latest fashion" within liberalism, maybe somebody could even understand it meaning Neoliberalism which is a newer concept than "New liberalism". Anyway, using "Modern liberalism" in this meaning is a forgery and I oppose it.--213.243.154.252 01:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- It has been used elsewhere. Look it up on Google. Lucidish 15:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree. Also with the word "liberalism", the word "modern" is most often used in place of "contemporary", not to describe a spesific ideology. However, "new liberalism" is much less often misunderstood, because it is rarely used for other purposes than to express certain ideology. Thus, this article should be renamed back to "New liberalism".
- That would be a good solution. An even better solution would be to use the title Social liberalism, which is least ambiguous, well established, and so descriptive that it is roughly understood also by those who have never before heard any of these terms.
- I say merge with American liberalism. Arbor 20:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that if you merge the two columns, they should not be called "American" simply because it is not only an American theory.
Agreed. If anything, merge American liberalism w/ modern liberalism. Or "positive liberalism". Or whatever. Lucidish 15:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)- I take it back. Merge social liberalism into modern liberalism. Leave American lib alone; it can focus on specifically American idiosyncracies. Lucidish 18:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Requested move 26 September 2025
editThe result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Modern liberalism → Modern liberalism (disambiguation) – Modern liberalism is a synonym of social liberalism and should redirect there as the primary topic. Only two other links are listed on the disambiguation page: Modern liberalism in the United States, which is a subtopic of social liberalism and therefore not a candidate for the primary topic; and Modern Liberals, which is an alternative name for a loosely defined faction of the Liberal Party of Australia and clearly less notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 17:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - WikiNav results show the majority of readers navigate to the U.S. article from the dab page. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's a subtopic, so it can't be the primary topic. Barbie (film) has more pageviews than Barbie, but the source material is still primary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- My point isn't that the U.S. is the primary topic, it's that there is none. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- No, Modern liberalism in the United States is irrelevant to determining the primary topic because the only candidates for the primary topic are Social liberalism and Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia). So between those two, social liberalism would be primary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Where exactly does it say in the WP:Article title policy that we can ignore a whole article because it is a subtopic of another? And further, the U.S. article is a partial title match which the supposed primary topic isn't. It's bad practice to make one article a primary redirect when a partial title match exists and receives most of the flow of readers from the disambiguation page. I don't care if one article is a subtopic of another, there's no reason to make a primary redirect when it clearly won't help the majority of readers. Not to mention I can't even find any evidence to support the usage of "modern liberalism" as interchangeable with "social liberalism" outside of the United States. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's in the explanatory footnote in the first sentence of Social liberalism. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Which reads Also known as new liberalism in the United Kingdom, modern liberalism in the United States (where it is also simply known as liberalism)..., ie. it is also known as modern liberalism in the United States, not necessarily elsewhere. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly, which is why the subtopic article is titled Modern liberalism in the United States and not Social liberalism in the United States, but this does not change the fact that it is a subtopic article. If Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II receives more pageviews than its parent article Elizabeth II, does that mean we should disambiguate Elizabeth II? Obviously not. Hence, just because Social liberalism in the United States (alias: "Modern liberalism in the United States") receives more pageviews than its parent article Social liberalism does not mean we should disambiguate social liberalism or modern liberalism. Asserting that Modern liberalism in the United States is a primary-topic contender means that we could theoretically move that page to Modern liberalism — such an arrangement obviously wouldn't work, because co-existing with social liberalism is bound to cause confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- Nowhere in WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY are we advised to ignore assume a parent topic is the primary topic of a term that is only used for a specific subtopic. The Elizabeth II case is not analogous because of this: there isn't a specific separate term to refer to the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. My point is Modern liberalism in the United States may be a subtopic of Social liberalism, it is the only topic actually referred to as Modern liberalism. I wouldn't argue that be a primary redirect, as those who are unaware that outside of the U.S. the ideology/philosophy is called Social liberalism and could be looking for that. But, it is much more likely that someone searching Modern liberalism is looking for the U.S. version, hence why it is necessary to be a dab page. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly, which is why the subtopic article is titled Modern liberalism in the United States and not Social liberalism in the United States, but this does not change the fact that it is a subtopic article. If Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II receives more pageviews than its parent article Elizabeth II, does that mean we should disambiguate Elizabeth II? Obviously not. Hence, just because Social liberalism in the United States (alias: "Modern liberalism in the United States") receives more pageviews than its parent article Social liberalism does not mean we should disambiguate social liberalism or modern liberalism. Asserting that Modern liberalism in the United States is a primary-topic contender means that we could theoretically move that page to Modern liberalism — such an arrangement obviously wouldn't work, because co-existing with social liberalism is bound to cause confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- Which reads Also known as new liberalism in the United Kingdom, modern liberalism in the United States (where it is also simply known as liberalism)..., ie. it is also known as modern liberalism in the United States, not necessarily elsewhere. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's in the explanatory footnote in the first sentence of Social liberalism. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Where exactly does it say in the WP:Article title policy that we can ignore a whole article because it is a subtopic of another? And further, the U.S. article is a partial title match which the supposed primary topic isn't. It's bad practice to make one article a primary redirect when a partial title match exists and receives most of the flow of readers from the disambiguation page. I don't care if one article is a subtopic of another, there's no reason to make a primary redirect when it clearly won't help the majority of readers. Not to mention I can't even find any evidence to support the usage of "modern liberalism" as interchangeable with "social liberalism" outside of the United States. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- No, Modern liberalism in the United States is irrelevant to determining the primary topic because the only candidates for the primary topic are Social liberalism and Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia). So between those two, social liberalism would be primary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- My point isn't that the U.S. is the primary topic, it's that there is none. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Not by enough, but wikinav actually supports your !vote, just for a different reason. Metallurgist (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's a subtopic, so it can't be the primary topic. Barbie (film) has more pageviews than Barbie, but the source material is still primary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per wikinav showing no primary topic. Metallurgist (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per estar8806 and Metallurgist. The current set up appears to be the best fit for the particular set of facts regarding traffic, national/regional usage, synonyms, and parent/subtopics. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 15:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)