Politics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I strongly oppose any merger with Liberalism with thi page as a redirect. "National liberalism" is a specific brand of "liberalism" and there are pleny of sources to testify that. The article needs to be improved, but definitely "national liberalism" deserves a separate article. --Checco (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly provide one source that "National liberalism" is a specific brand of "liberalism" as opposed to a name used by some liberal parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article, which needs to be improved (on this we can agree), has plenty of sources, some even very specific, so please stop deleting the page by redirecting it. As you know there are different brands of liberalism (as also conservatism and other ideologies have) and this is one of them. The term "national liberalism" reflects a brand of liberalism, present especially in German-speaking countries, that has some "national" flavour. It has its own history and deserves a separate article. --Checco (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again could you please provide a single source supporting that view. It appears to be original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion threat at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard questioning the only source used to define this article's subject.[1]. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces, there is a new AfD, your comment will be appreciated. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Rupert loup: in respknse to this message of yours:

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia guidelines and I have been active here for more than ten years. I thought it was better not to edit the article during the AfD. In fact, Wikipedia is based both on sources and consensus. The parts of the article you have been repeatedly removing have been there for years and thus form the established version of the article. Let's see what other users have to say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National liberalism (2017 AfD). --Checco (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checco, do not take it bad, but I don't care if you are here since 10 years or 5 minutes. Wikipedia's content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research WP:CCPOL. Put the sources and the content stays. If there is no sources it will be challenged. The AdF is irrelevant to that. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget consensus.

Don't take it bad, but it seems like you are totally not interested in seeking consensus.

--Checco (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR don't mention consensus. I won't going to sit by and let original research be added. The purposely addition of factual inaccuracies is vandalism WP:VANDALISM. Please, stop adding unsourced material. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding warnings like this to my talk page:

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Aren't we already discussing here?
Moreover, you are not the one can block me or, more importantly, what has to be part of this article and what not.
In fact, I received thanks for my edits by other users. Consensus, please! --Checco (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you stoped adding unsourced material. Thanks for listening. To take the content here was the correct. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I simply did not want to be dragged into an edit war by a edit-war- and not consensus-oriented guy like you. You should have taken your issues to talk page first, instead of massively deleting infos. I totally agree with User:E.M.Gregory, when he warned you to:

please revert your inappropriate deletions of significant WP:RS material [...] a series of edits that violate WP:DISRUPT not merely because they are unexplained (if you have a valid reason for deleting, take it to talk instead of edit-waring,) but because you made the deletions while the article was at AfD.

--Checco (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like that User:Rupert loup is keen on total rollbacks. With my latest edit, which Rupert loup rollbacked on principle, without probably bothering to evaluating its content, I added a quite sensible definition of "national liberalism", a sort of summary of the article:

National liberalism (Template:Lang-de; Template:Lang-sv; Template:Lang-fi) is a variety of liberalism, combining liberal policies with elements of nationalism, and/or a term used to describe a series of political parties whuch have been active in several European national contexts.

I think it can be considered an improvement and I do not see how it can be controversial–at all. I even fixed translations: a technical edit! Moreover, it is perfectly OK to have an intro summarising the article's content. It is unfortunately clear that User:Rupert loup edits without even considering to accept others' contibutions.

Additionally, I re-added a long-time feature of the article.

The roots of national liberalism are to be found in the 19th century, when conservative liberalism was the ideology of the political classes in most European countries and in particular those of Central Europe, then governed by monarchies. At their origin, national liberals, although pro-business, were not, however, Manchesterian free-traders, that is advocates of economic liberalism, like the mainstream liberals of the 19th century everywhere else in the world, favoring instead cooperation between the government and the national industry by moderate levels of protectionism, the establishment of preferential custom unions, subsidies for infant industry or companies considered of strategic importance for national development, and various forms of incipient industrial planning. In German-speaking countries, national liberals were also in favour of a more authoritarian or conservative political regime because of the multi-ethnic character or heterogeneous nature of countries like the Austrian Empire (later officially renamed Austria-Hungary) or the newly created Germany.

All this clearly need sources, but, as we are discussing the article's notabilty and rewriting it, I do not think it is a big deal for it to re-insert a long-time content, with a "citation needed" tag at its side. I was not the one who added these information to the article in the first place, but they seem interesting and should be part of our discussion. Finally, we should definitely take example and infos from de.Wiki and the other 21 Wikis featuring an article on "national liberalism": there are several sources and infos that can be added from those articles. I am sure User:E.M.Gregory and User:Autospark can do a great job. --Checco (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the articles from de.Wiki, fr.Wiki and da.Wiki, as well as their sources (e.g. http://www.danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/nationalliberalisme), include plenty of information that can be used in order to improve the current article. --Checco (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: Much more can be done, but thanks to User:E.M.Gregory for re-uploading the contents removed without conensus and expanding the article!

I expanded the article by moving content from several en.Wiki and other Wiki articles. There are still several "citation needed" tags and we should find out where those infos come from; I am sure they are not just original research. --Checco (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rupert loup continues with his/her typical style: total rollbacks. This version is opposed just by him/her, while being probably supported by User:E.M.Gregory and User:Autospark, who both improved it. I am going to ask the two to express their support for the version in this talk page and/or propose improvements. Total rollbacks and falsely intimidating messages in my talk (Rupert loup's style) do not help dialogue and consensus to emerge. --Checco (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ps: Please note that the first sentence of this edit is a perfectly sensible definition, the second part needs to be sourced but has been a feature of the article for years (better to leave it where it is, with a "citation needed" tag, instead of deleting it without consensus!), and finally this edit includes sourced material and a short summary of infos included below in the article. Almost uncontroversial stuff! I hope User:E.M.Gregory, User:Autospark and possibly other users will agree with me.

• Endorse rollback to version flagged by User:Checco.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as above.--Autospark (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor loup is misusing verification tags by pinning them on citations to a scholarly article in an academic journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tags "verification needed" is for verify that the content here is also there. Not to question the source. Why do you not want that the sources be verified? Rupert Loup (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They are easy to verify, just walk into a good library and read them. It is, however, standard practice to WP:AGF by assuming that experienced editors are using sources they have validated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume anything. If there are easy to verify they will be verified. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read Checco's comment above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]