Talk:List of American liberals

Bernie Sanders

@Rick Norwood: I see you re-added Bernie Sanders to the list. However, the sources you added to justify this are inadequate.

In the November 2015 speech, Sanders does not say the word "Liberal" even once. Furthermore, the vision he espouses in this speech are very different from other politicians on this list.

The Pew research poll, on the other hand, does not claim Sanders is a Liberal. It just states that most American, when asked to choose his ideology between three choices, most Americans thought "Liberal" fit him best of the three choices provided. And there are still 28% of people who disagreed. This is not a real discussion of his ideology, its a polling report.

Meanwhile, if you google "Bernie Sanders Liberal", you will find sources saying that he isn't one: [1] [2]. You can also find that he said in the 1980s “I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat.” [3] Mottezen (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We live in interesting times. Both American parties, as well as many parties in other countries, try to change the meaning of words in order to advantage their own party and hurt opposing parties. Wikipedia should, as I'm sure you agree, avoid this sort of propaganda, and stick to dictionary definitions, rather than usages created entirely for political advantage.

According to at least one major American dictionary, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of the word "liberal" in the political sense, is simply "not conservative". I'm sure we can agree that Bernie Sanders is not conservative. All the other definitions in Merriam-Webster: "based on the liberal arts", "generous", "not literal", "not narrow in opinion or judgment", "tolerant", and "not orthodox", are either inappropriate in this context or apply to Sanders. I think "tolerant" is especially appropriate.

On the other hand, the definition of "conservative" is much more specific. Two meanings are given: "disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions" and "moderate, cautious". Certainly Bernie Sanders is not any of these.

So, according to the Mirriam-Webster definitions Bernie Sanders is liberal. I will be happy to go with any other major dictionary you choose.

The only alternative I can see is for me to put him in, citing one of countless sources that agree he is a liberal, and you take him out, citing one of countless sources that agree he is not a liberal. That seems like a waste of time, for both of us. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should, as I'm sure you agree, avoid this sort of propaganda, and stick to dictionary definitions, rather than usages created entirely for political advantage Honestly no, regular dictionaries don't do justice do a subject as complex and nuanced as political ideologies. A political science dictionary may be more useful, but I don't have one on hand.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of the word "liberal" in the political sense, is simply "not conservative" Maybe it did in a previous version, but not anymore. Check on their website. And rightfully so, american politician can be neither conservative or Liberal. Otherwise communists like like Kshama Sawant would be on this list.

On the other hand, the definition of "conservative" is much more specific. Two meanings are given: "disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions" and "moderate, cautious". Certainly Bernie Sanders is not any of these. I don't know, I think it's just as vague. And there is an argument for anyone on the list of liberals to fit this description. So much for dictionary definitions.

That's why i'd argue we should use politician's party or self-identified ideology as barometer. In this case, since Bernie is neither part of the democratic party nor self-identifies as a liberal, he would be off the list

The only alternative I can see is for me to put him in, citing one of countless sources that agree he is a liberal, and you take him out, citing one of countless sources that agree he is not a liberal. That seems like a waste of time, for both of us. Well, until you actually find a source that discusses his ideology in detail and finds him to be a liberal. Haven't seen that yet. But otherwise, you're right. We should just delete this list instead, and maybe convert its various sections into categories. Mottezen (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I'm happy to go with any major dictionary you choose. The link you gave relates "liberal" to "liberalism" and give a definition of political liberalism (c) " a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see autonomy sense 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)" That seems to me to describe Saunders. If you disagree, I'll find Saunders quotes in favor of government protection of political and civil liberties and as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequties.

It is hard to understand how you can maintain that Bernie is not a part of the Democratic Party, since he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president and, while he caucuses as an independent, won his current Senate seat running as a Democrat.

And, again, you favor deleting this list. Do you also favor deleting List of American conservatives? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rick Norwood: That seems to me to describe Sanders. I don't know, I feel Bernie is more concerned with economic, social and cultural rights than just civil and political rights as in this definition. It may feel like i'm nitpicking, but this a major philosophical difference between liberalism and socialism/social democracy. The rest of the definition is really just a description of modernism and progressivism, the root of both liberalism and socialism.

since he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president and, while he caucuses as an independent, won his current Senate seat running as a Democrat. This is exactly backwards. He was a candidate for the democratic nomination for president twice, where filed to run as President both as a democrat and an independent. In every single other races he ran in it was as an independent or third party candidate. He runs for the democratic nomination in congressional races in Vermont, but always refuses it after getting selected by Vermont democratic primary voters. He sits in the Senate as an independent, but caucuses with the democrats. More info. As of 2021, his wikipedia page lists him as independent.

And, again, you favor deleting this list. Do you also favor deleting List of American conservatives? Yes I think these are two WP:LISTCRUFTs whose subject matter would be better served as a category, but I don't have the energy to request their deletion. Mottezen (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's leave it here, then. There are differences between Sanders' liberalism and Biden's liberalism just as there are differences between Trump's conservatism and Reagan's conservatism. The words as they are used today are very broad, much broader when the word "liberal" could be used to describe almost every American. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not addressing any of my previous points, and you have yet to provide a source for Bernie being a liberal. There are differences between Sanders' liberalism and Biden's liberalism just as there are differences between Trump's conservatism and Reagan's conservatism except in the former one does not call himself a liberal and they do not sit in the same political party.

The words as they are used today are very broad, much broader when the word "liberal" could be used to describe almost every American. Then why don't we just put every American on this list then with this standard? Are you saying your rationale for including Sanders in this list is valid for every american?

Should we get a third opinion? Mottezen (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: Short answer: Don't include Bernie Sanders, at least not yet. The list's inclusion criteria are being discussed below, by more than two editors, and I feel it'd be better served to work on the broad strokes there (possibly going to a WP:RFC when a proposal is ready). Long answer: Using the "not conservative" definition would make this list so large it'd be useless. It's not our job to interpret who is a liberal, but to follow what is stated by reliable sources. There may also be BLP issues for a serving politician, whether he self-identifies as a liberal. There is also contradictory information in this case, and this is not "List of Americans who have been called liberals" or "list of Americans who may be liberals" but a definitive "List of American liberals". They ought to clearly be liberals to be on the list, explicitly stated by RSS and with footnotes if there's any controversy. But I don't think there's need to go into it and cite guidelines... it's still "not yet" until the inclusion criteria are hashed out. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Du Bois, MLK

@Rick Norwood: Contrary to your statement, MLK and W.E.B du Bois are not universally considered Liberal. Their respective Wikipedia article don't claim that they are Liberal, but that they are socialists instead. I'd also point out that some even claim MLK was a conservative [4].

I know there are people who claim the civil rights movement was led by conservatives and opposed by liberals, but this is an attempt to rewrite history, and attempt by conservatives to claim credit for a movement the conservative coalition in congress strongly opposed. Liberals supported civil rights and conservatives attacked them for supporting civil rights. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed this version of events is exactly backwards. However, this is besides the point, because civil rights leaders like MLK were much more radical than any of these people on the list of American liberals. Its rather revealing that famous civil rights leaders like Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Angela Davis, and Fred Hampton did not make the cut, but MLK and a few other, less well-known figures did. MLK is more aptly put in the camp of those excluded, as he is a socialist. See this article on how liberals opposed him, and please actually read the WaPo article I previously linked instead of fishing for out-of-context quotes on google that don't actually make your point. It says he likes one aspect of liberalism: it's modernism. I'd love to see what he says in the rest of the speech, but I can't because footnote doesn't tell me what speech it's from. It only tell me on what page I can find it in a 2013 anthology, totally inadequate. Mottezen (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I also understand your point that the three people you removed were not liberals of a certain kind -- not Democratic liberals or not White liberals or not liberal in their religious beliefs. But all three certainly fit the dictionary definition of liberal: they favored freedom and equality. None of the three fit the dictionary definition of conservative: they did not favor the status quo of discrimination and segregation. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

1) Ideology is not a binary, and 2) this "dictionary definition" of liberalism might as well apply to modern conservatives as well. Mottezen (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rick Norwood:I am not an expert on MLK. However, I still feel that the quote you provided is insufficient to demonstrate MLK's liberalism, because he doesn't say explicitly that he is a supporter of liberalism. Originally, quotes like "I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic" from a 1952 letter to Coretta Scott, his denunciation of " the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice" in a letter from a birmingham jail, and his steadfast opposition to liberal President Lyndon B. Johnson, made me see him much more radical than American Liberals of his time and today, who oppose socialism.

A quick look at azquotes.com changed my perspective a bit. The website only links to anthologies so we do not not what speech these are from, but look at this: "Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I never found in fundamentalism. I became so enamored of the insights of liberalism that I almost fell into the trap of accepting uncritically everything it encompassed." This implied that, at one point in his life, MLK claims to have been a liberal, but not anymore at the time of writing. He seems to have become a liberal immediately upon discovering it, and then rejected over time. He was probably referring to himself as a college student, before starting the activism for which he is known for today.

Contrast this quote with the following: "I also came to see that liberalism's superficial optimism concerning human nature caused it to overlook the fact that reason is darkened by sin. The more I thought about human nature the more I saw how our tragic inclination for sin causes us to use our minds to rationalize our actions. Liberalism failed to see that reason by itself is little more than an instrument to justify man's defensive ways of thinking. Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations." Honestly, this one is really the smoking gun against the claim that he is a liberal.

In tandem with the current source in the article, we can conclude that MLK was a liberal for a short period in his life, then abandoned liberalism, retaining some aspects of it he treasures and its purest form on some issues such as civil rights but rejecting it overall philosophy and the label. Mottezen (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Selection criteria

I saw the Bernie Sanders dispute listed at Third Opinion. I have no idea who is right about that nor do I have an opinion about that specific dispute, but I do know this: This list is going to be an ongoing dramafest and original research honeypot unless selection criteria are crafted for it in accordance with the principles found at WP:LISTCRIT and the following section WP:CSC. There are always going to be differences in opinion about what exactly is meant by "liberal", liberal in whose eyes, whether a date-sensitive definition is to be used, and so on. Until that happens, the encyclopedic value of this list is going to be doubtful at best. Come up with some criteria and some variations and then launch a request for comments to see which set the community thinks to be the most worthwhile. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I Completely agree. In the discussion I had in this talk page, I've previously suggested the following criteria:

1) people who have self-identified as liberal, or

2) members of an officially Liberal organisation or political party (I changed my mind on this one. Liberal organisations are so pervasive that you can join them without being a liberal yourself)

3) (per CSC and current practice) Every entry meets the notability criteria

Maybe another criteria would do, but I believe an alternative worth considering would be to just delete the list. Indeed, this article was created as a fork of Modern Liberalism in the United States after I had removed this list from the article, citing a reasoning similar to yours. What do you think? Mottezen (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, Martin Luther King meets the three criteria above. I provided a quote where he said he was a liberal, and why. He certainly meets the "notability criteria". For a while, I tried to work with Mottezen, moving this list to its own page when he complained that the liberalism page was too long, providing additional references every time I restored somebody he deleted. But he keeps deleting people, despite references. He seems to have his own idea of what liberalism means, but liberal takes many forms. [User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, do you agree with the criteria proposed by Mottezen or do you intend to propose different ones which you believe better reflect the fact that "liberal takes many forms"? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Mottezen has recently changed his criteria, by striking out criterion 2. Now, it is not clear what his criteria are. But, certainly, his #1 is reasonable. Liberals usually say they are liberal. The only problem I see is that, for example, Abraham Lincoln, speaking to an audience of conservatives in the Cooper Union speech, said he was a conservative -- but he went on to define what he meant by conservative. Meanings of words, particularly meanings of political words, change in a hundred plus years. Another problem is that the same person may say, loud and clear, that they are a liberal, as Martin Luther King did in the passage cited in the article, but then go on to say he doesn't agree with, for example, economic liberals, who favor unrestricted free trade. Therefore the time, place, and context need to be taken into account. John F. Kennedy, when he gave the famous speech about why he was a liberal, explained what he meant by the word.

Of course, the third criterion, notability, holds in all Wikipedia articles. The people Mottezen keeps removing from the list are certainly notable, so that isn't the problem. The problem seems to be that Mottezen has a narrow definition of liberal, which rules about anyone he considers a "socialist". Ironically, he says above that "some even claim MLK was a conservative", citing The Washington Post, whose byline is "Democracy dies in darkness."Rick Norwood (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

For the last time, the MLK quote "Of course, there is one phase of liberalism that I hope to treasure always: its devotion to the search for truth, its insistence on an open and analytical mind, its refusal to abandon the best light of reason." is not a loud and clear self-affirmation of liberalism. It's an endorsement of, as he says, "one phase of liberalism".

Meanwhile, the MLK quote I provided "I also came to see that liberalism's superficial optimism concerning human nature caused it to overlook the fact that reason is darkened by sin. The more I thought about human nature the more I saw how our tragic inclination for sin causes us to use our minds to rationalize our actions. Liberalism failed to see that reason by itself is little more than an instrument to justify man's defensive ways of thinking. Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations." is a clear rejection of liberalism overall. He is saying that liberals are naive and need faith.

I was using the WaPo editorial as an example to show MLK's legacy isn't universally considered liberal. I would not put him on a list of conservatives either.Mottezen (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The MLK quote sounds like a clear endorsement of liberalism to me. "there is one phase of liberalism that I hope to treasure always". You seem to be saying that unless a liberal endorses all liberal beliefs, they are not a real liberal. I doubt if anyone, of any political persuasion, endorses everything that anyone of that political persuasion believes. In particular, MLK does not endorse what he calls "liberalism's superficial optimism concerning human nature". I think lots of liberals' optimism concerning human nature has been tested. Just because they become less optimistic does not mean they become less liberal.

I am glad we agree that MLK was not a conservative.

We should focus on the fundamentals, as defined in the opening paragraph of the article. MLK fought all his life for freedom and equal rights. "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we are free at last." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, all of this is subject to interpretation. I think we should request a third opinion from an expert of MLK. Maybe someone who wrote large sections of the Martin Luther King Jr. article? Mottezen (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Criteria Proposal

@TransporterMan and Rick Norwood: I understand my strikeout may have caused some confusion. Taking into account Rick Norwood's expressed concerns, here is a revised draft inclusion criteria:

Included people and organisations who:

1) have unambiguously self-identified as liberal

• a) in the United States
• b) in the modern American political meaning of the word (no Classical liberals or Arizona school liberals)
• c) after 1909 (the publication of Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life), and
• d) have not explicitly rejected liberalism after initially embracing it, unless their rejection of liberalism came after they left public life.

AND

2. Every entry meets the notability criteria

Due to how issues of disagreement as to what a liberal is, I believe we shouldn't try to analyse what each entry mean when they self-identify as liberal, and simply take their word that they live by a liberal philosophy and ideology.

In response to The problem seems to be that Mottezen has a narrow definition of liberal, which rules about anyone he considers a "socialist", I have to say this is not the case. I draw a separation between socialism and liberalism, but I believe it is possible for someone to be both a liberal and a socialist. If someone goes by both label, I would happily include them. I draw the line because there are socialists who are adamant in their opposition to liberalism, and vice versa.

Third party commentators and pundits may analyse speech and label a person as a liberal, conservative or socialist. However, as we have seen, these accounts contradict each other. To facilitate inclusion discussion, I think we should ignore secondary analysis for determining someone's ideology, and especially not try to make that analysis ourselves. Instead, we should rely solely on self-identification as the basis of inclusion in this list.

Any comments/concerns? Or can we use these criteria as the basis of future discussions? Mottezen (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say above. But the more I think about it, the more I believe that we need to focus on the definition of liberalism in the opening paragraph.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, can we now close this discussion on criteria? Also for the lead, I agree. One quick solution would be to copy/paste the lead of Modern liberalism in the United States, it's a pretty good intro. Mottezen (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You say you agree, and then you continue to remove Bernie Sanders from the article, even though he meets your criterion, (and mine, since he has fought all his political life for civil rights and freedom for minorities). You say his quote is not good enough but that is a value judgement. It would be easy for me to keep adding references. In fact, in an effort to bring this to an end, I'll add another reference, but at some point this has to reach a conclusion.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rick Norwood: Do you agree with the criteria I proposed as the definitive critera for inclusion on this list? Mottezen (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Which criteria are we talking about. The one when you included belonging to a liberal organization, the NAACP for example, or the one after you crossed that out?

As I've said, more and more I think using the definition of liberal in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Liberalism is the only reasonable criteria. After all, did John Locke call himself a "liberal"? Had the word been invented yet? I don't know. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the proposal I made at the top of this section. Your idea, however, is ridiculously broad and a non-starter. I will start a RfC on this. Can you please give me a clear selection criteria proposal that I can include as an option? Mottezen (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Renaissance Liberalism

@Rick Norwood: See my response in the previous thread, but I wanted to take some time to respond to this as it is off-topic a bit

After all, did John Locke call himself a "liberal"? Had the word been invented yet? I don't know.

The term existed, but it essentially had the meaning of "generous". A liberal King was a ruler who spent the royal treasury for the public good. As such, John Locke never applied the term to himself, that would have been nonsensical. He was, however, a Whig, whose parliamentary faction was the ancestor of the UK Liberal party.

Changes in the meaning of words is why we should have a cutoff date for inclusion in this article. Mottezen (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

criteria for inclusion

I've added to the article a reference to the original home of this list, Modern liberalism in the United States, and a provisional list of modern liberal causes, taken from that article. The list is based on "Major examples include Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal and New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society." I think some such list is necessary, but which causes should be listed is a topic we need to discuss. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed and replaced your provisional lead section because there is no consensus for this to be our selection criteria. Mottezen (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection. I thought a summary of the lead section was more appropriate, but there is no problem with quoting the entire lead. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the new and current lead is not a definition of a liberal, it's a introduction to the topic. It claims, among other things, that all major parties in american politics are liberal, that liberalism changes meaning in different political eras, and that liberals are more likely to live in cities. It is completely unworkable as an inclusion criteria. Mottezen (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Selection criteria

What should be the selection criteria for inclusion on this list?

Option 1 : Self-identification as a liberal (as articulated here)

Option 2 : Meeting the definition of a liberal (as articulated in this now-deleted lead section)

Option 3 : Other

Option 4 : Strong consensus of multiple reliable sources that the person is a "liberal" (explicitly stated) in the sense of the US political definition of this era.

Option 5 : Go with reliable sourcing, unless sources disagree (in which case disagreement is handled or covered according to which sources are strongest or best; when they're roughly even, include in the list with a note about the dispute.) A "strong consensus" is not required, merely description as a liberal in sources that pass WP:DUE.

While important, the details of each linked proposal can be discussed in their respective sections above. The meat of the disagreement is the epistemology of inclusion. How do we know someone is a liberal? Mottezen (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 4 Added by Reidgreg (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 because we see major disagreements in secondary reliable sources. Some source claim that some political actor is liberal and others claim they are not liberal. Sometimes, they use different definitions of the word liberal, but other times they don’t, and just interpret actions and statements differently. Relying on unambiguous self-identification statements as the basis of inclusion would make it easier to resolve these disagreements. We cannot do option 2 because would be impossible to give a satisfactory definition of liberalism. Current proposed definition can include people to the left or to the right of liberalism. Once we come to an agreement of the definition, disagreements about who meets the definition are inevitable.Mottezen (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply to the comments above. "we see major disagreements in secondary reliable sources". I used the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source. You added "". If the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source, please give an example of a better source. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's insufficient because it's a mention in passing while I provided refuting sources that delved exclusively on the topic. Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"relying on unambiguous self-identification statements as the basis of inclusion would make it easier to resolve these disagreements." In most cases, I agree. But it would allow someone whose words and actions were the antithesis of liberalism to simply say "I am a liberal." and they would qualify for the list if this were the only criteria. On the other hand, if someone is running for office in a state where "liberal" is a dirty word, and chooses to identify as a "progressive", they would not qualify for the list even if they supported liberal causes. Finally, in the case of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., his entry cites a quote ""Of course, there is one phase of liberalism that I hope to treasure always: its devotion to the search for truth, its insistence on an open and analytical mind, its refusal to abandon the best light of reason.". Again, you appended "". If "there is one phase of liberalism that I hope to treasure always" is not a sufficient declaration of liberalism, what is? Must someone embrace every liberal idea to be a liberal? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

it would allow someone whose words and actions were the antithesis of liberalism to simply say "I am a liberal." and they would qualify for the list if this were the only criteria. Well no look at the the detailed criteria I gave there are way more caveats. Give me one example with this rare situations happening that the caveats I added don't exclude them. someone is running for office in a state where "liberal" is a dirty word, and chooses to identify as a "progressive" Duh because there is a difference between liberalism and progressivism. The MLK stuff is discussed eslewhere, but but let's just say that a phrase like "I will always treasure liberalism" would have been way less ambiguous. Mottezen (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"impossible to give a satisfactory definition of liberalism". Words that are impossible to define are meaningless. The sentence "This ideology combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy." seems to me to define what this article means by liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

OK sure, it's an acceptable definition. Nietzsche voice Let us apply this standard to U.S. President Joe Biden, currently listed here. Joe Biden help write the 1994 Crime Bill. According to the Justice Policy Institute, the crime bill "resulted in the largest increases in federal and state inmate populations of any president in American history." Most of the new inmates were convicted for nonviolent crimes. The American prison population doubled to 2.5 million in 15 years. In the vast majority of U.S. states, inmates lose their right to vote while serving their term, stripping them of their civil liberties such as the right to vote. Most of the new inmates were African American, and the bill was crafted specifically to crack down on young black so-called"superpredators", showing Biden's disregard for social justice and racial equality. We can therefore conclude that Joe Biden is not a liberal, and should be removed from the list.

(Or we could just not use a definition as a criteria, as there will be glaring holes like this in all of them) Mottezen (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The article does now give a referenced definition of liberalism; you added it. It would be absurd to ignore it now that it is there. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 4. It sounds to me like this would be the most consistent with similar Wikipedia articles. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 08:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5: Go with reliable sources (not strong consensus; any reliable sources are sufficient is no reason this should have a higher sourcing requirement). If there is a disagreement among the sources, consider which are highest-quality as usual, and include with a note about the disagreement if they're roughly equal in weight. Note that disagreement requires sources specifically saying that someone is not a liberal in as many words - describing them as things other than a liberal is insufficient, because someone can reflect multiple ideological traditions, either at once, at multiple points in their life, or in different contexts. If sources describe someone as both a liberal and a socialist, then they're both a liberal and a socialist and belong on this list; introducing doubt and questioning whether they should be listed when reasonable sources exist describing them as a liberal requires a sources specifically and unambiguously saying they are not a liberal. Even that is not always sufficient (we have to weigh the sources against each other) but it is the bare requisite to even begin to consider an entry contested among the sources. Without that, any source described as a liberal in any WP:RS goes in the list, fullstop. We can (and should) add footnotes and clarifications if necessary, but the list is more useful if it contains everyone reliable sources refer to as liberals with appropriate notes about disputes or alternative ways they're described. The first option is insufficient because we have to reflect reliable sources - self-identification cannot be our only criteria. The second option is right out because it invites WP:OR. The fourth option is unacceptable because it sets an unduly high "strong consensus" bar. None of these options come close to reflecting how we're supposed to cover such things - we follow the sources as well as we can, and when they're in dispute or say different things, we consider which are most WP:DUE, weigh them against each other, and summarize them as well as we're able. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What!: The previous comment is confusing. The fourth option: Strong consensus of multiple reliable sources that the person is a "liberal" (explicitly stated) in the sense of the US political definition of this era. (deemed unacceptable) seems inline with "If sources describe someone as both a liberal and a socialist, then they're both a liberal and a socialist and belong on this list";;. To clarify some things, 1)- we do not cherry pick sources ("which are highest-quality") determining which is best or "most reliable". "We follow the sources" and "IF" there is conflict or controversy editors should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (WP:WEIGHT)

I am not sure the purpose of this list. I randomly picked Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.. He is on the list and supposedly founded Americans for Democratic Action (unsourced) but according to Modern liberalism in the United States "Since the 1960s, the Democratic Party has been considered liberal". This would mean that every Democrat is considered a Liberal, even those actually referred to as Progressive. Although most progressives are also liberals, it is not always the case.

I suggest that if we are going to have such a list that the criteria for inclusion would be only those subjects that have been identified as liberals according multiple to reliable sources. Otr500 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined toward option 4 or a combination of options 1 and 5. In other words, reliable secondary sources are required, with self-identification required in the absence of a strong consensus of RSS. This is partly due to BLP concerns, the core of which is to "do no harm". (There are hate/terrorist groups in the United States targeting liberals.) Additionally, I feel that strong consensus of RSS could help prevent this list from growing to uselessness (as would be the case if it included every Democrat). Perhaps this should be more a list of people notable as liberals rather than notable people who have been described as liberals, and include only those who were major drivers and promoters of liberal policy. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this proposed mix of option 5 and option 1, articulated as "reliable secondary sources are required, with self-identification required in the absence of a strong consensus of RSS", is the best solution. Mottezen (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• My issue with 4 is that "strong consensus" implies that eg. if there's a precisely 50-50 split on someone among the sources, and clear disagreement, we would not include them - obviously that's not a strong consensus. Based on previous disputes it would also lead to people saying "well, half the sources call this person a liberal, and half the sources call them a socialist, so we shouldn't list them here." That's too high a standard - I feel in that case (provided the sources on both sides are high-quality) we should include them, but note the disagreement. Basically, if high-quality sourcing exists describing someone as a liberal in a way that makes that liberalism notable, then they ought to be listed here if this list is intended to cover notable liberals, even if they're also described in other ways elsewhere and even if other roughly-equal sources disagree. When someone is described multiple ways it is easy enough to add a note along the lines of "also described as X, Y, and Z". --Aquillion (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason not to include all liberal Democrats is notability. The reason not to include only liberal Democrats is that liberalism comes in many varieties. The discussion here seems to be based on one Wikipedian's desire to have a fairly narrow definition of "liberal", specifically to remove liberal civil rights leaders who considered the liberal Democrats insufficiently committed to civil rights and said so. Given the shifting meaning of the word, I favor a broad definition of "liberal", which would include socialists and progressive who made a major contribution to liberal causes, such as civil rights, voting rights, and freedom of speech, religion, and the press. Today, these causes are commonly called "liberal" both by those who attack them and those who support them.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Micheal Moore

@Rick Norwood: Micheal Moore is not a liberal. He is a socialist who sees liberals as a different group of people. You can see this in his text Michael Moore on the Iraq War: The Liberals Backed It, in which he blame liberal politicians and media outlets for the War.

I'm definitely not the only person who doesn't think he's a liberal. Even the source you cited for Bernie, Britannica, doesn't label him a liberal in their article on him. Mottezen (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to say that, no matter how many liberal ideals a person holds, if conservatives call them "socialist" they cannot possibly be liberals. The people on the List of American Conservatives in the article Conservatism in the United States are not one hundred percent conservatives one hundred percent of the time. For example, George W. Bush is on the list, and he has stated publicly that voted for President Biden. Similarly, there is no purity test for liberals. People who are major liberals do not get disqualified because they do not meet your standards of what constitutes a "real" liberal. This is the well-known logical fallacy called "No real Irishman".

The main point you make, again and again, is that you think there is no overlap between liberals and socialists, when actually there is a large overlap. Your beliefs are certainly shared by some,but are not mainstream beliefs, and you are the only Wikipedian asserting these beliefs here.Rick Norwood (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to say that, no matter how many liberal ideals a person holds, if conservatives call them "socialist" they cannot possibly be liberals. No I never cited a conservative source to assert these people were socialist. For that, I cited themselves, as well as neutral, socialist or liberal sources.

This is the well-known logical fallacy called "No real Irishman" which I don't engage in. I have a very relaxed standard of "of what constitutes a "real" liberal" actually. I just follow what they say and think. The argument I made about Joe Biden was a thought exercise to show that relying on a "definition of liberal" for inclusion invites this sort of "purity test" and "No real Irishman" logic that we need to avoid.

...you think there is no overlap between liberals and socialists. No I don't believe that. There is overlap indeed, just as there is overlap between liberals and conservatives, but some people are firmly on one camp or the other. People who say "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat", who think liberals are to blame for the Irak war, and who think liberals are naive and a roadblock to the achievement of racial equality, are firmly in the socialist camp, their (vacillating) popularity with liberals notwithstanding. Mottezen (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

And the question is, can someone be a liberal without being a liberal Democrat? If someone is in favor of racial equality, that is a liberal ideal. If they think some liberals are getting in the way of racial equality, then they are criticizing the methods of those liberals, not the liberal goal of racial equality. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

These questions have no bearing on the discussion at hand. Advocating for racial equality is not necessarily a position someone reaches through liberalism. The same goes for other "liberal" policy positions. Late 19th/early 20th century populists and Socialists were in favor of racial equality while their contemporary liberals were not, including the first few names on this list. Mottezen (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

All I can say is that I strongly disagree. The defining characteristics of liberalism are individual rights, especially freedom and equality. To say that people can fight for a liberal cause and not be liberals does not make any sense to me. I notice that all of the people you have removed from the list are people who fought for civil rights. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand my argument. Indeed, people can fight for a "liberal" cause and not be liberals. This is because different ideological traditions can agree on an issue, just as there can be disagreements within an ideological tradition.

The civil rights movement is an excellent case of point. Liberals and socialists were in support of the movement while conservatives were opposed. However, liberals were new to this fight, and their mode of support was often criticized by more radical civil rights leaders, such as MLK. I gave examples of other famous civil rights leaders who are not on this list in our discussion about MLK. At around the same time, American liberals and conservative were united in their fervent anticommunism, while american socialists were divided on the issue. Mottezen (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

William Jennings Bryan

Should William Jennings Bryan be included in this list? He ran as a liberal and supported liberal ideas at the time like Free Silver, Woman's Suffrage, and caused the Democrats to pivot to the left of the republicans on economic issues. He also attacked eastern moneyed interests, for these reasons I believe he should be included in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:846:57F:D60:552A:8A13:6266:4370 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)