User talk:67.173.181.67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Liberalism, initial complaint made by Jmabel, messenger gadfium

I see you have changed a very large number of references from liberal to left-wing politics. These terms are not synonymous for the large majority of contexts, and indeed the latter term is not one of the terms that the liberal page refers to, so I'm rolling back your edits. You should discuss such changes in future before making them, and you should avoid using the misleading summary of "disambig" when you are making controversial changes.-gadfium 23:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I am looking at your edits when I roll them back. Some of them I am leaving because they are appropriate.-gadfium 23:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I am confused as to how you can select some but not all, when the same objective, mechanical standard is applied to all. "1+1=2" always, not sometimes. 67.173.181.67 23:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

When you are disambiguating, you need to be more subtle than when you are performing mathematics. In politics, liberal means something in between left and right wing. For example, in the article President of the European Commission, each holder of that office is classified as left wing, liberal or right wing. You may disagree with the classification, but you cannot reasonably argue that the left wing and liberal categories are identical. Similarly, you changed the link in List of English words of French origin, which is clearly not appropriate.

I have not called you a vandal (although I saw your edits because you were reported as such). I think you are applying too mechanical an interpretation to the disambiguation of this word.-gadfium 23:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand, and I'll be more careful as I continue with this one. (And I will continue, b/c as per the comment below, there are certain types who are simply here to propagandize rather than educate).67.173.181.67 02:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Points made by El_C, from the point of view of the 19th century Marxist

The way I see it, historically, when it comes to the political-economic terms: the Left (revolutionary socialists), the Moderate Left (evolutionary socialists), the Moderate Right (reform liberals), and the Right (classical liberals), all become blurred in your "disambiguations," often calling all four the same thing. Thus, sometimes we have liberal containing a link to classical liberalism, and at another instance, to left-wing politics, etc. Now, I don't expect Wikipedia to follow my interpertation (or the one of my world view, rather), but I think your approach is hopelessly confusing for the reader. If your additions were meant to illustrate a point, I am the first to take it, still, it is not a correct approach, in my opinion. Thanks. El_C 00:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a picture of Che Guevara in your profile and a Soviet medal: forgive me if your view that libertarian/classical liberals are to the "right" appears out of the mainstream. 67.173.181.67 02:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Gladly forgiven. Indeed, I am not nor have I ever claimed to speak for the mainstream of liberalism, be it reform liberals on the left of the continuum or the classical one on its right. But calling left-wing politics Liberal and right-wing politics also Liberal is problematic. El_C 02:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Socialism is not confined to the left, which was the controversial point made, which was labelled as controversial, but in the interests of providing as much information to the masses, made with reservations. 67.173.181.67 02:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever that translates into, it needs to be better qualified. I argue, largely by distinguishing between the realm of political economy from a typology based on a political sympathy-antipathy continuum. Others may disagree, though, and opt for what I consider to be reductionism. El_C 02:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize the level of hostility is so acute (at all, even), I won't bother you further. Bye. El_C 02:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

There's only a caustic search for the truth of the matter. YOU'RE honest enough, and I appreciate it. I only wish Jmabel were. I DO like to label biases up front though, for the benefit of passerbys. 67.173.181.67 03:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

In other words, there is no hostility, but I am blunt. 67.173.181.67 03:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate that, still, I don't feel that it (19th Century) fairly represents my bias. Dosen't matter, though. El_C 03:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, I find that the above approach results in reducing both political economy and political affiliation/identity into one of the same thing, which I view as an ahistorical, oversimplified abstraction. Having said that, I am not sure it would really prove useful (for either of us) to pursue this polemic further. Thanks for your time. El_C 03:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An Objective User

Please see comments regarding your edits on Wikipedia: Village pump (miscellaneous)#Liberalism. I do not take a position on this issue. Deco 01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]