Talk:Pew Research Center political typology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pew Research Center political typology article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Brendel This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

A fact from Pew Research Center political typology appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 29 July 2007.

Contents 1 Couple of quick suggestions 2 The chart 3 The Words Liberal and Conservative 4 Liberal Media? 5 Copyright violation 6 One source?

[edit] Couple of quick suggestions

If you moved this to "Political ideologies", the first sentences in the lead would be a little more straightforward:

Now

"Political Ideology in the United States refers to the various ideologies and ideological demographics in the United States. Generally persons in the U.S. classify themselves either as liberal, moderate or conservative. Yet, these classifications may fail to accurately reflect the ideological diversity of American society."

Then

"Political ideologies in the United States vary considerably. While persons in the U.S. generally classify themselves either as liberal, moderate or conservative, these classifications fail to accurately reflect the ideological diversity of American society."

Btw, also seems relevant to bring up Religion in the United States and its impact on people's ideological stances. MrZaius^talk 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Great suggestions! I've adopet them, thanks for your input. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The chart

Shouldn't the left and right be on the left and right sides of the chart, respectively, instead of reversed. Very confusing. Savidan 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to swap 'em around, but the chart is readable as is, and was apparently set up to mimic the Pew source. MrZaius^talk 01:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the chart is too big. Is there a way to make it flexible? __earth ^(Talk) 02:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Words Liberal and Conservative

The article uses the words "liberal" and "conservative" in the sense that these words are used in mainstream US media, but which does not match the more global meanings (and which does not match the Wikipedia articles). I understand that Wikipedia articles should have a more global viewpoint, even though this article is about the US, so should the article's usage of these words reflect the global meanings or the American ones?

Specifically, "liberal" in the US is more economically interventionist, and may be called "New Liberal" or "American Liberal," especially elsewhere. Globally, liberalism is more free-market oriented, and may be called "classical liberal" or "libertarian" in the US.

Today (7/28/2007), the Wikipedia main page's "Did you know..." section says "...that in terms of political ideology, American economists tend to be liberal?" The pointer is to the article on liberalism (meaning free-market) rather than to the article on American liberalism. That's what got my attention. (But this article continues the confusion, which is why I'm bringing up the subject.)

SkyDot 03:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't confusing at all; it is called Political Ideologies in the United States, indicating that everything to follow is U.S.-specific information. For a global discussion of liberalism, see that article. This article, as the name indicates, only discusses political ideologies in the United States, in an American context. This article is not intended for discussing ideologies world-wide. As for liberalism, the section starts by stating that American liberalism is a form of social liberalism with some ordoliberalism. American liberalism is obviously the only type of liberalism that is going to be discussed in a U.S.-specific article. A discussion of global liberalism would be out of place on this article. The DyK person did make a mistake and should have linked liberal to Liberalism in the United States. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I was thinking was that it would resolve the issue expressed above/in the worldview template to explain in article that the terms are used differently in the US in layman's terms - It doesn't require a great deal of depth, assuming it's covered elsewhere as well. That said, I can see that there is some discussion of the topic in the article already, even if it is slightly inaccessible to one unfamiliar with the terms you link to above. MrZaius^talk 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think political ideologies in the U.S. are presented in such a manner as to make them understandable to a global audience. Take the liberalism section. THe first sentence states that "Liberalism in the U.S. most commonly refers to a form of social liberalism and progressivism, with a strong (if frequently unrecognized) Ordoliberal streak" - this clearly states where American liberlaism lays on the global spectrum. I personally cannot see how to make the article clearler. So if you have any suggestions please don't hesitate to tell me. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Liberal in Europe can mean something quite similar to liberal in the U.S. - see social liberalism

The fact that the subject of the article is limited to the US does not change the requirement that the article itself be written from a global viewpoint. The opening paragraphs of the article use the words liberal and conservative without links or explanations, so a non-US reader could reasonably believe they refer to their global definitions. You make a good point that the later sections try to explain the meanings of various terms, but they come too late to avoid confusion. I would suggest two things. (1) Give a brief explanation of terms the first time they are used (and link to American Liberalism, for example). And (2), always use the terms "American Liberalism," etc., rather than just plain "liberalism" throughout the article. For what it's worth, even as an American, I often don't know what other Americans mean when they call themselves liberal or conservative, since those terms carry so much baggage here. SkyDot 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand what you had in mind. From my viewpoint the article was written from a global perspective and did not see anything in this area to be improved upon. Thank you for providing me with specific suggestions on what should be improved upon. I have implemented your suggestions. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the new first paragraph. Now if you can just change the phrase "right wing" to something more clear and less inflammatory....  :) SkyDot 06:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your suggestions and input! Signature^brendel 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I just followed the link to Social liberalism and learned that it is not to be confused with American liberalism. It says: "The term 'social liberal' is also commonly used in North American contexts to describe those favorable to the preservation or furthering of human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties, in contrast to ''social conservative''. For the latter usage see social progressivism." Is there a better link, or could the list of human rights, etc., be given directly, along with a "see also social liberalism" note in parentheses? SkyDot 06:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That headline actually needs to be changed. American liberalism is best described as a type of social liberalism that incorporates social progressivism, cosmopolitanism and ordoliberalism. We have to seperate articles discussing two similar concepts; one U.S.-specific, one global. Stating American liberalism to be a form of social liberalims is the easiest and shortest way of defining it. I'll try and fix this source of confusion until tomorrow. Signature^brendel 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have tweak the wording in this and the Social liberalism article. Please let me know if have removed any confusion. Thanks, Signature^brendel 07:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Media?

Neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times claim to be liberal. Many conservatives believe they are liberal, but that is more about the alleged liberal bias. Neither of thesse papers are openly progressive like the Nation.

The editorial teams of both papers have taken positions that are congruent with those taken by most modern American liberals, including yours truly. Signature^brendel 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

I deleted the following because it was copied and pasted from the Pew website onto Wikipedia. If it was done by its copyright holder or someone empowered to act on their behalf then it's under the GFDL; otherwise, it's restrictively copyrighted, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia.

The typology of the voters can be broken into nine groups:

'''Enterprisers''' are staunchly conservative and have perhaps... Members of this heavily female, poorly educated group are highly pessimistic about their opportunities in life, and also very mistrustful of both business and government. Nonetheless, they support government programs to help the needy.<ref name="Pew"> </ref>

SteveSims (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One source?

Is it really acceptable for the entire article to be based on one set of classifications that is not very common? --75.68.115.72 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. This article could use a complete rewrite. Or perhaps a renaming to "Pew Research Center political classifications". 98.196.193.51 (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)