Talk:Liberal Democrats

Social Liberal Forum

Is it worth having this lot in the article? They seem to be more than a bunch of people whingeing in the pub, but are they big enough for the article to mention? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah probably worth a mention I suppose. They do have a considerable impact on policy decisions within the party. --Matt Downey (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Might actually be worthy of its own page come to think of it, like the Tory Reform Group.--Matt Downey (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to their website. There does not seem to be sufficient coverage to support an article, but that may change rapidly as they are now holding their first conference. TFD (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Best leave it out then until there's more coverage. Totnesmartin (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead

Matt Downey, who appears to be a member of the Lib Dems from his user page, wants to insert into the lead a long sentence referencing a University College London study that around three quarters of the policies in the party's manifesto were included in the Programme (note British English spelling btw) for Government they agreed with the Conservatives last year.

I've reverted this on several grounds - which I'll outline below - and inserted a shorter version of it in the section on their involvement in the coalition government in the body.

For a start, it's undue. WP:LEAD makes it clear that the lead should be a broad overview of the subject, in this case the Lib Dems since 1988 (I would also argue that it is recentist). How then does one line from a rather obscure academic study come to take up nearly a quarter off the lead?

I think Matt is trying here to respond to what he perceives as a - in the article unvoiced - criticism that the Lib Dems "sold their souls to the Devil" when they joined the Tories in government last year. It's fine to push that point of view on a blog or wherever but not in an encyclopedia where it falls foul of WP:NPOV. Haldraper (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to restore the referenced report of the study in a lower paragraph. Dbfirs 08:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My political affiliation couldn't be any less of your business.

For a start, it is not undue as it is not a "view point" it is a a fact. An academic study by a HIGHLY reputable source. It is as much a fact as stating when the party was formed and therefore cannot be undue. WP:LEAD says "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies", the study DOES establish context, DOES to some extent show why the subject is interesting or notable and DOES summarize one of the most important points. WP:NPOV states that "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." My edits do not go against this, they do not take sides, they simply explain the findings of an academic report from a highly reliable source.

It would not be suitable to put it in a lower paragraph, because of what it says on WP:LEAD as I have demonstrated above.--Matt Downey (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Dbfirs, that's exactly what I've done.

Matt, your membership of the Lib Dems is relevant if you are pushing a particular POV.

Whether or not it's a fact and the source of the ref have no relevance as to whether it's undue: it's whether it's given undue prominence, especially in the lead whose job is to provide a broad overview which is then expanded on in more detail in the body of the article.

I'm sorry but I really don't see why this line from an academic study is essential to the lead being able to "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points - including any prominent controversies". How many of the Lib Dems manifesto commitments were included in the Programme for Government agreed with the Conservatives is not a prominent controversy, unlike say the Lib Dems voting to increase student tuition fees. It probably only appears so to you because of your closeness to the subject of the article. Haldraper (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"relevant if you are pushing a particular POV" Good job I'm being totally NPOV then isn't it.

I have quoted from the "WP:Lead" page what the Lead is for and have demonstrated that the study should be shown in the lead as it provides context to the article. I have no closeness to the subject of the article. It provides context by showing why Liberal Democrats may believe that going into government is justified. The grounds for a party being in government is always shown in the lead, usually this this is in the form of noting the general election, the seats gained, the votes won. However there is no majority in the HoC to any one party, so the general election and seats gained (or lost in the case of the Liberal Democrats), and votes won does not provide adequate context.

It is not undue weight, if you feel it is, please also feel free to add that the Liberal Democrats have suffered from criticism for joining the government.--Matt Downey (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If the page was about the Lib Dems in government 2010-, you might have a point but it isn't, it's about their history since 1988 (and before that now you've expanded the para on their predecessors).

That's why a discussion of their role in the coalition belongs in the section dealing with the Lib Dems in the coalition rather than speculation as to their reasons for doing so, criticisms of that decision, electoral fallout etc. being kicked about in the lead. Haldraper (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Their conferences

Where would it be possible to see a little review of the Liberal Democrat conferences? I have just looked at the history of the article and it has not been edited for a few days, but as of September 20-21 2011, their 2011 conference is still in progress. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ideology

This page is really ridiculous and would be very confusing to most people. The ideology section on the left hand side is far too large. Changes should not be made out of personal opinion but in order to reflect the FACTS. I intend to slim down the ideology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.176.13 (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I do think the idealogy section in the info box seems to be slightly long, and needs to be simplified. --Welshsocialist (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've shortened and simplified the two paragraphs that were rambling on about 'Orange bookers' vs social liberals and hopefully used the term 'Orange booker' in a more accurate context. I think the previous version implied an extreme divide within the party without giving any supporting sources. Longdehua (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)