Talk:Limousine liberal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV: Names listed in See Also[edit]

I don't think it's appropriate to list names of two prominent U.S. Democrats under See Also for this article. Clearly, this is a derogatory term, and explicitly applying it to two well-known modern day politicians would seem to violate Neutral Point of View. I've removed those references for now, if this needs further discussion, that's fine. ClarusWorks 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks to me like the NPOV issue was settled. I removed the flag. --Treekids (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procaccino's usage[edit]

I don't think the first paragraph explains Mario Procaccino's usage particularly accurately. It was not so much a matter of "expresses a deep concern for the poor, yet does not spend any considerable portion of his or her wealth to help poor people" (plenty of Lindsay's backers made big donations to charity, and I don't think Procaccino would have denied that) or even "would like to help the poor, but is oblivious to the costs of doing so." It was more a matter of saying that Lindsay's "silk stocking" supporters were insulated from all negative consequences of their programs intended to benefit the poor, and that all ill consequences would be borne by the lower-middle to middle-middle class. (I say this as someone who was around NYC at the time of the election.) I'm inclined to edit this accordingly, but was wondering first if someone has a solid citation for the current claim. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. --Lee Hunter 11:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the part on "Lexus liberals" should be removed. Why are there so many variations on a term to describe well-to-do liberals? Limo liberal, liberal elite, latte liberal...perhaps instead of coming up with more words to describe the same exact thing, a term to desrcibe the opposite(apathetic or hippocritical wealthy conservatives) should be added to this encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.15.178 (talk • contribs) 18 Sept 2005.

I'm apathetic as to whether "Lexus liberals" belongs, although I'd be astounded if we could keep it out, so this article seems as good place as any to have it. "Limousine liberal" itself is clearly appropriate, though, because it defined very well the view central to the "revolt of the outer boroughs" that played such an important role in New York politics from the late 1960s through the 1970s, and still reverberates today. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether you like a term or not, if it is common use it should be mentioned. --Treekids (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism[edit]

Weasel Words

This sentence

"...in many countries outside the United States, "liberalism" refers to right-of-center politics, and particularly to support for laissez faire capitalism, or libertarianism."

This is implying that liberals in the U.S. are somehow anti-capitalism. It should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.141.239.249 (talk • contribs) 12 December 2006.

U.S. liberals are certainly capitalist, but are certainly not in favor of laissez faire capitalism.
And I have no idea what this is supposed to have to do with weasel words. "Weasel words" means to lack of specificity, especially as to agency: e.g. "some people say", "according to critics". - Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limousine Maoists?[edit]

Could someone please provide a citation about claims of Maoists in Peruvian state agencies? I have my doubts. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

I have preposed merging the following articles to the LIBERAL ELITE article.

Firstly, they all say much of the same thing and secondly if they were all brought together it would give a worldwide viewpoint instead into "Liberal elitism" instead of having a US bias. I will copy this message on all the other article talk pages. All discussions should be done on the LIBERAL ELITE talk page so that all discussions are kept together. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Liberal elite would not be the appropriate merger target. Moreover the merger has been discussed before and been rejected. Limousine liberal and Champagne socialist are similar - but Limousine liberal has a longer and separate provenance. I think Liberal elite should stand as a separate article and be cleaned up. Limousine liberal should stand as a separate article. Champagne socialist should accept mergers from Gauche caviar, chardonnay socialist, and chattering classes as all being British or European terms that are similar. We can also include the German, Swedish, Netherlands terms in there. They all seem to be related to the late 80s which is distinct from the Limousine liberal term which was coined earlier.--Matilda talk 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"coffe shop revolutionist"[edit]

Quoting the article: 

In Poland, the rough equivalent of this term is "coffe shop revolutionist"

I'm a native, left-leaning Pole, and have never heard this term. "Kawiorowa lewica", which is a calque from the French term "gauche caviar", is the term actually used here.

MarcoosPL (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated claims and citations[edit]

The claims that Al Gore's house uses "200 times the energy of the average American home" and the claims of driving "energy-inefficient vehicles" are contradicted in the citation (11) listed. In any case, this is an section that needs to be removed, since it is obviously supporting a political point of view, does not really have a position here, since it is part of a partisan political attack, and more importantly, is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceabaird (talk • contribs) 06:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Place[edit]

This article seems more appropriate to Wiktionary. Awg1010 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. It's an article about the neologism. It can't become an article about the supposed phenomenon and whether it is a significant issue because that would just be opinion. Anyway, enough people enjoy having this article that I seriously doubt a deletion nomination would succeed. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Limousine liberal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limousine liberal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP content[edit]

A reminder that content about living persons must be reliably sourced. That means YouTube is out and blogs like michellemalkin.com, realclearpolitics, and newsmax.com are out. Also, for the few portions of this edit that are properly sourced, a passing mention of someone being a "limousine liberal" in a single source is not sufficient for including in an encyclopedia article. WP:DUEWEIGHT applies, as does WP:ONUS. If it's important, it will be easy to find two or three good sources to support its inclusion.- MrX 🖋 21:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes: I have removed all of this, for reasons given in my edit-summaries. Just to note that Real Clear Politics is not necessarily unreliable, but it's a news aggregator and therefore pulls its content from other sources. In this case the source was American Thinker - a quick look at its current front page will probably give you a clue as to why it's not reliable for BLP issues. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BLP content is what Wikipedia is all about-- the issue is proper sourcing. Black Kite is wildly off base on his criticisms. When a generally well-known source by a famous author calls a person a "limousine liberal" that means the designation is in fact a derogatory comment on that person. Were looking here for who gets attacked in this fashion, not whether or to not the target truly deserves the attack. In politics – people like Congressman and major candidates get a lot of attacks, and the choice of language in this particular case is what we are discussing. Black Kite seems unfamiliar with scholarship for example he denigrates book author Stephen Fraser (doing so without a citation – that is a violation of BLP). actually Fraser is a widely published PhD in history with prize-winning books (for example he won the prestigious Philip Taft Award for his scholarship), and his essays appear in Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Nation, The American Prospect, Raritan, and the London Review of Books. Rjensen (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following BLP. You can't say that "many people have called..." or "is often called..." with a single cite. That's simply UNDUE. Even if we assume Fraser's book to be a good source (the first review of it I found called it "slapdash" but I have found good reviews as well) you need many more reliable cites to say that someone "is often called...". This article is not People that have occasionally been called Limousine Liberals. And the reason why is obvious. Imagine, for example an article called American politicians that have been called racist. Now imagine the level of sourcing you'd need for that. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjensen: We shouldn't try to document every single obscure example of when a term is used somewhere in the media. There needs to be some discretionary limit on what is included based on whether it's noteworthy. In fact, we should be relying on a few good sources that extensively examine the overall usage of the term, otherwise this section would be indistinguishable from an 'In popular culture' section. In other words, a passing mention of the term in an opinion piece does not belong in a section pretending to cover "Later use".- MrX 🖋 12:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember everyone, only liberal news sources are allowed. And of course, those liberal news sources never have bias and are completely reliable because they have "authority" because they are older and their reputations can never be checked. And even if one of the liberal sources says something we don't like a about a liberal, it doesn't count. JimmyPiersall (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't politicize content disputes and please assume good faith.- MrX 🖋 14:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Limousine_liberal&oldid=1199466175"