Template talk:Political ideologies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Colours[edit]

Please do not change the background colours to that used in Image:Political Ideologies.png. The colours used here are representative of the historical parties with the respective ideologies. The colours used in the image are not. – Kaihsu 13:13, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • The colours are horribly ugly and are an affront to people who have full sight. They should be changed so that people who aren't colour-blind can look at it without getting a headache.Spylab 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I'm not against a new colour scheme, but grey/green/grey/green was very ugly. C mon 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, I changed it to bluish-grey and white, so I'm not sure why you think there was green in there. Second, I'm baffled why someone would think a plain two-colour scheme is ugly, but a garish rainbow of bright oranges, pinks, greens, blues and yellow is better. It seriously looks atrocious, and I haven't noticed anything else like it on Wikipedia.Spylab 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
This looks (only grey) much better then either of the other two (pastel rainbow & grey/green). C mon 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you agree. Perhaps the reason my previous attempt showed up as green and grey for you is that the colour codes work differently for different types of computer monitors. That's another reason why it there should be a simple two-colour scheme.Spylab 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I gave it a light yellow background colo(u)r and a blue border so it would be more noticable on the pages. Colo(u)rless infoboxes to me seem to disappear on the page. Feel free to tinker with it.--207.230.48.73 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I left the blue border but deleted the yellow background because it looked gaudy. I don't think there will be a problem with people not noticing the box, since there's a border, light grey boxes and dark blue text.Spylab 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Dominionism[edit]

Dominionism has been included in this template. I don't think dominionism is as large and significant a political ideology as the others.

For instance Anarchism has 4,560,000 google hits, christian democracy 38,900,000, communism 29,200,000, 340,000, conservatism 16,400,000, fascism 16,100,000, green politics 822,000, liberalism 19,700,000, libertarianism 2,130,000, socialism 22,3000,000 and dominionism only 126,000 (about a third of the smallest of the others). While not-included ideologies like social-democracy (1,500,000 hits) and zionism (6,060,000) have more hits. Dominionism also has less then 250 links on wikipedia, while anarchism has more than 1500, christian democracy more than 250, communism more than 3500, fascism more than 2500, green politics more than 250, liberalism more then 2500, libertarianism more than 2000, socialism more than 3500. Non included ideologies like trotskyism (more than 500) have more links. Furthermore there is no explicitly dominionist international.

Now I realize that google hits don't make an arugment, but I think it signifies that dominionism is a small ideology, which does not merit inclusion in this template. Because we have to prevent every minor ideology getting included in this template. -C mon 08:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing there is no reaction, I've removed dominionism. C mon 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamism, Christian Democracy, and Zionism have now taken its place. This is a reasonable arrangement. – Kaihsu 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that Dominionism is no longer listed, and there are no other listed ideologies that are included in the Dominionism article, it seems logical that the template should be removed from that article. Any discussion on this step? --Awinger48 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, Dominionism is still a political ideology, but it is too minor to be included in this template. So the template can stay. C mon 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where to look in Wiki policies about template use, but I thought I read something on another discussion page that if a template is used, the article where it is used should at least mention something on the template to warrant the template being there. Have you ever heard that before? Thanks for taking the time to discuss :-) --Awinger48 21:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I personally agree with your logic there is no wikipedia policy on this. See talk:sustainability#Political ideology templates for a discussion of this. C mon 21:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll check it out. Thank you :-) --Awinger48 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Theocracy?[edit]

Why isn't Theocracy on here? I'm adding it in.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is already in Template:Forms of government. I think it does not quite fit in with the other things that are here, so I am going to remove it. – Kaihsu 16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Then instead perhaps it should have Zionism and Islamism.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is now the case, and reasonable. – Kaihsu 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Marxism, Trotskyism, Communism[edit]

Is it really necessary to include all currents within communism? I hoped we could keep this list clean and simple. Communist currents are part of the communism template. Including it here would only create a precedence to include all kinds of currents, making a clean and simple template, unnecessarily cloggy and large. C mon 09:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made the change. – Kaihsu 10:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamism[edit]

I added islamism as it already has an article under "islam" - section, although current article on islamism is problematic. I think it is in general a problem that template has only western ideologies. 03:40, 12 June 2006 (Moscow time)

I think it needs Zionism too. Christian democracy, Islamism, and Zionism are all major political ideologies of the three major abrahamic religions. They matter a lot to religion and politics.-- The ikiroid  03:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. – Kaihsu 13:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Some class islamism on fascism. Why islamism is different to fascism? Pixeltoo 17:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of Islamists are in no sense fascist. I hardly know where to begin on a question like that. Iran today is an Islamist state, but certainly not a fascist state. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism[edit]

I've removed capitalism earlier because it is an economic system, see for instance the introduction of the capitalism article:

"Capitalism has been defined in various related ways by different economic theorists[1], and is commonly understood to mean an economic or socioeconomic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, mostly through the employment of labour. In such a system, money mediates the distribution and exchange of goods, services, and labour in largely free markets. Decisions regarding investment are made privately, and production and distribution is primarily controlled by companies or businesses each competing[2] and acting in its own interest. "

Furthermore the political ideology to which capitalism is related are libertarianism, and to some extent conservatism and liberalism. So including capitalism would be strange because it is an economic system and it would be superfluous because libertarianism is already excluded. C mon 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. – Kaihsu 13:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Beggars and thieves already have these terms: Communism Communitarianism Feminism Green politics Nationalism Social democracy Socialism Liberalism

Why not allow us poor producers just three? Capitalism Conservatism Libertarianism

I think this is reasonable. – Dean Michael Gores Jan 2007

As you can see below the criteria for inclusion of this template is about fair distributions, but political philosophies that meet criteria like being a political philosophy, having philosophical notability, party-political notability are included. Therefore capitalism is excluded as it does not meet the criteria for inclusion (mainly because it is not an ideology, but an economic system). C mon 10:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideology

 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Your still telling me capitalism is not an ideology? Lets say that Government is the ruler/controller of society. It does so by force. How is the force used? Does the viewpoint of capitalism have as complete a description of how force should be used by the government as communism/socialism? What kinds of use of force are required for capitalism to be implemented? Whether individuals should have full control of the products of their labor, or that resource allocation should be determined by the leaders & masses is the root of most all political questions. Dean Michael Gores Jan 14 2007

Referring to those you disagree with politically as "beggars and thieves" is perilously close to incivility, so I will feel free to point out that your not including fascism in your list of anathemized positions speaks volumes. - Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't include Fascism with either list, Fascism to me simply means extreme and irrational racial discrimination-- which has nothing to do with how the government uses force corresponding to economy, its simply a horrible way to use force. Pointing out that a beggar is a beggar, or that a thieve is a thieve is uncivil? This not simply a "political disagreement", a silly disagreement over some meaningless debate. Capitalism involves enforcing property rights to enable a system of voluntary trade of goods and services. Communism involves forcibly removing goods and services from those who have them, and giving them to those who are favored by the government. This debate is over a system that destroys civilizations vs makes them flourish, that prevents people from gaining from their labor vs allows people to gain the most from their own labor and abilities. Beggar: One who solicits alms for a living. Thief: a person who takes (the property of another) without right or permission. Producer: one who creates by physical or mental effort. My classification of beggars, thieves, and producers into their political parties is accurate in general, is it not? Or at least, the communist system is a system of thieves and beggars stealing and begging, and the capitalist system is a system of producers creating and trading values. Yet to point this out so clearly is uncivil? Dean Michael Gores Feb 05 2007

Please keep your comments relevant to the template and not use this as a platform for your political views. C mon 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue isn't what the terms connote for you, it's what they mean. Fascism does not necessarily have any racist component (although it usually does), and racism can certainly occur entirely independently of the other elements that make up fascism. So on this point, insofar as it is relevant, you are simply wrong. The rest of this seems to wander off mainly into your personal opinions, which are neither here nor there in terms of writing an encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Feminism?[edit]

I was surprised to find a Politics template including Christian democracy and Progressivism, but excluding Feminism. Feminism may not have the import it used to in Western society, but it has played a very important role in the last century on the modern political landscape, and still has much significance across the world. It has 23,400,000 google hits and features in most modern political ideologies guides in some form.

If it is its one-sided slant that has gives its place on the template doubt, I would even more happily suggest something along the lines of "Feminism/Masculism" as one line, though masculism has some way to go before it is as widely in use a term as feminism.

I suspect, however, that feminism's exclusion is mere oversight, that I hope might be corrected? -Erolos 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I fear your right. I've inserted it. -- C mon 21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
But masculism??? I can hardly imagine a more obscure term. - Jmabel | Talk 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion?[edit]

I was thinking that it might be a good idea to draw up clear criteria for inclusion. Clearly not every political "ism" qualifies - ideologies must have a certain notability or influence to be listed here. Let's try to draw up a collaborative list of criteria. So far I can only think of one:

  1. To be included, an ideology must be shared by political parties active in more than one country.

-- Nikodemos 11:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a criterion is needed but the criterion you use very oriented towards political parties, and not to political philosophy. I'd prefer a (second) criterion that is oriented towards the issues of contemporary academic literature and political philosophy. -- C mon 12:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nikodemos's criterion. In fact, an ideology must be shared by political parties active in more than one continent. – Kaihsu 09:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Masculinism did it for me we need to apply criteria. I have made an attempt based on the two proposals (mine and Nikodemos/Kaishu's):

(Note that the difference between communism/socialism/social democracy and liberalism/libertarianism are difficult and would suffer from POV/NOR)

  • Important in current academic discussion: ideologies included in Contemporary Political Philosophy by Will Kymlicka, (but anyother political philosophy book will do) and scholar.google hits. I made an impression-based selection (a combination of atleast 150,000 google hits and a full mentioning in the index).
Ideology' Kymlicka scholar.google
Anarchism in index 16,100 succeeds
Christian Democracy in index (Christianity) 2,940 fails
Communism chapter (Marxism) 178,000 succeeds
Communitarianism chapter 9,790 succeeds
Conservatism in index 34,000 succeeds
Fascism not included 81,000 succeeds
Feminism chapter 222,000 succeeds
Green politics index (environmentalism) 2,350 fails
Islamism index (islam) 6,240 fails
Liberalism chapter 228,000 succeeds
Libertarianism chapter 7,280 succeeds
Masculism not included 49 fails
Nationalism index 352,000 succeeds
Nazism not included 34,900 fails
Progressivism not included 18,800 fails
Social democracy index 23,500 succeeds
Socialism chapter (Marxism) 258,000 succeeds
Zionism not included 31,700 fails

So if we now combine these two criteria:

  • Both criteria

Communism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Social Democracy and Socialism

  • Either criteria

Anarchism, Christian Democracy, Communism, Communitarianism, Conservatism, Feminism, Green Politics, Islamism, Liberalism , Libertarianism, Nationalism, Social-Democracy and Socialism,

I propose we include all those listed in the "either" list. --C mon 12:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The "either" list comes closer to my intuition, though it has a "presentist" bias. If we allow a broader historical sweep, then fascism and absolutist monarchism would probably also both make the cut. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, and the exclusion of national socialism/fascism troubled me when I was making the list, but I was merely executing an originally made plan. A third criterion for historic ideologies sounds reasonable. But I have no idea how to formulate it. BTW I think that this template should have a modern bias, because we only should include systems of thought that identify themselves as ideology. And before 1750/1800 there was no concept of ideology. - C mon 18:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the reasearch that you made, but why it isn't applied in the template? CG 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to wait for some reactions and there are some unfinished issues: like fascism (above) and pacifism (below). But seeing your inspired exhortation I will make the change. Including fascism because I lowered the second criterion to 75,000 scholar.google hits. C mon 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism: Google Scholar 466,000 Dean Michael Gores 14 Jan 2007

- But sadly it is an economic system, magnetism also has heaps of google scholar hits, but it is no political philosophy. C mon 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So should also Imperialism or Globalisation be added. Because either economical or not they are used as political tools. All politics are related to economy anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Globalisation is a social process, imperialism is a stand on a particular issue, not a complete ideology. C mon (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems I see with the toolbar[edit]

Guys come on now, Feminism? This is a table of political ideologies and parties, as far as I know there has never been a notable Feminist party or political ideology, unless we are to take into account the Ancient Greek Amazonian warrior tribe and the mythical ladies of Lesbos? I agree feminism has a place in the table, perhaps under a "other ideologies" sector but not as a major player along with Fascism, Conservatism and Liberalism etc... this whole table needs ammending in my opinion. Zionism is also hardly a notable form of political ideology/party, it's more of a standard used to anatgonise particular far-right conservative Israel politics. Piecraft 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is nowhere specified that this template should be about political parties. I have emphasized before that this template is also tied with the current academic discussion about political philosophy. Any book on political science (especially American ones) have one or multiple chapters on feminism. Furthermore feminist parties have existed in multiple countries, for example the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, Iceland Women's List and the Feminist Initiative (Sweden). And there are multiple explicitly zionist parties in Israel, most notably Labor (Israel) (centre-left), Kadima (centrist) and Likud (centre-right). For more information read the Zionism article. --C mon 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Leaving aside the Feminism question for the moment: why should Zionism be singled out from all other nationalisms? - Jmabel | Talk 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Centrism[edit]

This article is not about a political ideology, but about a position on the left/right scale. I'm removing it. --C mon 12:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)--C mon 12:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If centrism is not a political ideology, than why is the term used at the definitions of some political parties? For exemple:Liberal Alliance for Democracy, National Democratic Party (Barbados) --HunTheGoaT 14:24, 31 July 2006 (CEST)

Because these articles are stubs and therefore not very precise, furthermore leftwing and rightwing are not included in this ideological template either. They are used more often to define political parties' ideologies. --C mon 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Zionism[edit]

Surely this is covered by nationalism? Granted, it has a hefty religious component, but that's the norm for many nationalisms.--Nydas 12:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you got there a few days before me (my remark above, I hadn't read this far down). And Labor Zionism had/has almost no religious component. - Jmabel | Talk 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The title is confusing, and makes reasonable criteria impossible.[edit]

The title of this sidebar, "Ideologies and parties," will inevitably create problems. The title of this sidebar should be changed to "political ideologies," which would be clear, useful, and would more accurately describe what it is currently.

From their respective pages: "Politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups." "An ideology is an organized collection of ideas."

Thus, all major systems of ideas regarding politics should be included.

The repeated demands for criteria which require that political ideologies represent themselves with electoral parties in order to be listed - which some important political ideologies inherently oppose and many others are deeply ambivalent about - would simply turn this into a redundant list, already linked to twice at the bottom of the sidebar itself!

It is absurd to suggest removing anarchism, feminism, and fascism from a list including political ideologies. They are clearly political ideologies with both significant historical and significant contemporary importance. Think of wikipedia users - anyone looking for a list of links to political ideologies deserves to see a useful and reasonably complete list. Each of these examples have expression on every continent, often in what should be considered extra-electoral, non-electoral, or anti-electoral parties - such as labor unions, lobbying groups, civil disobedience movements, insurgent groups, and so on.

This looks to me very much like old-fashioned and narrowminded theological arguments which sought to exclude Buddhism from the category of "religions" because it does not include a god, which is a feature of some religions, not a necessary defining trait of religion. Forming political parties and nation-states are a feature of some political ideologies, not a necessary defining trait. Clearly, some political ideologies are anti-electoral.

On the other hand, Nazism and Zionism are particular, party-based expressions of the Nationalist ideology of a single country - like Irish Republicanism and countless other examples. Fascism might be grouped similarly, except that as an ideology it has spread to every continent and been attached to the domestic nationalism of many nations, rather than being specific to its countries of origin.

Capitalism has been excluded due to being an economically-focused ideology. It does, however, come with certain political requirements, such as some mechanism of enforcement of private property rights. If this is the case, then Communism and all its variations must also be excluded, as Communism is also a primarily economic system, which comes with a few basic political requirements - namely some form of abolition of private property rights. It makes more sense to include both, since these two major economic orientations define the bulk of ideology and policy for so many parties. Both have authoritarian expressions (Pinochet & Stalin, for example), both have more democratic expressions (such as most socialist and capitalist parties of Europe), and both have explicitly anti-authoritarian expressions which denounce all nation-states, however constituted (such as anarchism and libertarianism). But if one must go, both must go if this is to be consistent. Both are systems of ideas related to how groups make decisions and act in relation to property.

To prevent the list from being limitless, obviously sub-types should not be separately listed. Communitarianism and Progressivism should be grouped under either Liberalism, Socialism, Social Democracy, or better yet all three.

Marxism, Maoism, etc are best grouped under Communism, as has already been implemented.

Similarly, Theocracy should have one umbrella link, rather than three particular (and exclusively Abrahamic) religious political movements. Virtually every religion has some advocates for theocratic politics, from Hindu caste system advocates to Tibetan Buddhists.

I would be tempted to put Social Democracy under Socialism, Liberalism, or Democracy, but it doesn't really fit well under any of those.

It is quite strange to me that Authoritarianism and Democracy have been left out. It seems like an obvious oversight. Pacifism and Populism are good candidates for inclusion - they are all signficant but don't readily fit under any other umbrella term currently listed. Monarchism seems at this point to be almost exclusively of historical interest, and more or less fits under Authoritarianism or Theocracy.

So after all that, here's the modified list I would suggest for the above stated reasons.

Fundamentally, this is confusingly titled - as "ideologies and parties" - when it is really a list of major political ideologies. There is already a "List of political parties by ideology" and an overview of "Ideologies of parties." It only makes sense to rename this list "political ideologies," as that is what it is closest to now, and it can easily be made more clear and useful with such a designation.

69.12.152.249 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need to rename. The list you made however lacks criteria, and mixes concepts like "political system", "party label", "position on the left-right scale", "position on certain issue", "political ideology" and "economic system".
  • Authoritarianism, Democracy and Theocracy are political systems not political ideology. Note that Theocracy does not include Christian-Democracy or Zionism. Christian-Democrats do not advocate Theocracy and Zionism is a form of nationalism.
  • Capitalism is an economic system, its political expression is liberalism/libertarianism (compare this to communism, whose political expression is communism).
  • Centrism is a stance of the left-right scale and not a political ideology.
  • Populism is party label and a political strategy, not a political ideology.
  • Pacifism is very problematic: it is not an influential contemporary political philosophy. And historically there has been only one pacifist political party the Dutch Pacifist Socialist Party. But I could accept it conclusion if you could prove that it can come through the criteria.

So we need strong criteria for inclusion, as I am proposing above. The new title I can agree with though. C mon 21:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorting[edit]

I think that the sorting of the ideologies is pretty confusing, wouldn't it be better to sort them from a right-left perspective rather than an alphabetical? phisk 12:43, 23 August 2006

It is a tad confusing, but ordering them by left-right would be too problematic, because it raises [[Wikipedia:POV|point of view issues. Consider libertarianism: rightwing or leftwing? You might say rightwing but:
"In his essay "Left and Right: the Prospects for Liberty" [1] and "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal" [2], Murray Rothbard even put libertarianism on the "left", claiming that conservatives are the right and socialists merely "middle-of-the road"."

This quote from the Far Right-article says otherwise. Anyway it would lead to too much debate. C mon 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazism[edit]

I added nazism because it's an ideology shared by political parties in many countries. I think fascism must be deleted because it's an italian phaunomenon. 87.203.233.242 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Fascism is not just Italian, and many people consider Nazism a type of fascism.Spylab 14:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Nazism isn't just a part of fascism there basic differences between the two ideologies. 87.203.219.191 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus on this page that Nazism does not meet the criteria for inclusion listed above. Because it is too localized (only significant in Europe), used too little in political philosophy, and too close to fascism. I have removed it.C mon 23:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, Nazism seems to be Fascism + Racism/Anti-Semitism, whereas Fascism can exist without the racist element.Spylab 07:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
  • Concur with removal. - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

NS is different from fascism. Like Spulab said, fascism can exist without the racial element. 87.202.79.138 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Mitsos 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Independent of the relationship between national socialism and fascism, national socialism does not meet the standards set out in this article: a) the existence of multiple, active, strong national socialist parties in more than two continents; b) an important role in the discussing in political philosophy. Those standards were agreed on, by the editors of this page, and I will enforce that consensus. C mon 22:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Colors[edit]

Why did you change the colors of the template? The current "all grey" is very very ugly. The former colors were harmonious and pretty representative. So why this change? CG 10:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • On the contrary, the garishSpylab 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC) rainbow that was here before was repulsive. See discussion at top. The current two-colour format is plain and simple, but not ugly at all.Spylab 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
    • Well, I liked the colors. I don't see why you find them repulsive. Most of the templates has a minimum of colors. Could you at least make it with the same colors as Template:Modernarch? I don't think blue is also repulsive :) CG 08:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you re-stumbled upon the problem: on my computer the template has the similar coloring as modernarch (blue/grey), on yours it does not. In the old colour scheme I had a peaceful rainbow of pastels, while Spylab had another more funky colour-scheme. In spylabs early alternative he himself saw a matching blue/white, while I got a clashing grey/green. Either we or our computers are colourblind. C mon 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, apparantly the colour codes appear differently on different types of computer monitors. That's why it's best to just have a plain two-colour scheme. I don't really care which two colours, as long as the the template is clear to read and not hard on the eyes.Spylab 13:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Communitarianism[edit]

The above discussion shows that Communitarianism's inclusion has been repeatedly been open for debate. Well I just don't think it's notable enough. How often do you hear about "Communitarian" members of this or that Parliament, or Communitarian parties, or Communitarian anything? I can accept that it's an up-and-coming political philosophy, but it doesn't belong on a template like this. Fishal 01:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two criteria for inclusion: one being the existence of communitarian parties, parliamentarians etc. the other is its role in the academic debate on political philosophy. If you take an introductory course on contemporary political philosophy (at any university, especially American ones), the subject of that course will be liberalism vs. communitarianism. Furthermore in standardworks books like Kymlicka's "Contemporary Political Philosophy" it has a chapter (out of eight). Finally several politicians are self proclaimed communitarians, for instance Dutch prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende. C mon 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to say: it's right on the line. I think the word itself is less used than the others here, but the concept is widely discussed: the rights/claims of the community (vs. those of the individual). - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Communitarianism seems to be more of a point of view than an ideology (an organized system of ideas). The Communitarianism article mentions the two currents of "philosophical" and "ideological" communitarianism, but there does not seem to be much consensus as to what that ideology means. In other words, while several writers may espouse communitarian ideas, it does not seem to have ever been "organized" in a meaningful and influential way. At any rate, the term and the ideas seem mostly to be influential among American academics, whereas the template should have a more global scope. Fishal 04:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
As a Dutch student of political philosophy, I would implore you to keep communitarianism on the template. Both in Dutch political philosophy, Ad Verbrugge, Andreas Kinnegin, prominent Dutch critics of individualism, and in politics, with our MP Jan Peter Balkenende being a committed communitarian, communitarianism plays a big role. BTW communitarianism passed criteria (google hits & use of the term in standard works) which were not explicitly linked to the US. C mon 07:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Royalism/Monarchism/Theocracy/Absolutism[edit]

Feminism and masculism? Although this may merit a list article or a cateogry, I don't see a template. And what of royalists? The Islamists and Dominionists are really just royalists with different factions, no? This template is likely to turn into a grocery list without cleare criteria for inclusion. Rorybowman 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually very happy with the criteria for inclusion. They are clear and are enforced well. Do you advocate a particular change or is this just your opinion? - C mon 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Progressivism[edit]

I have inserted progressivism, as it would seem to clearly pass muster based upon the above noted criteria for inclusion, namely: "There are two criteria for inclusion: one being the existence of political parties, parliamentarians etc. the other is its role in the academic debate on political philosophy". There are certainly a large number of progressive parties, both historically (the Progressive Party(s) in the US) and contemporary (the New Zealand Progressive Party, the United Progressive Alliance in India, the Progressive Unionist Party in N. Ireland, etc). As well, progressivism has always had a salient role in both academic debate and classrooms worldwide. I see no reason not to include this school, especially given the inclusion of communitarianism and christian democracy, which are arguably more vague and obscure ideologies.--Jackbirdsong 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree let us look at your arguments:
  1. there are little specifically progressive parties. The New Zealand Progressive Party and the Progressive Unionist Party are democratic socialist according to wikipedia. The United Progressive Alliance is an alliance (and not a party) of parties none of which are progressive. The only progressive parties are a historic third party phenomenon in the United States therefore it fails this criterion. Note that the List of progressive organizations also just lists American organizations.
  2. I've never heard of progressivism as a political philosophy. I've check Kymlicka's handbook, (Contemporary Political Philosphy) which does not mention it. It has only 15,400 scholar.google hits (only 10% of the required 150,000). Therefore it fails this criterion.
Failing the criteria for inclusion means that it should not be included. C mon 07:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, scholar.google(beta), which you have linked to in Dutch, has only 11,000 hits for communitarianism (less than that of progressivism), so I fail to see the consistency in that requirement (have all of the other philosophies been held to the same criteria you mention above? And, out of curiosity, who conceived this criteria?). Secondly, despite my own subjectivity, and with all due respect, I find it astonishing that you've never heard of progressivism as a political philosophy. I've certainly heard a lot about it, both in public debate, as well as in my college political philosophy course, and I would appreciate another opinion (as again I will readily admit to my own subjectivity) on whether anybody else has heard the terms "communitarianism" and/or "christian democracy" more frequently in their life than "progressive" or "progressivism", or vice-versa. Secondly, there are no more specifically "progressive" parties than there are specifically "nationalist" or "communitarian" parties (though despite Wiki's definition, if you go to the New Zealand Progressive Party's official website, you will see the term "progressive" everywhere, and I did not see the term "social-democratic" once). Much like these ideologies, progressivism is a branch of political thought that many liberal, green, social-democratic, and socialist parties adhere to (surely the other philosophies on this list blend and split at times, its not necessarily so black-and-white as "specifically this-or-that"). Beyond that, the hanfull of progressive parties I have mentioned above are only a few examples, and research will provide plenty more: if we were to cite all of the political parties worldwide that either call themselves "progressive", or are a part of the larger progressive movement, we would have enough info for a lengthy article right there. I hope I don't come across as trying to push info into an article that it doesn't belong in, and I'll gladly concede the point if its deemed as such, but maybe if we could get a broader concensus it would generate more objectivity. Thank you.--Jackbirdsong 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let me address your issues specifically:
  • I conceived the criteria (see here
  • If you read the description you will notice that an ideology must either meet the first criterion (at least two parties which are explicitly progressive on two different continents) or the second criterion (a index which combines google.scholar hits and mention in Kymlicka's handbook). Progressivism fails on both.
  • I don't want to play on the man, but where do you study (specifically country). I study phillosophy and political science in the Netherlands and take courses specifically in English-language political philosophy. There main debate is between liberalism, libertarianism and communotarianism. I have never read a text by "progressive" philosopher or a party manifesto of a "progressive party". Could you mention me one specific progressive philosopher?
  • Your claim is that progressivism unites social-democracy, liberalism and green political thought. Can you base this on external reliable sources or is it just your intuition. Second doesn't the fact that these are included and progressivism not strike you as odd. Maybe progressivism is of a different level and should not be put on a template where it is equal to social democracy, liberalism and green politicsl.
C mon 07:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your points, and I think the problem is largely semantics- the term "progressive" has been used in lieu of "liberal" or "left-wing" recently in North America due to the negative stigma given the term "liberal" by conservatives, despite the fact that progressivism is a distinct political orientation. It is true that pehaps progressivism falls into a different category than these other ideologies, as progressivism is a broad spectrum of thought which encompasses:
  • social justice
  • democratic efficiency and egalitarianism
  • environmental responsibility, et al.
so many political ideologies may fall under the general umbrella of progressive thought. My point is that there are certainly many parties worldwide that are considered, by their own description, progressive (the New Zealand Progressive Party calls itself progressive on its own website, rather than "social-democratic", which they aren't in a strict sense. As well, most Green parties embrace every single aspect of progressivism, and call their policies progressive, but just have a new name for the movement: Green). I study at UCLA, in Los Angeles, CA, in the US, so as I said earlier my opinion may be more subjective, as this is the founding nation of progressive thought, but the ideals and tenets of progressivism have influenced countless nations worldwide, and can be seen in the policies of countless international parties. For a list of progressive scholars, I would reccommend the progressivism article, under the subcat. of "progressive advocates". People such as Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, William Kelleher, etc. are a good start. Again, this may be too broad a spectrum of political thought to be included on the list, but as it has been so unquestionably influential to so many of the ideologies that are on the list now, and has such a large following, both in the US and elsewhere (places like Australia and New Zealand use the term frequently), it would seem justifiable IMHO to include it. If you don't think it merits inclusion, that's fine. I would still appreciate another editor's opinion on the matter before we close the case, as this is a community encyclopedia. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Better as a Footer[edit]

Would this nav box be better as a footer? Most of the pages it is used on have 1-4 other nav boxes and this nav box is more of a list of general topics rather than details on a specific topic (sort of a "macro" nav box as oppposed to a "micro" nav box, if you will). I would propose something similar to:

Please feel free to edit accordingly and provide feedback.--Old Hoss 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I support it for readability reasons, as you explain above. Fishal 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition, I will begin changing the template later today or tomorrow. I will also remove this template from all pages that are not listed on the template and instead replace it with a link to the Political ideologies page under the "See also" section of the respective pages. Before I change this template, I will move the template on each page it links to to the bottom of that page. Since this involves quite a few pages, I wanted to post this before I began in case some one has other ideas.--Old Hoss 16:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapsable sections[edit]

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates about ideologies, such as {{Social democracy sidebar}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Utilitarianism[edit]

I added Utilitarianism with a chapter in Kymlicka and a 112,000 google hits, it meets the criteria. C mon (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I came to this template because I've never heard utilitarianism described as a political ideology before. Kymlicka certainly doesn't, and I think that it is a problem to use his book as a basis for determining contemporary political ideologies when it is about academic philohopies. While Geertz's problem of "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology" should be kept in mind, the fact that Kymlicka himself does not equate ideology and philosophy should be reason enough to question the presence of something in his book as a standard for inclusion here.
The emphasis in this template appears to be ideologies that are prevalent in contemporary politics, and utilitarianism seem to be the only entry that does not meet that criterion. There are no programmatically 'utilitarian' political parties, for example, despite the fact that you may be able to describe the actions of some in this way. I have removed it from the template. – SJL 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There aren't any anarchist political parties either, and too little feminist ones to merit inclusion on the template, that's why we have the complicated system with three criteria for inclusion, which utilarianism meets. C mon (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • ^ Definitions of capitalism. Wikiquote, (2006)
    • ^ Merriam-Webster Third New International Unabridged Dictionary defines "competition" in business as "a: the effort of two or more parties to secure the custom of a third party by the offer of the most favorable terms. b: a market condition in which a large number of independent buyers and sellers compete for identical commodities, deal freely with each other, and retain the right of entry and exit from the market"