Talk:Liberal Party (UK)

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

Liberal Democrat Info[edit]

Why does the foot of the aricle show a big box with info about the Liberal Democrats, like a list of their leaders etc? I realise they're the succesor party to the Liberals but listing info about them instead of (not even as well as) about the party the article is supposedly discussing seems weird. 217.28.5.247 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It has now been deleted. TFD (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

History section[edit]

As The Liberal Party no longer exists, the bulk of this article should be the history of the party. In 2008 the entire history section was removed to create History of the Liberal Party (UK) leaving behind only a section on Ideology. While there is an argument that the history is quite long and could be split off into a seperate article, the guidelines for that - WP:Summary style - do indicate that a summary should remain. I haven't got the time right now to summarise the history, so I have returned the history section to the article, as clearly without the history, this was not an article on The Liberal Party at all, but a few paragraphs on the party's idealogy.

Possible way forward: Discuss if a separate History article is required, and if consensus shows that to be appropriate, then summarise the History section per WP:Summary style and provide a link. If consensus is that a separate history article is not needed then redirect History of the Liberal Party (UK) to this article. SilkTork *YES! 18:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:History of the Liberal Party (UK)[edit]

merge?[edit]

Do we really need separate article on the history of Liberal Party (UK)? If the party itself is officially defunct it is all history. When you have a look at that article it consist only of section Ideology which is also about history... I believe these articles should be merged. Errarel (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Having two articles for this purpose really doesn't make sense. Any objections to making the change? 212.159.69.4 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I was about to set up a merge discussion, though I see one has already started. There appears to be no objections to a merge, so I will proceed. SilkTork *YES! 18:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
No you should not merge the article without first setting up a proper discussion following WP:Merge. TFD (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete articles about defunct political parties, especially when they were notable. The LP did not change its name to the LDP - it dissolved and most of its members joined the new LDP, along with members of the former SDP. Dissidents actually re-formed the Liberal Party which continues to contest elections and has elected councillors in the UK.[1] TFD (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Merging: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such generally does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger... Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merger purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument."

My intention was to set up a merge discussion, however, as the original split was done inappropriately and against guidelines, and as people had already set up a query regarding the split, and that query had been supported but not challlenged, my merger was in line with common sense, good practice, apparent consensus and relevent guidelines. I suggest above in the History section, that a discussion could be started on the splitting and development of this article. That discussion, is, I feel, quite appropriate, and potentially more helpful than raising objections to restoring this article to the state it was in before being split. SilkTork *YES! 08:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this merger. Separate sections to this article can exist for ideology, its main bases of electoral support, organisational structure, listing leaders, and so on. See the treatment of former countries, such as Soviet Union, which have separate articles for history, which convey the chronology. Bastin 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Separate history articles are normally only encountered when the original article is too long to support it. Even now that the merger has been completed the resulting article is only 44kb, way below the 106kb of the Soviet Union article.
You are welcome to expand the history on this page and if it gets to an unmanageable size an article split can be considered then. Road Wizard (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The Soviet Union article isn't the threshold, but an example of an article that has split off all of its sections. WP:SIZE demarcates 32kB as the first occasion one should consider appropriate splits. This article is currently 37kB of prose (i.e. excluding references, etc), and a discussion of a split now, rather than later, is therefore appropriate. I would make the case that the very long history section impairs the development of sections such as 'Ideology', 'Organisation', 'Political support', 'Election results', and so on, which one would find in many developed articles on extant parties. Bastin 17:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
SilkTork, you could merge this article with the Raving Monster Looney Party without discussion too. The point is you should not make major changes that make no sense and are likely to raise strong objections. TFD (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideology[edit]

Can someone expand/add to the part about the modern ideology? Here on the other side of the Atlantic we seem to have a different definition of liberalism and it would be nice to have it clarified. thanks. --MartinezMD (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no modern ideology as the party is defunct. See Liberal Democrats and Liberal Party (UK, 1989) for the two successor parties. Road Wizard (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --MartinezMD (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

History[edit]

The history of the party seems a little simplistic and misinformed in places. I've started to re-write it, taking in more recent scholarship. So far, I've only done the 'origins' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Misspelling in first paragraph[edit]

The word "separate" is misspelled, but I can't find the paragraph through editing to correct it. 184.98.114.112 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Permanent[edit]

In the 1920s, the Labour Party permanently replaced the Liberals as the largest opponent 
of the Conservative Party in British politics, and the Liberals went into decline, which
culminated in their winning as few as 6 seats at general elections during the 1950s

Permanently is a poor choice of word here. It implies the situation could not be reversed. 82.46.109.233 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Outline of Liberal Governments[edit]

I came to this page to try and find, essentially, a list of Liberal governments, with the dates they were in power, whether they won an election outright or in coalition, and which leader was PM. I think something like this would be quite useful to add, if anyone has the time, as currently there's a lot of scrolling through sometimes difficult to read text to find the years and PMs. Thanks 194.66.198.40 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Liberal Party (UK)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Liberal Party (UK)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Oxford":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 02:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

1909 Punch cartoon[edit]

The 1909 Punch cartoon of Lloyd George and Asquith can be seen in full here with the text "Rich Fare. The Giant Lloyd-Gorgibuster: "Fee, fi, fo, fat, I smell the blood of a plutocrat; be he alive or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread." It references Fee-fi-fo-fum and the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk. Nedrutland (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Independent Liberal Party (UK, 1918) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Independent Liberal Party (UK, 1918) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Liberal Party (UK, 1918) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Psychonaut (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Article needs going over with a fine tooth comb for falsehoods[edit]

I've recently removed two blatant falsehoods from the article, a claim that Joe Chamberlain was the leader of the Liberal Party, and a claim that the Irish Parliamentary Party (founded 1874) was founded as a consequence of the Third Reform Act (1884). There is no place for falsehoods like this in any article, let alone one about such a major force in 19th century British politics. The article needs going over very carefully to see what other nonsense has made its way in. DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Party (UK). 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 05:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Party (UK). 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 20:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)