Template talk:Libertarianism US
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism US template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 366 days  |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Liberalism Portal link
editWhy is there a link to the liberalism portal if libertarianism is a separate ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Libertarianism is widely considered to be derived from, but separate from, the wider liberal tradition. Thus, the inclusion of the 'Liberalism portal' is quite appropriate. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Gadsden flag
edit@Flyedit32: My point was that this is a template for a movement. How could a movement ever have an "official" anything? That's a strange word choice. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I see your point, and that helps make mine as well - why should we include an image here if a movement (this movement) couldn't "ever have an official anything"? But more so, why should we include the Gadsden banner? I could maybe see something like the flame of liberty or statue of liberty, but the Gadsden coiled snake does not wholly represent the movement today, and has actually at times been associated with its more controversial and fringe elements. Plus, it has also often represented support for the US Military, which could go against aspects of the movement's anti-American imperialism elements. I think it's probably best just not to utilize any image for this template but like I said earlier, it'd be nice to hear from other users on the issue as well before making a change such as this. Flyedit32 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Flyedit32, honestly, I don't feel too strongly about it. I just reverted because the "unofficial" reasoning didn't make much sense to me and it seemed like a constructive addition. But I welcome others' thoughts here, of course. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Wrong template in principle
editThe template puts conflicting organizations and ideas in the same grouping. For example, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute with the Students for a Democratic Society or Charles Koch and Noam Chomsky.
It's totally misleading the structure of this template; I propose to divide the ideas or people by orientation, e.g., "left-libertarian people" and "right-libertarian people." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Tim Walz doesn't belong here at all.
editIdk who put him there, but he is far from libertarian CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)