WikiProject Socialism	(Rated Template-class, Top-importance)	SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
v t e This template is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.  Top  This template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
/Archive 1 (2006 discussions)

Ideas?[edit]

The entire 'ideas' section reads like an election pamphlet. Concepts like "Democracy, Freedom, Human rights, Human dignity, Positive liberty, Social justice, Solidarity, Sustainability" are by no means unique to Soc Dems, and the links say very little about Soc Dem ideology. I propose they be deleted, the question is what should substitute it? --Soman 10:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They were added here because they are also present in the Christian Democracy template, and it proved impossible to persuade a couple of editors to accept their removal. I maintain that any criteria applied to this template must be applied in equal measure to the Christian Democracy template. -- Nikodemos 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we meed strong criteria for the inclusion of ideas for all templates, because I belief that these ideas are very useful, if they have proper criteria. C mon 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no qualms with the current version (which should not be surprising, as I was the last editor of the template). Right now, the template is limited to:

• key precursors - i.e., Social Democracy could have never come about if not for: the Age of Enlightenment; the early work of "Utopian socialism" (as the "Utopians" provided inspiration to--and created a frame of reference for--both the revolutionary socialists and the early social democrats); the failed Revolutions of 1848 (which led many socialists to abandon revolutionary socialism) and Trade Unionism.


• key Politics - i.e., there would not be "Social Democracy" were it not for: Representative democracy, Labour rights, Civil liberties, some form of the Welfare state; some form of a Mixed economy; Secularism; some form of Fair trade (key to modern Social Democratic politics); and a certain degree of Environmental protection (also key to modern Social Democratic politics).


• key Organizations- The List of social democratic parties, the Socialist International, the Party of European Socialists, and the International Trade Union Confederation all certainly qualify for representation.


• and, of course, there are the obligatory Key figures to debate over...

If anyone has any qualms with the current template, discuss them here. This is still a work in progress--(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Update[edit]

I have created a "Precursors" section for the template, to create a brief frame of reference for those new to Social Democracy. This includes four topics: the Age of Enlightenment, Utopian socialism, the Revolutions of 1848 and Trade Unionism. I have renamed the "Policies" section "Politics," as policies are specific, and politics is general. I have added to this section Representative democracy, Civil liberties, Secularism and Environmental protection. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

I have added Orthodox Marxism to the Precursors section. See "Understanding Social Democracy" by Sherri Berman for a brief, and enlightening, explanation of how social democracy grew out of the Orthodox Marxist movement (by ultimately rejecting it).--(GordonBrownforPresident 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Small or large[edit]

I personally prefer templates without "show" buttons and thus I would like to return to the previous version of the template. --Checco (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized the template following reorganizations of templates like Socialism sidebar, Anarchism sidebar and Communism sidebar. The reason for this is that smaller templates are preferable for two reasons

1. Having a large template can lead to strange lay outs on the screens, especially if articles have multiple large templates, it can become very messy


2. Large templates can be pretty strange on small articles, when half the page is white, because the template continues but the text does not

Making templates expandedable with the "show" button deals with these issues quite nicely.

- C mon (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear C mon, your opinion counts exactly as mine, so I don't understand why we can't return to the previous version of the template. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageble. --Checco (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

After six days, I can only observe that there is no consensus on the edits of C mon, as he is the only one defending them in this talk page... --Checco (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Checco, in the case of this particular template, I did not create the shows, that was User:Morgan695 here and you are the only one contesting this. So I can't say that there is consensus for rolling back. C mon (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right (sorry), but, as we are talking about a handful of templates, I agree with you when you say that we need a more centralized discussion. I don't think it is ok to have some templates with the shows and some without. We need a single decision on all the navigational boxes on political parties. --Checco (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a centralized place for discussion about the show/hide-issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair? Is he a social democrat ? Cme34 (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Clement Attlee[edit]

Please note that Clement Attlee is spelt thus, and not any other way. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

C.A.R. Crosland[edit]

I am shocked to find that Tony Crosland has been removed from the list of people. He is surely the leading theorist of modern social democracy in Britain. It seems quite ridiculous to include Bulent Ecevit and Gerhard Schroeder, essentially merely opportunist politicians, but to leave out an influential intellectual such as Crosland. -- Alarics (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I added Lassalle, who is certainly the most important figure of Northern-European (or now NW European) social democracy. Following your comments, I removed Blair and Schröder, who are not of the stature of the others, i.e., they are not considered the leading politicians of their country, etc. Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Corbyn[edit]

JEREMY CORBYN IS NOT A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT. --2.100.250.44 (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@2.100.250.44^[1] and @92.30.218.168:^[2] Cursory reasearch leads me to believe that there is a home for Jeremy Corbyn in Social democracy sidebar, and therefore at Social democracy as well:

“From his style to his policies Mr Corbyn would, in Norway, be an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat. . . . Yet, here in the United Kingdom a politician who makes similar policy-proposals . . . is brandished as an extremist of the hard-left and a danger to society.”^[3]

“Across Europe social democracy – and for all the charges of Marxist extremism thrown at Jeremy Corbyn, his ‘spend more money on the welfare state’ manifesto was resoundingly social democratic – has long been on the slide.”^[4]

“Corbyn wants to nationalize key industries. He is a socialist, not a social democrat.”^[5] (emphasis added)

Because this issue approaches a biography of a living person, I’m not immediately reinserting Corbyn, but please provide information that contradicts my understanding. —LLarson (said & done) 13:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Is Corbyn actually notable enough? He's not a prime minister or an academic; he has not held a high political (government) office, or offered theoretical insights. It seems as if his inclusion is jumping on the bandwagon. I note that Ed Miliband is not listed, for instance. --Hazhk (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@2.100.250.44, 92.30.218.168, and Hazhk: I’m not an expert in British domestic politics, but those sound like grounds to keep Corbyn off both templates. —LLarson (said & done) 01:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@2.100.250.44, 92.30.218.168, Hazhk, 71.209.42.92, and Helper201: Heads up that we’re discussing whether Jeremy Corbyn belongs in Social democracy sidebar, and therefore at Social democracy as well. —LLarson (said & done) 13:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)