Talk:Liberal Party (Philippines)

POV issues with history section

The Brief History of the Party section of the article seems, well, a bit much. The hstory should be able to be written without so much praise -- it reads like a political tract. -- ArglebargleIV 07:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, moved back to the September 17, 2006 version of the article. :) --Noypi380 09:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

POV issues with Leadership Controversy and Links sections

Several areas should have citations and references to facts, like the appearance of members of LAKAS-CMD in the gathering of Atienza faction Liberals that ousted Frank Drilon from the party presidency.

That statement appear to be creating a reinforcing image to the Links area of the article, which states that the LP site of the Atienza faction has the label "LAKAS CMD-sponsored."

This is a clear bias from whoever made these posts, especially since they did not bother to make citations that would prove their statements. AzurePhoenix 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Akala ko naman may pinagkaiba ang ideolohiya ng dalawang panig, e mukhang simpleng power struggle lang pala ito.

Finality of Court Ruling

I added the link and news of the finality of the court ruling.

--Florentino floro 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that it's the ruling party . . .

Now that the Liberal Party's the ruling party-elect in the executive branch, could we perhaps to make this entry look more like, say, the entry on the US Democratic Party in terms of content richness? See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States), especially the sections concerning "Ideology" and "Recent issue stances". With those specifics, who knows, maybe the page can help jumpstart an issue-based partisan politics in the Philippines henceforward! For how many more decades must we suffer living with Miriam Defensor-Santiagos who find it easy each year in their lives to jump from one ideology to an entirely new one, all because encyclopedias and their ilk refuse to define political parties by these specific ideological requisites? If Manny Villar led the way in the past hours' chain of concessions, the Liberals can lead the way in enumerating its specific stand on issues on this page, a tiny part though it may be in keeping itself safe from ideological contamination or bastardization from this point onwards, especially with its new members who jumped ship from Gloria Arroyo's lateen sail.--Warpotato (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hell, yeah! Bayanihan tayo to renovate this page into a Liberal history and information page, not the stub that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.147.231.48 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

question...

Hi, saan galing yun "Alliance of Liberal Youth"? Meron bang silang website? Di ba may "Kabataang Liberal ng Pilipinas"? TY

RNAlonto (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jose Avelino

Why isn't Jose Avelino mentioned in the list of past party presidents? Has it something to do with the fact that LP was split into the factions those days (Quirino wing and Avelino wing). Even on the LP page Avelino is mentioned as a former party president. I think it would be good, to clarify the issue in the article. Magalhães (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I added him. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs more info

Not enough info on what the group is about... what it stands for. What issues are they tackling? How do they differ in that way from the other political parties in the country?

Also... the language in the "history" section does not appear to be neutral and needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.57.235 (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Language is still well short of NPOV. Also, needs a lot more of the history between independence and opposition to Marcos in the 70s and 80s other than just the names of major party figures. (Like why the party was split into two wings during the late 40s and early 50s.) And I still don't care who is considered to be "redoubtable". 2600:1004:B11D:38DA:9898:1D6B:8DCE:D596 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Party is centrist not centre-left

I see no way in which the citation provided supports the idea the party is centre-left. Liberalism and social liberalism are almost always ideologies of centrist parties and I see no evidence to indicate the party is centre-left. I have twice attempted to change the ideology back from centre-left to centre but have twice been reverted by User:Shhhhwwww!!, without any good reason. Helper201 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's centre to centre-left. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you have provided a need citation. However this citation is over 25 years old. I mean that's clutching at straws to claim an ideology from that long ago is still relevant. It really needs recent support (within the last 5 years). Helper201 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Again, pending.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link of colors in Liberal Party (Philippines)

Yesterday, I added Buff color as the customary based on the articles of Nacionalista Party, CDU and EM. One bot noticed that it was disambiguation. I subsequently corrected that, which is now referred to Buff (color). Barcakes (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)