Template talk:Christian democracy sidebar

Re: changes by 69.6.103.107

While I would prefer for the CDI to call itself the "Christian Democrat International", they actually have begun to call themselves "Centrist Democrat International".

Also, Communitarianism and Conservatism are indeed proper links for this subject.

BTW, for a link to be included, the topic does not have to be a subset of CD, but just related to it.

   GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: changes by 202.124.150.247

Though I had to search them out, I think the new encyclical additions are on point, though I wonder if of critical importance. They do needs stubs at least. We don't want dead links on the template.

Regarding the Distributism link, while it does build on the same teachings, and involves the worker movement (also linked), no CD party that I know of advocates distributism, so I do question its inclusion. I'm not against it fully, but it does need some consensus discussion.

   GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 16:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can bring any proof that a CD party has advocated distributism or something resembling that, it would be good enough. Itake 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I will remove distributism until further evidence is presented. As template creator who included conservatism, I think I'll take that one off as well, because the point of overlap, social conservatism, is also included.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

European Christian Political Movement

Discussion continued from: Talk:Christian Democracy#European Christian Political Movement?

Well, from my looking at the website, the agenda seems to be nothing but elections, and the membership is mostly political parties. A group doesn't have to be members of EU parliament to be actively progressing Christian Democracy.

Members All the members seem to be political parties.

• Armenia: Christian People's Unity of Armenia (CPUA)
• Belgium: C’axent
• ____ Christian-democrats French-speaking (CDF)
• Bulgaria: Bulgarian Christian Coalition (BCC)
• Estonia: Estonian Christian Democrats (EKD)
• Germany: Party of Bible-faithful Christians (PBC)
• ____ Zentrumspartei
• Latvia: Christian-Democratic Union (KDS)
• Lithuania: Lithuanian Christian Democrats (LKD)
• Moldova: Christian Democratic People´s Party (PPCD)
• Netherlands: ChristianUnion

Associates Includes several movement organizations and a non-EU CD party.

• African Christian Democratic Party (South-Africa)

What makes this organization less worthy of a link?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be a social issues focus to the ECPM, but that is progressing CD, not a particularly religious focus. In fact, they don't have a denominational requirement.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Point proven I guess. Itake 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Added pic of CD propaganda posters

Many of the political templates have symbols for identification purposes. I added this image on this template for this purpose. It is a fair use image, which allows use "for identification and critical commentary on ... the political movement it represents". In this template it is used thumbnail-sized for identification purposes (and a commentary of sorts).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Berlusconi

Berlusconi is not a CD. Neither is Forza Italia a CD party. Itake 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

They claim to be (see Forza Italia#Party Ideology and Factions). Many of their members were part of the defunct DC party. And, in 1999 they became a member of the European People's Party, a CD regional.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

They claim to be "it is a liberal party although not an elistist one, indeed a popular liberal-democratic party; it is a Catholic party although not a confessional one; it is a secular party, although not an intolerant and secularist one; it is a national party, although not a centralist one". I'd say its a populist party, nothing else. Itake 14:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many ideas

I am concerned that the 'ideas' section of this template has grown too big. It seems to be a general problem of most political templates. I propose the following two universal guidelines to determine what ideas should be linked on the template of a specific ideology:

1. The ideas must be shared by all, or at least a majority of, the adherents of that ideology. (and to remove all possibility of confusion, the sole arbiter of whether a person truly supports something is that person itself - thus there should be no claims of the form "but person X doesn't really support idea Y")
2. The ideas must be relatively uncommon outside the given ideology. In other words, please do not include things that are supported by just about everyone, like "freedom".

In the case of this template, the 'ideas' section should include ideas that are common within CD and uncommon outside it. Right now it does not meet the criteria because it includes many ideas that are shared by many people who are not CD: Solidarity, Subsidiarity, Federalism, Freedom, Social Justice and Sustainability. I will remove those 6 links, pending your comments. -- Nikodemos 02:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You say all those things are "core values of CD". Yet they are also core values of most other political ideologies. Thus, the principle of fairness gives us two choices: they should either be included on all political templates, or none of them.

You might be tempted to say that they should simply be placed on all templates, but that leads to practical problems. If an article is on 4 templates, for instance, it will be very difficult to place all those templates on that article.

Case in point: Why should the CD template be the only one on the social solidarity article, when social solidarity is supported by CD, social democracy, socialism, anarchism and many other ideologies? -- Nikodemos 03:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How CD is Merkel anyway?/Persons of the Template

from the Christian Democracy Talk Currently, Angela Merkel is listed as a "famous Christian Democrat" in this article and also as an "important figure" in the CD template. But what did she do to merit this distinction? Did she support any particularly CD policy? -- Nikodemos 04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the point is somewhat bigger though. I've looked at the Liberalism, Green Politcs and Socialism templates but no people at all are mentioned there, just ideas. 18 people are mentioned on this template differing in importance and notablity.

• Aquinas: medieval philosopher, very influential for catholic (political) thought
• Leo XIII: pope, very influential for catholic social though
• Kuyper: prime-minister of the Netherlands, founder of neo-calvinism, very influential for Dutch political protestantism, but limited influence outside of the Netherlands
• Pius XI: pope, expanded Leo XIII's teachings
• Gilson: French Philosopher, influential in the rival of catholic thought
• Maritain: French Philosopher, influential in the rival of catholic thought
• Mounier: French Philosopher, influential for personalism
• Day: American Anarchist-Catholic
• Adenauer: Prime Minister of Germany, very influential in post-war Europe
• De Gasperi: Prime Minister of Italy, very influential in post-war Europe
• Schuman: Prime Minister of France, very influential in post-war Europe
• Frei: Prime Minister of Chile, very influential in Chile, but limited influence outside of Chile
• John Paul II: pope, very influential in Cold War Europe
• Strauss: Prime Minister of Bavaria, very influential in Germany, but limited influence outside of Germany
• Kohl: Prime Minister of Germany, very influential in Cold War Europe
• Ramos: President of the Phillipines, very influential in Phillipines, but limited influence outside of Phillipines
• Fox: President of the Mexico, influence to be seen
• Merkel: Prime Minister of Germany, influence to be seen

Philosophers, politicians, popes. What is the coherence in this list? Three 20th century French Catholic Philosophers, only two protestants (at all). Is this list balanced? I think we have to choices. Remove all the persons from the list. Or limiting it to max. 9 really influential people, like Thomas, Leo XIII. C mon 09:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

One possible rule would be to list only those people who created each of the ideas in the 'Ideas' section. -- Nikodemos 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all the figures, seeing there is little support for them. --C mon 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am restoring most of the names. I'm sorry, I haven't been keeping up with the discussion page here. But, the coherence is that each of the figures is (or should be) influential in Christian Democracy as a political ideology, international political force, or strong local political example. To that end both thinkers and politicians belong on the same list. I, a conservative evangelical Protestant, created this list which is largely dominated by Roman Catholics. This is largely because most of the politicians advocating CD have been Catholics, not because I wish to promote Roman Catholicism.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that figures at all need to be included, but in a step towards compromise, I propose we choose max. nine that have been very influential for CD thought and/or politics. Examples will always end up being arbitary.

My proposal:

• Aquinas
• Leo XIII
• Adenauer
• De Gasperi
• Schuman
• John Paul II
• Kohl

or something of the sort, BTW to avoid missing discussions be sure to watch pages you have created/feel strongly about, you can use the watch page option (next to move) when you're logged on. --C mon 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My proposal (if limited to nine):

• Leo XIII · Kuyper · Maritain
• Adenauer · De Gasperi · Schuman
• Frei · John Paul II · Kohl

   GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would actually like to bump it up to 11, and include Aquinas and Calvin.

• Aquinas · Calvin
• Leo XIII · Kuyper · Maritain
• Adenauer · De Gasperi · Schuman
• Frei · John Paul II · Kohl

   GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Calvin is a good idea indeed, but I don't see Frei and I think there might be to many post-war European politicians (adenauer de gasperi & schuman. Could you settle for Aquinas, Calvin, Leo XIII, Kuyper, Schuman Maritain, John Paul II & Kohl? --C mon 07:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see somebody added Romano Prodi. Hmm. I think Guðsþegn's 11 is reasonable. – Kaihsu 13:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In defense of the eleven:

• Aquinas and Calvin, because these are the twin root philosophers/theologians of Christian Democracy, both Catholic (Thomism) and Evangelical (Calvinism)
• Leo XIII and Kuyper, because these are the true founding fathers of Christian Democracy, again both Catholic and Evangelical
• Maritain, because he is considered instrumental in progressing CD thought (esp. the Catholic strain); so much that Notre Dame has a "Maritain Center"
• Adenauer, De Gasperi, and Schuman, because these are great Christian Democrats and the political founding fathers of modern Europe, together founding what would become the European Union
• Frei, because as far as I can tell, he is the most respected CD leader from Latin America; so much that the CDA in the Netherlands named its think tank the "Frei Institute" (instead of Kuyper Institute, believe it or not)
• John Paul II, because he has been instrumental in progressing CD thought in the post-war period, up to today, esp. through his Centesimus Annus encyclical
• Kohl, because as far as I can tell, he is the most influential CD leader in Europe since the post-war fathers

   GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

English link of CDA Frei Foindation    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see most but not Frei (the CDA institute named after Frei is its development cooperation institute, oriented towards the global south, the main thinktank is called "the Scientific Institute" - Wetenschappelijk Instituut), because of his limited importance outside of Chili; and the three "founding fathers" of Europe, I think that Schuman in this case is your man, because his plan (the Schuman Plan) was the main initiative for European Union. I'll settle for the following eight: Aquinas, Calvin, Leo, Kuyper, Maritain, Schuman, John Paul and Kohl. -- C mon 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Prodi for now. He had been quite promiscuous (in lieu of a better word) in ideological associations. – Kaihsu 13:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake not to include a Latin American CD leader. However, towards compromise: How 'bout my eleven minus Frei? That's just 10 (just one more than your original suggestion). I think it's a mistake not to include Adenauer and De Gasperi, the other two founding fathers of Europe. What do you think Kaihsu?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed per last post (awaiting further discussion).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 01:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! – Kaihsu 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would still prefer one 1950s Eurofederalist, and not three (Pick Monnet!) because we are repeating the same person but only from different countries. --C mon 19:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideas

What is the ideas section based on. For the template:Greens it is based on the Global Green Charter. What about this one? The Dutch Christian Democrats for instance have four key values ([see here (in dutch)]). Justice, Spread Responsibility (Subsidiarity + Sphere Sovereignty), Solidarity and Stewardship. What about the ideas included here where did they come from? --C mon 19:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I pointed out above, the ideas section should not include concepts that are so broad that everyone agrees with them - or at least everyone says they agree with them. I'm referring to concepts such as freedom, justice and solidarity. Is there any political ideology that opposes "justice"? Of course not. The Ideas section should only contain ideas that are specifically CD, such as Personalism, or at least ideas that are not shared by the opponents of CD (such as social conservatism). -- Nikodemos 16:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The link in the template is to social justice ("justice" is used for short, for the sake of the template). Conservatives don't really believe in social justice, but CDers do. So, not everyone agrees. If particular concepts are emphasized, even if commonly shared, they should be included; because, if for no other reason, the specific mixture of concepts will be different from other ideologies when considered in totality. If you remove any particular concept, it spoils the understanding of the mixture. Most people say they believe in human dignity. Should it be removed? For CD it is the concept that unifies the ideology. Would you remove the central concept? NO.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to remove any ideas (yet) I just wanted to know what you based the section on, did you think it up yourself, did you base it on a list of an international organization, or one party? --C mon 08:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Consistency of templates?

I thought we should revitalize some of the discussion here. Over in template talk:Social democracy, C mon proposed that we use some sort of common standard for the SD, CD and liberalism templates, for the sake of consistency and neutrality. He also proposed that we based the standard on the liberalism template, because it is the oldest and arguably has the most well-developed articles. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Some problems with using the Liberalism template as a model for CD: (1) CD doesn't have readily definable "schools of thought", (2) Wikipedia doesn't have articles for the "development" and "variants" categories in regard to CD, (3) the Liberalism template has no spot for important people and important documents, both of which are quite significant to CD. --    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Small or large

I personally prefer templates without "show" buttons. That's why I rollbacked the edit of C mon. --Checco (talk) 19:37, 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. I was hoping we could debate this beyond our personal preferences, but on arguments.

- C mon (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageble. --Checco (talk) 08:55, 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) 23:03, 11 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) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Luigi Sturzo

Should Luigi Sturzo be included in the list of important people. I removed his name recently added. I hadn't even heard of him, but that could just be my ignorance. He seems to be a founder of Italian People's Party (1919). Should he be considered important for CD in general? -- Guðsþegn (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Orange

why is the colour orange used here so prominently? I don't think that this colour is either traditionally associated with Christian democratic parties nor is it nowadays used by most of them (more or less restricted to Germany, Belgium and Switzerland, I'd say).93.104.62.255 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Eamon de Valera

Surely he does not belong here? He was not a thinker in any sense of the word; his achievement seems to be to have been head of government for 16 years in a Catholic country. All the same Fine Gael have the reputation for being a Christian Democratic party (including membership of the EPP) while Fianna Fail are a catch all party with no real ideological roots. It is instructive Bertie Ahern called himself the last socialist in Ireland when Rerum Novarum specifically condemns socialism, and no other ideology. 88.104.144.108 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of custom colors

I've removed the use of custom colors from Template:Christian Democracy, as I have also done with the navboxes for Nazism, Neo-Nazism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Liberalism, Communism, and other ideologies. None of these color schemes serve any encyclopedic purpose, and are solely decoration for the sake of decoration. -- The Anome (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of minor parties

Two extremely small parties, receiving only a few thousand votes in national elections, have been added by @Archives908 to the template. I removed them, but he readded them. They do not deserve representation for the simple reason that they are tiny and unsuccessful. Anyone else is free to remove them again. If there is a more successful CD party in Armenian history, I advise @Archives908 to add that one instead. Trakking (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained my rationale for keeping a few smaller parties. Cyprus, Lichtenstein, and Luxembourg are all smaller in population than Armenia. Their parties may not be WP:N enough to warrant inclusion either, but they are indeed included. There is no wikipolicy or established inclusion criteria which outright forbids the inclusion of parties based on their size, membership, or electoral results from templates. Being a "smaller party" is not a valid reason for removal. Per WP:NPOV guidelines, we ought to highlight a wide array of diverse parties. Currently, the listed examples are mostly from Western Europe, directly violating this policy. Further, you alone do not WP:OWN this template and inclusion should be based on policy, not your personal preference. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The CD parties for those three nations are both large and successful in comparison to the fringe Armenian parties. For example, an article on the Democratic Rally of Cyprus is available in 35 languages, while the Christian Democratic Union of Armenia is only available in English and the Christian-Democratic Rebirth Party only in three languages. And the Christian Social People's Party has been the largest party in Luxembourg for 80 years. Most parties in the list are Western for the simple reason that CD is primarily a Western ideology, but prominent examples from other continents are also represented, such as the Kataeb Party of Lebanon and the National Action Party of Mexico. You should stop pushing for including fringe parties in this template, because there is no room for it. Trakking (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Please point to the precise Wiki policy which outright bans "minor" parties from inclusion in politics-related templates. There is no guideline that explicitly states a template must have links which have articles on other wikis to warrant inclusion on templates on Eng wiki. There are other dubious articles linked to this template which also may not meet WP:N guidelines, some only receiving just a handful of daily views. But, alas, they are included. The point is, the template should highlight a variety of examples on this topic- whether they are "popular" or "not as popular". Per WP:WEIGHT- pages should have fair representation. We certainly do not need to list dozens and dozens of more minor parties, but a few would help diversify the examples from just Western European ones. Christian Democracy may have had its origin in Western Europe, but it is no longer just a Western European political ideology and this template must better reflect that fact. Archives908 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The principle of diverse representation is not superior to the principle of notability. However, I have two proposals for you: either 1) find a more successful CD party in Armenia and add it instead, or 2) we make a compromise and remove the lesser known party (Christian Democratic Union of Armenia) and keep the other one (Christian-Democratic Rebirth Party) despite its obscurity in relation to the other prominent parties. After all, Armenia is the most Christian nation on earth, and it would be nice to see it represented in this template. Trakking (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

And that was precisely my point, highlighting a few examples from other regions of the world isn't a bad thing. It reflects that CD isn't solely a "European/Western phenomena". That's fair, we could remove Christian Democratic Union of Armenia and replace it with National Christian Party (Armenia), which does currently maintain political representation at the municipal level. The Christian-Democratic Rebirth Party, just announced a coalition with 3 other parties to take on the gov't as an oppositional force in the upcoming national elections, so there will be more WP:N to come. I'm also not opposed if you want to add maybe 1 or 2 more examples, perhaps from South America, Oceania, or Africa? I won't push hard on this however, because, I too hate overly cluttered templates. So, I will leave that up to you to decide. Thoughts? Archives908 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We could replace CDUA with NCP, if you want, but one party is enough to represent Armenia, so we would have to remove CDRP. I will go ahead and add another Latin American party to the list. Trakking (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps CDRP should remain, since it will garner more attention in the coming months. Archives908 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding a politician

I was wondering how to add a politician, (Alf Svensson) to the template. Thank you for the help in advance.

Good day. BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)