Talk:Free Democratic Party (Germany)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: Political parties Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Libertarianism Mid‑importance

This article contains a translation of Freie Demokratische Partei from de.wikipedia.

I've re-written sections of this article and re-arranged it. I think it would be useful to expand the early history/origins of the FDP in this article. As it stands now, the article seems to imply that the party miraculously emerged for roll of creating majority governments. --

Can someone with better knowledge have a go at clarifying the 2005 federal election section. It currently reads as though a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition was unviable because of social issues and the CDU/CSU weakness. My recollection is that these parties were all prepared to form a coalition but the problem was the creation of the Left Party and absorption of fringe votes meant that it qualified for top-up seats and put a fifth element into the Bundestag that meant both normal coalitions lacked a majority. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone also add a paragraph about the attempt of a Nazi overthrow of the young federal Republic in the 50s by former Nazi-party members who had undermined the FDP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.114.3 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the intro paragraph to the History using the german version of this page so it would be less google-translate-ridden, but although I know very little about the topic itself I'm pretty sure the information is just wrong. Seltsameseeds (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on flat tax reads like party propaganda, it's not even remotely neutral and there is no citation

I originally changed the ideology section to remove [Right Wing] and replace it with [Libertarianism] because I thought that more accurately reflected where the FDP really sits on the political spectrum. While I understand the desire to simplify the whole listing to [Liberal], I don't think that explains things well enough, nor does it help to differentiate the FDP from the SPD. I think including [Conservative Liberalism], [Libertarianism] and other qualifiers helps to better explain the positions of the party.Nsfreeman 06:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the FDP is not a libertarian party. The FDP is a liberal party and was correctly associated with the three previously named ideologies, including

right-wing, as you can see by reading the right-wing article it also includes certain forms of liberalism, which the FDP has adopted since ca. 1984 (Freiburger Beschluesse). Poeloq 13:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Libertarianism is a pretty exclusively American phenomenon, which should not be used to describe European liberal parties.

john k 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Not necessarily exclusive to the US, but more predominant there. However, libertarian parties do exist in Europe and other parts of the world, however the FDP is not such a party! Poeloq 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much more predominant in the US. Obviously, continental liberals share some similarities with libertarians, but the two are quite distinct, and should not be confused.

john k 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

However, it is not an American thing, as is easily seen by studying its roots, i.e. for example

Mises. Still, I think we can conclude that the term libertarian is not right for the FDP. Poeloq 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Here are citations for the FDP representing libertarian viewpoints:
From Political Compass: The Free Democrats, like the US Libertarian Party, advocated certain social freedoms while remaining focused on the freedom that actually matters to them - the free market.
From The New Republic: The Greens biggest competitor, in fact, was Germany's longtime third party, the libertarian, pro-business FDP
From Teachersparadise.com: liberal/libertarian
Even if all of this is incorrect and the FDP does not represent Libertarian viewpoints anymore, historically, they do. From "The Libertarian Forum," Nov. 15, 1969: The FDP's policies have been characterized as the traditions of libertarianism and economic neo-liberalism.Nsfreeman 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one would dispute that the FDP has certain similarities to American Libertarians. Certainly when writing for an American audience, as the New Republic is doing, american Libertarians are probably closest to the FDP today. But the New Republic is not an expert on German political ideology, and the party does not describe itself as libertarian. It has affinities with libertarianism without being libertarian. You have also quoted a wikipedia mirror (teacher's paradise) as a potential source for wikipedia, which is very lame. And of course an explicitly libertarian organization (the Mises site) is going to claim as much as it can for libertarianism. The basic fact is that the FDP does not describe itself as libertarian, and that its form of liberalism, while having much in common with libertarianism, also has significant differences. The libertarian attempt to claim the entire legacy of classical liberalism for itself must be resisted. (Among other things, libertarianism is dogmatic where liberalism is pragmatic - even when the two come to similar conclusions, it is usually not for the same reasons.)

john k 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for giving us some sources for your claim. Still, you may be correct that the FDP historically could be seen as libertarian, however it has not been so for many years (25+ at least). Part of there logo used to be "Die Liberalen", "The Liberals". Liberals and Libertarians would not use the two terms interchangeably, ever. I myself have been a member of the FDP for more than 5 years, so I do have some knowledge on what it is all about;) Poeloq 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally apologize for the teacher's paradise reference. I did not notice that it was a wikipedia mirror. My mistake. I also see the validity in many of the points made above but there still has not been a response to the Political Compass reference. They are a UK organization whose sole purpose is to identify where individuals and parties fit on the political spectrum and they call the FDP libertarian. Moreover,to argue that because a party doesn't refer to itself as something, it can't be that thing seems troublesome at best. Every totalitarian calls himself a democrat but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call him a totalitarian. Obviously this is less extreme, but if an objective source like Political Compass says that the FDP fits the Libertarian mold, shouldn't we at least list it along with the other descriptions? I have no problem with keeping the other terms up, it just seems to me that libertarian should be included.Nsfreeman 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we have one source left to deal with: The Political Compass. It does not call the FDP libertarian at all. Take a look at the diagram: the FDP lies above the middle line, downwards being libertarian. The description only states a similarity in some points with the US Libertarian party. Poeloq 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they're as close to libertarian as any party on their specturm gets. If you require that a party be in the bottom right corner to be considered libertarian then you'd have to remove the word libertarian from the ideology of every libertarian party in the world. By that logic, we should require that for the american Democratic party to be listed as liberal they be on in the bottom left corner. We'd have to remove the word liberal from the FDP, too, for that matter. Nsfreeman 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberalism (especially German neoliberalism) has nothing to do with libertarianism. Intangible2.0 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, would it be fair to say that maybe the FDP falls more in the realm of [Classical Liberalism]?Nsfreeman 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FDP does also not fall into the realm of classical liberalism, as it incorporates many elements of social liberalism. In this case conservative liberalism may not be 100% true, but the most accurate as well as economic liberalism. Nsfreeman: To be honest, I don't think this discussion is going to turn to your favor! How about the just leave it as it is? It describes the FDP in the most accurate way...Poeloq 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Political Compass is not an impartial site, and it is not an authority on anything. It is a site created by unknown authors of unknown credentials (the only credits i can find are that it is by "Pace News Limited", of which I can find nothing on the web save the reference to it as the creator of the Political Compass site), and it is specifically trying to create a new paradigm as to how political ideology is to be conceived. That particular paradigm, by the way, is one that is not really very much more useful than the standard left-right spectrum, and that, furthermore, advances a libertarian POV. The site is basically subtle libertarian propaganda. To summarize, Political Compass is a) not impartial; and b) not actually a reliable source by any measure. Even if we ignore that, there is nothing in the quotation which says that the FDP is a libertarian party, just that they share certain ideas with libertarians, which I don't think anyone would dispute. But I really don't see how the Political Compass is any kind of authority on anything.

john k 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The party is not conservative liberal. This is the only liberal party in Germany. Intangible2.0 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a mildly libertarian party - I have yet to hear them calling for the privatization of the Autobahns. By American standards, it's center-right economically (but with perhaps more willingness to continue social benefits than all but the most leftish of US Democrats who actually manage to get elected to Congress) and socially quite liberal (Guido Westerwelle as a prime example - the US Democratic Party would not dream of placing an openly gay man with a partner in charge of the party!) Texmandie 09:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal has a different meaning in the USA that outside the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.237.159 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be classified as a liberal party since they are members of

European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. Anything else is a POV and not worthy of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELDR1985 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

So - to sum everything up that has been said: Can the FDP be called "center-right" (as they are currently) in good conscience? (Especially since the Political Compass's definition of left/right obviously jars with the traditional perception of left vs. right) -- megA (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes; they are a party that advocates economically right-wing policies, and are on the centre-right within the German political spectrum, being the default coalition partners for the conservative CDU.--Autospark (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might have been true in the 90es, but a lot has happened since then. (I wouldn't take the Political Compass into account, since their views and definitions are in no way established consensus.) The FDP are not the CSU, who indeed ARE the default coalition partner of the CDU. There are and have been many coalitions involving FDP/SPD or CDU/SPD coalitions without the FDP. Their views differ from the conservative views of the CDU. In many aspects, they are rather on the left side from the CDU. Associating them with the (according to

this wikipedia article) "center-right" Austrian FPÖ (Freedom Party) is taking it too far, IMO. I think we need to differentiate them from CDU and CSU. -- megA (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

"Conservative Liberalism" is wrong. Especially in Questions relating to the society the FDP is very liberal, and the last conservative party! No conservative party would elect a homosexual politician to their own chairman with more than 98%! The FDP is liberal in econimic questions, no doubt. There is a quite good article about conservative liberalism - and theres a definition:

"Firstly, they are usually socially liberal on such social issues as same-sex marriage, abortion, secularism, stem-cell research, and euthanasia but may place less emphasis on them than do most social liberals" <- The FDP is on that point 100 % social liberal. The have a gay chairman how's elected with 98 % on the last Bundesparteitag!

"Secondly, they are mostly strong supporters of economic globalization. Most conservative liberals support the foreign policy of the United States and, in NATO-member states, support that political alliance" <- Yes, but I wonder if that really differs from "normal" liberalism.

"Thirdly, conservative liberals are often in favor of stricter punishment of illegal immigrants and are usually tolerant of multiculturalism. Conservative liberals often identify as law and order-parties, which are tougher on crime and support higher levels of punishment and are more committed to fighting terrorism, while social liberals tend to emphasize prevention and are more committed to civil rights." Actually the civil rights are a holy cow for the FDP! As you see, Conservative Liberalism does not fit with the FDP!

On that point Germany differs from the most other european Countries: There does really just one liberal party exist. A really european conservative-liberal party is e.g. venstre in Denmark. By the way: in the article "Conservative Liberalism" Germany isn't listed at all, and I think that's right. So please change it in this article. -- Finnjack (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "sacred cow". "Holy cow" is usually reserved as an interjection meaning "I'm surprised!".

Anyway, what really matters is what the sources say. Der Spiegel and DW both say the party is "pro-business". That should settle it, since these are major, respected German media describing the party for English speakers.Bdell555 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberal heißt im liberalen Sinne nicht nur liberal..." ("Liberal doesn't just mean liberal in the liberal sense") FDP politician's repeated line in a political discussion sketch by

The only time that I wondered whether the FDP was actually libertarian was after the 2008 financial meltdown when they proclaimed that its cause had not been the economic liberalism in the US but rather the lack thereof. This was surprising, especially since before they had always said that they did not want to mimic the social system of the US (no amerikanische Verhältnisse). But I think they just panicked; I've never heard such an extreme point of view from them since then (though still their fair share of market theology). --Mudd1 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has recently been controversial. However, it is problematic to word it this way as it is unclear how "a government" is defined. Does it go per cabinet (which seemes to be Mogelzahn's view)? Or per legislature? Or by coaltion (which seems to be the IP's view)? Things are further complicated by short-term departures of the FDP from the cabinet during the Spiegel Affaire and in 1982. Therefore I suggest replacing the ambiguous calculation by "governments" by a calculation by years, which also avoids treating short-term "governments" equally with longer-lasting ones. My calculation goes like this:

• CDU/CSU/FDP/DP coalition (Chancellor Adenauer): 1949-1956 = 7 years
• CDU/CSU/FDP coalition (Chancellors Adenauer and Erhard): 1961-1966 = 5 years
• SPD/FDP coalition (Chancellors Brandt and Schmidt): 1969-1982 = 13 years
• CDU/CSU/FDP coalition (Chancellor Kohl): 1982-1998 = 16 years

which summs up to 41 years. I'll change the passage to that effect. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Free Democratic Party (FDP) the analog of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in the UK? Does it make sense to include comparative information in the article itself, or should a separate article ("Comparison of European parties") be created? 99.41.104.179 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you mean by 'analog'. If you mean, like the Liberal Democrats the FDP it is the main self-described "liberal" party in its own nation then yes. They are also in the same Europarty (ELDR) and European parliamentary group (ALDE). Ideologically however they are not similar. The Liberal Democrats, being a fusion of the Social Democratic Party with the historical Liberal Party have been most of their existence been pretty much a centre-left or centrist party and generally follow the ideology of social liberalism. The FDP however is much to the right of the Liberal Democrats, particularly on economic issues, and thus fiscally are more ideologically analogous with the British Conservative party. (I'd argue that describing the FDP as a party of conservative liberalism is pretty much accurate.) --Autospark (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Economist magazine, Sept 17 2009:

"the FDP is not only the most pro-business of the parties but also the most pro-American. It has also been the boldest in suggesting tax and welfare reforms. For all these reasons, if this newspaper had a vote in Germany's election, it would cast it for the FDP"Bdell555 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003, FDP chief Guido Westerwelle said that trade unions are a "plague on our country" and described union bosses as "the pall-bearers of the welfare state and of the prosperity in our country."Bdell555 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following from the introductory section: "The party's motto is: Wer mehr weniger als 100.000 Euro verdient und FDP wählt, ist dumm, wer mehr verdient und FDP wählt, unmoralisch." Translated it means: "Whoever earns less than 100.000 Euros per year and votes for the FDP, is dumb, and whoever earns more and votes for the FDP is immoral". This quote implies that the FDP's opponents attack the FDP with their allegation that the FDP doesn't place any value on social justice, which is a factual error.

The political position of the party in the infobox needs a citation. I remembered reading the article in Der Spiegel after the election where they had a chart demonstrating the number of seats each party has. FDP was in the right-wing bloc, along with CDU/CSU, but was immediately right of the border (center). I tried to find this online but the closest I found was this, which includes it in a pie chart on the right side (here, they are to the right of CDU). This chart is probably in order of economic policies. Anyway, liberal parties have long been hard to place on a basic political spectrum, but it does seem that the party is considered to be among right-of-center parites in Germany. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The placement in the Bundestag is purely for traditional reasons. The (leftist) Green party, for example, sits to the right of the Social Democrats, (contrary to the link you posted) because the SPD in the 1980s claimed "nobody is more left than we are". In the meanwhile, the SPD has shifted to center, basically "overtaking" the Green party, which has followed later, in the 2000s. For the same reasons, the FDP was placed on the right side in 1949, because it was considered right-of-center, and when the FDP allied with SPD, and adopted "leftist" ideas later on, neither CDU nor FDP wanted to swap places.

The FDP was initially considered as more right-wing than CDU/CSU. They were more firmly capitalist than Christian Democrats, some of whom toyed with the idea of Christian Socialism; also, the FDP was more critical of de-nazification than the Union parties. This changed in the 1960s, when the social liberal wing took over in the FDP.

Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The logo in the infobox is outdated. The actual logo can be seen in German Wikipedia. Please update. -- Felix König ✉ 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the party classed as classical liberal? I find that very off, considering the mentions of internationalism and civil rights. Classical liberalism implies isolationism as well as gov't non-intervention on civil rights. Civil liberties are different. The FDP is very much not classical liberal. 68.227.163.169 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you're getting 'civil rights'. The article explicitly states 'civil liberties', as is the party's principle, and states that the party rejects egalitarianism. '

Bastin

14:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose rewriting the section on Europe. In the last couple of weeks and months, a new internal movement developed in the FDP: The Liberaler Aufbruch. It claims that the FDP is not a classical-liberal party. The goal of the Liberaler Aufbruch is to promote classical liberalism inside the FDP.

They are oppposed to the development of EU into a centralized government. They want to go back to the Treaty of Rome.

I think, this wing of the FDP is best described as soft-eurosceptic.

Source: http://www.liberaler-aufbruch.net/europa.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.198.7 (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a reference to a soft eurosceptic

Bastin

09:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Poll is missing. 2.210.43.153 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does one translate proper names into another language?--78.42.129.158 (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I realize that all German parties have articles where the party name has been (badly) translated. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For political parties, kings, popes, etc. this has long been the practice in English. It is also not unusual in German: the FAZ talks of "Großbritanniens Konservative Partei", Obama's "Demokratische Partei", etc. and writes "Cameron muss mit den Liberaldemokraten unter Clegg zusammenarbeiten". So what is the problem?--Boson (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that "Wilhelm Külz" was also translated. I presume this was done by Google Translate. --Boson (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there isn't more on this. going from 93 seats to none was a major event--both for the FDP and German politics as a whole. (29 May 2014)

I tried to put more information in the info-box, which I took from the German page.

All of the new information occurs in the source, but unfortunately only some occur in the visible info-box while some old information does not appear visible any longer. May someone try to fix it?

The order of information as seen in the source is correct, this shall be transferred in the visible info-box.

Thanks! --Johannnes89 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120925021313/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 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. —

I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/documents/wp51.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 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.—

I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705072802/http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/europawahlen/EU_BUND_14/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/ to http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/europawahlen/EU_BUND_14/ergebnisse/bundesergebnisse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 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) 07:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150903224113/http://www.freiheit.org/files/288/1948_Heppenheimer_Proklamation.pdf to http://www.freiheit.org/files/288/1948_Heppenheimer_Proklamation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 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) 09:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Democratic Party (Germany). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925082144/http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/nach-der-wahl-in-bremen-eine-rundum-ratlose-kanzlerin-1688143-infographic.html to http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/nach-der-wahl-in-bremen-eine-rundum-ratlose-kanzlerin-1688143-infographic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 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) 13:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section titled "1969–82: Social changes and crises" is nearly incomprehensible in places. It reads like a machine translation from German that hasn't been corrected by anyone who can communicate in English. For example, this sentence is impenetrable: "After the federal party congress in Bonn, just a week later supported the policy of the party leadership and Scheel had confirmed in office, founded by Siegfried party rights Zoglmann 11 July 1970 a "non-partisan" organization called the National-Liberal action on the Hohensyburgstraße - to fall with the goal of ending the left-liberal course of the party and Scheel. However, this was not." What?! What in the world does this even mean?! It isn't English. It's gobbledygook that contains English words jammed together in no coherent fashion.

DonaldMWright (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely correct, and it is not the only section with impenetrable false translations, apparently from German, which garble the sentence structure and thus the meaning.

Yet, although your comment is over 5 years old, no one has bothered to correct the problems here. I am not planning on tackling it, but I certainly wish someone would. Actio (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ThecentreCZ: Please provide a source for the purported use of your "flag" by the FDP. How is it even possible to use a gif as a flag? Is the flag in real life covered with LEDs that constantly change their colours? --RJFF (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autospark, is it really necessary to list both "liberalism" and "classical liberalism"? It seems redundant to me, especially because it's clear that the FDP is, and has always been, predominantly classical-liberal.^[1] Ezhao02 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it hurts to leave 'generic' liberalism prominently in the Infobox and lede for now, particularly as "liberal" in the broadest sense is a common description for the party in sourced material. (Also, while "classical liberal" is widely sourced and should definitely be included, it seems more of an Anglocentric term which could be problematic for an international wiki. I would prefer to wait for more editors to provide their opinions on this matter.)--Autospark (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Yeah, let's wait for more editors to provide their opinions. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the FDP covers different variants of liberalism, social liberalism as well as conservative or national liberalism, but classical liberalism is the predominant tendency. I agree that "...is a liberal and classical-liberal political party..." is a somewhat awkward wording. How abot replacing "and" by "especially", "particularly" or "mainly"? --RJFF (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution, I guess! My main issue with solely using classical-liberal is that it's mostly an Anglo-centric term – what would be called "classical-liberal" by a British person would be called simply "liberal" to a French or German person (rough example). Personally, I prefer to describe the FDP as a classical and conservative liberal party, as that emphasises its nature as a party on the centre-right of the political spectrum. However, I realise that some here may disagree with me on that.--Autospark (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, RJFF! Maybe it would be best to only say "liberal" in the first sentence and begin the next sentence with "Predominantly classical-liberal,…"

Autospark, I think the same problem applies for Americans like me, but in the other direction. We tend to view "liberal" as meaning "social-liberal"; we just don't really think about classical liberalism at all. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, and very good point! It's the same in Britain, where "liberal" almost always means social-liberal, due to the British Liberal and LibDem parties being ideologically slanted to the centre-left.--Autospark (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the issue at stake here. Basically, some people will misinterpret the word "liberalism"; others won't understand what "classical liberalism" is. Thus, we maintain both to make sure people understand. Thanks for the help! Ezhao02 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about the possible solutions here. At first, I thought that we could have the first sentence only mention liberal and change the second sentence of the third paragraph to say, "Predominantly classical-liberal, the party is traditionally considered centrist or centre-right." However, I feel like we should mention "classical-liberal" a bit earlier. Any thoughts? Ezhao02 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideology : Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Pro-Europeanism
• Political position : Centre to Centre-right

The ideology and political position of the FPD has long been maintained by this. I think this should be maintained. Even if FPD is more economically liberal than CDU, it is socially close to SPD. Moreover, it is absolutely undeniable that the FPD is a liberal party, both economically and culturally, and that it is located in the 'Centre' in that it does not belong to the main two parties and is in a casting board position between the two parties. 2001:2D8:957:F02E:CC41:A97F:970D:8BFC (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also opposed to writing down any ideology other than "liberalism" and "classical liberalism" in the infobox. "Economic liberalism" overlaps with classical liberalism. The FPD also has a stronger cultural liberal tendency than the usual European "conservative liberal(ism)" parties.2001:2D8:957:F02E:CC41:A97F:970D:8BFC (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish L is arguably more progressive than FDP, for example in 2017 they ran on a quite right-wing platform when it came to migration Braganza (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]