` ::Examples include: liberal, conservative, radical, reactionary, or progressive. ::But you overlooked, at least for our purposes here, a most salient characterization...neutral. ::The essential problem is that liberal has different meanings across... ::Appropriate fare for Liberalism, but not for this article. ::...it violates WP:NPOV. ::If RS sourcing indicating that ``liberal``, as applied to MMfA, is a notably disputed characterization not reflected in the current content, you might have a point. However, even if that were to be the case, if there is adequate RS sourcing supporting notability in the use of ``liberal``, attribution/qualification of the term with inclusion of the missing content would be the NPOV resolution, not deletion of the subject of the dispute. ::Perhaps a not exact but similar example from another perspective might be helpful. The article on Jerome Corsi currently labels him as an unqualified ``conspiracy theorist``...in Wikipedia's voice. Mr. Corsi, almost assuredly, would blanche at that characterization were he to address it (he hasn't, at least that I'm aware of) and it is certainly not one that is applied to him by anyone that might even remotely be characterized as ``supportive``. Contextually speaking and IMHO, ``conspiracy theorist`` is a highly pejorative characterization BUT an argument cannot be made under NPOV since the characterization is clearly WP:V & WP:RS. What CAN (and should) be done is to appropriately qualify and/or attribute the term so that it reflects the term as an opinion and not as a universally held fact. The case is similar here and ``...often characterized as 'liberal'`` satisfies, IMHO, WP:NPOV.   `