Talk:Social liberalism/Archive 3

Liberal International

I have removed from this page the reference to liberal international, because that portion of the article itself indicates that the liberal international integrates a range of ideologies only some of which could be categorized as "social liberal". Further, it would appear from the Wikipedia article on the subject that members of the Socialist international and International Greens can be categorized as social liberals at least as easily as members of "liberal international". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Although both conservative and socialist governments have implimented social liberal policies, it does not make them social liberals. All social liberal theory was developed by liberals, most of whom were members of member parties of the Liberal International, which promotes the development of liberal theory. I cannot think of any liberal party that has not advocated some aspects of social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Richardson

I've ordered a copy of Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power by J. L. Richardson, but until it comes in, maybe one of you can answer this question. The lede here uses the phrases "positive rights" and "negative rights" and cites Richardson. Does Richardson describe social liberalism in those terms. To me, social liberalism means allowing Jews to join your Country Club. I'll be interested in reading what Richardson says.

I do think that all of the articles on liberalism place too much emphasis on what governments do. The real triumpths of liberalism are the changes in the way individuals see the world. Even the racists avoid the N-word, using the code words "those people" instead. This is a change in individual worldview, and the government played no part in it. Even with a Black president, the establishment is still in many ways much more racist than my students. No congressman would ever have yelled "You lie!" at a White president, or, at least, not since the Civil War. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Richardson does use those terms which were used by the original new liberals in the UK and now over-used in many articles. "Social liberalism" is the commonly used term although it could be confused with being socially liberal. The article does discuss social liberal theorists, social liberal influence on government policies and political parties described as socially liberal. What governments do is important to this topic because they were reacting to the breakdown of traditional institutions that provided welfare and social cohesion (the family, church, municipal councils, private charity) while preventing radical social change. This was not a people's movement. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Social conservatism once had a different meaning. It referred to conservatives who supported social welfare policies, and apparently still means that in parts of Europe.[1] The Four Deuces (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Contending liberalisms

(I am responding to comments by IP216.188.254.2 which are posted above.[2])

Although Richardson's book argues against neoliberalism, it is a reliable source for the facts it presents and was published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, an independent scholarly and textbook publishing firm that publishes in the fields of international studies and comparative politics in relation to the world. The chapter from his book which is cited, Contending liberalisms (Chapter 3) is a straight forward history that sources different scholars and explains different viewpoints. It appeared in one of his earlier books and was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997) and was used as part of a course at McMaster University[3] and probably in other university courses.

Unfortunately it is difficult to find a history of liberalism that is written by someone who has no political opinions. However if you wish to challenge Richardson's facts, it would be helpful if you referred to criticism that challenged his article. It has after all been subject to peer review. Additionally you must provide an alternative reliable source. If we use Richardson for the lead, we cannot pick and choose which parts of his description to accept. We either accept all or none of it. Also, we cannot just say "These historic realities are fairly common knowledge" without citing sources." Please read the policy on original research. It is not up to us to determine what social liberalism is but to ensure that the definition in the article is adequately sourced.

Incidentally what do you mean by "English philosophers like JS Mill influencing the Revolutionaries in America"?

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never had any complaints about the notoriety of the publisher, nor author. But even a professor's opinion is still a statement of an opinion (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion) and doesn't deserve an encyclopedic voice.

But what criticisms arose during peer review, if it's such a reliable source? Did you read the criticisms of it, as due diligence before adding it under the assumption that it's a reliable source? I ask because even in the 'hard sciences', plenty of since-proven-wrong results were peer-reviewed; the fact something gets reviewed means little... and the more important question is always: Did the peer-reviewers point out flaws in the work? . . . . . . . . . . Please also note that WP policy says the burden to prove it is on you not me (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence), since you're the adder of the information, there's no onus on me to provide a negative proof as you suggested, that would be illogical, as the last link indicates.

By JS Mill and other Brits influencing America's Revolutionaries, I meant the early Americans (not necessarily the first gen), and I chose JS Mill since he's on pg. 37 of the book that's being cited, or as I had said: "particularly in Anglo-America, which is the region that Richardson/Reinner are speaking of on pp. 36-7. English philosophers like JS Mill influencing the Revolutionaries in America" ...to re-state what I originally said, in its full context. JS Mill was influencing Americans despite being faraway, and I do consider that it was still a very revolutionary time (people were still alive who fought in The War of 1812, even the industrial revolution ;-P hadn't happened yet, settlers still crossing a continent, etc).

Actually, Wikipedia policy says we CAN "just say 'These historic realities are fairly common knowledge' without citing sources," given that the 'historic realities' I brought up were the fact that American leaders advocated minarchy, certainly not anarchy, once their revolution was successful, and that they were influenced by Classical Liberal philosophers. Practically every schoolchild in the USA and UK knows that part of history, thus "common knowledge". See: Wikipedia:Common_knowledge#Acceptable_examples_of_common_knowledge

"we cannot pick and choose which parts of his description to accept. We either accept all or none of it". My name is Jeff. I'm an alien. <---Now if you accepted all or none of what I just wrote, you'd be incorrect; you seem to be as fond of the False_dichotomy#Black_and_white_thinking fallacy of logic as Richardson is (for reasons I gave when I posted about Richardson earlier tonight).

The issue I brought up isn't how to define Social Liberalism, I think the article does that pretty well; it's defining the diff between Classical/Social Liberalism, as each type of liberalism pertains to concepts of posi/neg liberty. ...and I agree it's not up to us to define how each Liberalism treats posi/neg liberties (I admit that's _not_ Common Knowledge, as the issue above was), and that's why I'll try to provide another source...but maybe not tonight, getting tired.

Now the important parts:

I had read Richardson's claim on pg. 37 that, "Green broke ... with the whole tradition of equating (emphasis added) liberalism [or what we, today, know as Classical Liberalism, as that was the only form of liberalism known before Green...] with "negative freedom"--freedom from control by the state," [on page 37]. AND IT IS AN UNSOURCED CLAIM (Richardson cites Bramsted/Melhuish twice, later in the paragraph).

I'll say it again, without all of my notes muddling it up: He claims there was a "tradition of equating liberalism with 'negative freedom'." Surely, as I've already agreed, Classical Liberalism has more reliance on negative freedom than Social Liberalism does. But who _equates_ liberalism with negative freedom? Richardson doesn't cite anyone from 1~2 centuries ago as "equating" liberalism with negative freedom in order to form this "tradition"; it appears to not only be his opinion, but his baseless, factually-unsupported opinion unless you can provide a better citation.

(Anyone should be able to see my Bastiat example, and it is easily verified that Bastiat is reviled by Social Liberals and anarchists ;-) and that he's considered a Classical Liberal not Social Liberal and not an anarchist, and it's obvious from what I quoted of him that he was advocating limited Positive Liberty (as Richardson's pg. 37 says Classical Liberals are incapable of). The cited 'fact' from Richardson is contradicted by those two things about Bastiat; I'll get cites showing that Bastiat is considered Classical Liberal & that what I quoted him as saying, earlier tonight, is a form of Positive Liberty, if you really want to challenge those 2 things. Or better yet, I'll look for cites from perfessers sayin that Classical Liberalism doesn't need to be 100% negative freedom or 0% positive in the next few days. 100% freedom 'to' + 0% freedom 'from' = anarchy not Classical Liberalism. Simple math. ;-)) 216.188.254.2 (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof for Richardson has been met:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Definitions of classical liberalism are not common knowledge. I know you are not an alien but I have no way of knowing if your name is Jeff. Bastiat is not a reliable source for social liberalism. Please note that this page is not a forum for discussing your thoughts about social liberalism but is here to improve the article. While your original research may be valid, they cannot form the basis of edits to the article.

I have posted the source to the reliable sources noticeboard.[4]

The Four Deuces (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OR template

Rather than adding an OR template, please rewrite the lede to eliminate any part you consider OR. I was trying to simply state, without jargon, the way that social liberalism is generally understood. The phrase is not in any of my standard reference works. If I've gotten it wrong, please fix it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There has actually been a series of edits to the lead that have led to its no longer representing the sources. I will put back the version from before the changes. I have posted a notice for the main source for the lead at the RSN noticeboard. Anyone disagreeing with the sources is invited to provide alternative sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a section on social liberalism by Ian Adams in Political ideology today (2001), a texbook published by the Manchester University Press.[5] His description is the same as Richardson's. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. If you will, please help me understand

1) Why you think it important to use Berlin's phrases "positive liberty" and "negative liberty". My impression is that these phrases are not widely understood, and in the lede should be replaced with explanations.

2) Who you think favors "full employment" instead of "reduced unemployment". Full employment is, it seems to me, obviously impossible, disastrous if it were possible, as it would leave nobody for businesses to hire. The figure I have heard for optimum employment is 95%, with most people being out of work (against their desires) for less than six months (not that we need to go into that in the lede -- just replace "full employment" with "reduced unemployment".)

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

1) The theory of positive freedom comes from T. H. Green and was used by 19th century social liberal thinkers.[6] and is central to their thinking.

2) Keynes and Beveridge assumed that full employment was possible.[7]

Although social liberalism had an influence on modern American liberalism, modern American liberalism is not social liberalism as the sources and the article make clear, ande even Keynsianism was only partly accepted by them. Even British Liberal and later Labour governments who implimented social liberal policies never really accepted the underlying theories. The fact that "positive freedom" has entered libertarian jargon is no reason not to use the term when it is relevant.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I was misled by this sentence in the article negative liberty: "The distinction between negative and positive liberty was drawn by Isaiah Berlin in his lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty."" The article negative freedom redirects to the article negative liberty.

Even if Keynes and Beveridge used the phrase "full employment" they cannot, logically, have really meant what they said, can they? That is, they cannot really have expected or wanted every single worker to have a job all the time? Or can they? Maybe in their world of a rapidly expanding population, new jobs could always be filled by people newly grown to adulthood.

I think the libertarian jargon is negative and positive rights. That article begins, "Libertarians and some political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights (not to be confused with the distinction between negative and positive liberties)."

So, I gather negative freedom is the same as negative liberty but different from negative rights. Seems confusing to me, and while I now understand the lede better, I would rather see a lede that did not require an explanation. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I put in an internal link for full employment, and fortunately that article discusses Keynes and Beveridge. I don't know if the subject can be introduced without jargon. The lead now starts: Social liberalism, a reformulation of 19th century liberalism, rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare. Can you think of any way to re-phrase it that would follow the source given? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't off the top of my head, because I still don't really understand. I thought I did. I thought positive liberty meant that the government acted to maximize freedom by insuring employment, education, and health care, and protecting consumers from predatory business practices. But apparently there is something else in there, something having to do with what the British used to call "self command". So, back to the books. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regulation actually preceded social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Vision Thing has reverted my edits to the lead with the notation (restore changes mass reverted witout explanation). Note that my changes were discussed and explained here - they were a reversion of edits that changed the lead so that it no longer represented the sources cited. Note also that each of the edits I made was properly explained[8] in the edit summaries, e.g., (Restore version of lead that agreed to cited sources). I note that Vision Thing has made no comments whatsoever on this talk page, and ask that he explain his edits here. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that you are aware that WP:V and WP:NPOV are two different polices. Something can be backed by sources but be POV. Changes I've made tried to address that issue. On the other hand, this POV text about neoliberalism was not sourced at all, and I've tried to make it more neutral while keeping information that is basically correct. This text about Liberal International in the lead is OR and article doesn't talk even about Liberal International. I've moved the text to Liberalism. -- Vision Thing -- 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing: Saying what standard sources say about the subject is not, by definition, OR. You repeatedly raise objects that are not substantive or ignore the facts, and you delete material or revert edits with no basis except your unsupported word. You have been asked many time to supply references and have not done so. In contrast, other editors have supplied many references at your request. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, read the lead again. It begins Social liberalism... rests on the view.... There is no need to excessively qualify statements in the lead to emphasize that this is a viewpoint, which itself is pushing a POV. The statement about neoliberalism is not sourced but I notice you only removed part of the statement. I will put in a reference but please note until now you had provided no explanation for your edit. You say that the mention of the Liberal International is original research despite the fact it is sourced and then you state you moved it to the Liberalism article. Why would you move OR to another article? While the LI is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, this is an omission that should be changed. The article should explain the role of the LI as an organization to which most social liberal parties belong and which is involved in the development of social liberal thought. (It also includes more conservative liberals such as supporters of Rand, Hayek and Friedman.) The Four Deuces (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My changes concerning POV wording are minor but without them introduction violates NPOV, because it presents unattributed opinion as a fact. Sources that are used to support claim about 'Liberal International' don't talk about social liberalism which makes a claim OR. However, even if they did I think it would be undue weight to mention 'Liberal International' in the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 15:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I have noticed that Democratic Party, which is listed as a social liberal party is not a member of 'Liberal International'. -- Vision Thing -- 15:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Democratic Party should not be listed as a social liberal party. BTW in my last comment I said "The article should explain the role of the LI as an organization to which most social liberal parties belong and which is involved in the development of social liberal thought." Almost all social liberal parties belong to LI and they co-operate through it in order to develop policy. The introduction does not " violate NPOV, because it presents unattributed opinion as a fact", because it attributes opinion and does not state it as fact.

I think this discussion will go better if you read my edits before responding to them. By the way, I believe you could make a better contribution to this discussion if you would take the time to read about social liberalism in realiable sources. Here is a link to the web page of a social liberal party.[9]

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

vision Thing: You lable things that are both carefully referenced and common knowledge as "OR" simply because you disagree with them personally. You insert your own OR into articles without proving any source for your personal opinion. You should know by now that unsourced claims and opinionated reversions are not acceptable. Please stop. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons

I have now added a section called "Reversal" describing the rethinking of social liberalism in the 1970s. Since appropriate comparisons and criticisms of social liberalism are now included in the history sections, I will delete the "Comparisons" section unless anyone sees any reason for keeping it. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the Europe section appears to be redundant and should be removed. The United States section appears to duplicate material that belongs in Modern liberalism in the United States. However there should be more mention of modern social liberal thinkers in the US such as Dewey and Rawls. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Origins

An editor has added a long section where libertarian writers discuss whether modern American liberalism developed from classical liberalism. Since the article is not about American liberalism, the section is irrelevant. Also, it is bad form to devote so much criticism especially when it is from non-mainstream sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Preserve. Also, following your logic you should also remove all United Kingdom, Europe and United States subsections. -- Vision Thing -- 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Preserve says, "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained". It does not say that irrelevant information should be retained. I do not understand what you mean by your second sentence. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Section discusses whether modern liberalism (another name for social liberalism) represents a natural development form classical liberalism. You say that since "Since the article is not about American liberalism, the section is irrelevant." However, this article is about modern liberalism so information is relevant. -- Vision Thing -- 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of that subject is already in the article. Modern liberalism is not an exact synonym for social liberalism, although it is sometimes used. Modern American liberalism for example is modern liberalism by definition, so is libertarianism and neoliberalism, but none of them are social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit war is not getting anywhere. Mainstream sources are to be preferred to sources of any particular idiology. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've searched a number of mainstream sources. None use the phrase "social liberalism". A google search on the phrase yields mostly blogs. If we follow the blogs, the article would say that social liberalism is a belief of people who hate America and hate Christians and eat quiche and drink latte. The phrase does not seem to be in common academic use, though I did find a few articles on the subject. I'll see what I can do based on those. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to social liberalism is mentioned under Implementation: "The reforms were largely opposed by both business and trade unions." "However Mises argued that monopolies and cartels operated because of state intervention and protectionism, and said that the only legitimate role for the state was to abolish barriers to market entry. He viewed Ruestow's proposals as negating market freedom and saw them as similar to socialism." Also Reversal: "Following economic crises in the 1970s, there was a re-thinking of social liberalism. Keynsian economic management was seen as interfering with the free market. Increased welfare spending that had been funded by higher taxes was seen as leading to lower investment and consumer spending and creating a "dependency culture". The power of trade unions was seen as causing high wages and industrial disruption, while full employment was seen as unsustainable. Writers like Milton Friedman and Samuel Brittan, who were influenced by Freidrich Hayek advocated a reversal of social liberalism. Their policies, which are often called neoliberalism had a significant influence on Western politics, most notably upon the governments of UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US President Ronald Reagan, who pursued policies of deregulation of the economy and reduction in spending on social services."

The article is about social liberalism, not libertarianism.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not about opposition to social liberalism. This is about origins of social liberalism and its compatibility with classic/19th century liberalism. -- Vision Thing -- 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you should avoid sources that do not discuss social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian criticism of modern American liberalism

RfC tag has now expired.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
-- The Four Deuces (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC) An editor continues to insert a lengthy section discussing libertarian views on modern American liberalism. This text is irrelevant to the article which is not about American liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC) This is content in question and I think it is relevant for this article. -- Vision Thing -- 15:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Libertarians work hard to promulgate their beliefs, but they are a minor party and their views do not belong in this article, any more than Mormon views belong in the article on the American Indian. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC) The section is relevant and should be included in some form, but not all in its present position in which it purports to discuss the origins of all social liberalism. It seems to discuss mainly a US perspective and those parts should be under that section. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces edit

Thanks, The Four Deuces, for providing information with good, academic sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotations section

A section has been added with quotations with no explanation how they relate to the subject. I will therefore remove them and ask that the reasons for their inclusion are explained. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Quotations

I can find many quotes from classical liberals on wikipedia. There are no quotations by social liberals. I feel that a few provocative and awe inspiring quotes are necessary to inspire students to do further research into social liberalism. The wikipedia classical liberalism article has been viewed 11054 times so far this month, he social liberalism article only 5890 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longsun (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am a social liberal and I don't find the quotations offensive. My problem is with the category itself, not with its content. Such a category doesn't belong in a proper Wikipedia article. As I advised in your talk page, the best path here is to integrate those quotations into the structure of the article.UberCryxic (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with UberCryxic, but also point out that I do not think any of the people quoted were social liberal theorists, or even social liberals. If you look for quotes you should use writers like Hobhouse or Dewey, who advanced social liberal theory. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition

An editor has several times inserted an unsourced definition of social liberalism that another editor and I have reversed. Please do not insert unsourced information. eliable sources explains how to properly source material. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In Canada the term "social liberal" refers to the left wing of the Liberal Party of Canada that "tend[s] to support greater government intervention in the economy, a strong central government, progressive social policy and a foreign policy based on multilateralism.... Business liberals... are in favour of less government intervention in the economy, a greater devolution of powers to the provinces, a slightly less progressive social policy (civil unions rather thn gay marriage) and a foreign policy based on continental integration with the United States." (The Return of the State, Adam Harmes(2005), p. 232)[10] The Four Deuces (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the above comments by Deuces.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in article

Changes have been made to the article so that it no longer reflects the text in the sources provided. I have therefore tagged the article as "original research" and tagged the first part of the lead as "failed verification". The Four Deuces (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've provided sources now and taken down the tag.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the re-phrased statement reflects the source:

• Social liberalism is an egalitarian ideology that believes the state should establish rules and regulations to enable people to express their personal rights and freedoms. (article)
• Social liberalism countered by arguing for state regulation to the extent needed to enable all individuals to enjoy the right and freedom to develop their potential... Social liberalism is egalitarian in the sense of extending meaningful rights and freedoms to all, the context of which varies in accordeance with changing material and cultural conditions. (Richardson)

The source does not call it an ideology or claim that it is egalitarian. And all governments believe in laws to protect freedoms. BTW ideologies do not believe, only people do.

The actual term used by the new Liberals was "positive freedom" not liberty. I removed the term earlier however after complaints about using jargon in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok well do you want to call it a belief instead? A worldview? We don't have to call it an ideology. I prefer calling it egalitarian in the sense used by that source (ie. of extending rights and freedoms...we can copy it word for word if you want, even though it's not a good idea, hence me trying to spice up the prose a little bit).UBER ^(talk) 07:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The best approach is to find a good source that defines the topic and then summarize what it says. Richardson defines social liberalism on page 36, while the source used in the article is from a comparison he makes on page 50. And it is only egalitarian in a specific sense. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to use either of Richardson's phrases, extends meaningful rights and freedoms to all is both clearer and more accurate; we can recast to avoid plagiarism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, we're dealing with two very good sources here. All I'm asking you is to rephrase the sentences so that they match these sources. What do you propose? Write out what you think the lead sentence should say according to these sources.UBER ^(talk) 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be wise to nominate this article for peer-review, since Liberalism is now being reviewed. It is obviously lacking in detail in some areas, but a lot of irrelevant material has been removed. We do not have agreement about the meaning of the subject which would be required to improve the article, and new viewpoints may be helpful. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing social liberalism as advocating "state regulation" confuses it with reformism, which is at least a century older. Laws protecting children had already been passed in the Factory Act 1802 and Liberals had put through so many reforms by the end of the century that Herbert Spencer called it "The New Toryism".[11] What distinguished the new liberalism was direct central government provision of outside social assistance. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. I was just trying my best to summarize what the source said, and I asked you to do the same. You can change the lead sentence to reflect that source, or you can find another reputable source that defines social liberalism and come up with a new sentence instead.UBER ^(talk) 05:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling the use of stimulus spending a resurgence in social liberalism is original research, since none of the sources make this connection. The source used to define social liberalism in the article, Contending liberalism, is quite clear that the New Deal was not social liberalism.[12] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to review that source more closely and get back to you, although obviously there are dozens, hundreds of equally reputable sources that identify the New Deal with modern liberalism.UBER ^(talk) 06:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to be careful. Social liberalism is only one facet of modern liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, I've taken a glance at some relevant parts of the book and I could not find where it said (explicitly) that the New Deal was not social liberalism. I found a part about how the Progressive Era was not social liberal (agreed) and how American political culture has been "little influenced" by social liberalism (disagree), but these are different claims than the ones you're making. Please provide the relevant passage to which you are referring. Thanks.UBER ^(talk) 01:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you read the sources that you provide. Contending liberalisms says "The New Deal was not the product of a single doctrine or theory....there was good reason to avoid formulating a social liberal doctrine...." (pp. 39-40) Anyway, we need sources to say that it was social liberalism, not sources that say it was not. Again, you seem to have no understanding of the subject and it would be helpful if you read sources rather than data-mine for quotes that support your beliefs. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, please...you're quote-mining from the sources that I'm providing. That should tell you something. The portion that you mention also states that the policies eventually came to appear Keynesian.UBER ^(talk) 02:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Uber, I am not quote-mining your source. Here is the relevant paragraph:

The New Deal was not the product of a single doctrine or theory but consisted rather in a sequence of pragmatic expedients-"bold, persistent experimentation"-that reflected Roosevelt's temperment and found a positive response from the electorate. If the economic policies eventually came to appear Keynesian, this was due mainly to the logic of events but also to openness to new ideas. But there was no revision of liberal theory in favor of greater state initiative. Many of the New Deal's policies were relatively old, in European terms, yet in the absence of an effective socialist movement they appeared radical in American terms and, accordingly, were assailed from the right. Because American political culture remained individualist (Lockean), there was good reason to avoid formulating a social-liberal doctrine vulnerable to attack within that culture. But this would leave social-liberal measures highly exposed to subsequent critique. (My emphasis of quotes cited above)

The source does not identify the New Deal with social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because a book does not say "that the New Deal was not social liberalism" does not imply that the two are the same. My math books don't say, explicitly, that 2 is not 3. That doesn't mean 2 = 3. It seems to me that the New Deal was pragmatic rather than ideological, though conservatives will always say that it was. But The Four Deuces knows more about this subject than a mathematician! Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Deuces: stop tampering with the lead. The parts that you're changing have nothing to do with this discussion about the New Deal and social liberalism. You're talking about one thing in the talk page and doing something completely different while editing the article. The definition of social liberalism that I have given comes from the book Contending liberalisms. Either provide a better source with a better definition or stop wasting our time.UBER ^(talk) 02:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your lead does not reflect what is in Contending liberalisms and does not even come from the page where Richardson defines social liberalism. Instead of writing a lead and searching for sources that support your opinions you should read about and understand the subject then summarize what the sources say. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto.UBER ^(talk) 03:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Contending Liberalisms... is an interesting but minor book. It is certainly not the last word in what "Social Liberalism" means. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, as I pointed out in your talk page, social liberalism is only egalitarian in a limited sense and its main impetus was freedom, rather than equality. The sources do not call it an ideology and that may be too strong a term. A source you provided led me to Ideology and social welfare which provides a discussion of the social liberalism of Keynes and Beveridge, which may be useful for the article.[13] I think the article could be improved by a discussion of Dewey's theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It also seems relevant that of the several dictionaries and encyclopedias I checked, none has an entry for "social liberalism". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the reference above can be useful. Note that it specifically says that the kind of liberalism it discusses rejects egalitarianism. Also note that it does not use the phrase "social liberalism". I'm coming to think this phrase is not used often enough to have a specific meaning -- it seems to be defined differently by every author who uses it.

I'm going to remove "egalitarianism" from the lede as not yet established by a good source. Even Contending Liberalisms... labels egalitarianism as "radical liberalism" rather than "social liberalism". Also, a minor point, but an ideology does not "believe" anything. an ideology "asserts", its followers "believe". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes. The lead sentence is actually better now since it really gets at the heart of what social liberalism is about (ie. social justice).UBER ^(talk) 14:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the revised intro is good. It makes the point about positive and negative freedom without using the terms but saying what they are. It seems that the term social liberalism is used as a synonym for English "new liberalism" but after that has no clear definition. It did not create the same type of polticial cleavages that exist between liberalism and other ideologies. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Are "social liberalism" and "modern liberalism" the same?

I don't know. I think there is a difference. In any case, we need references. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced to Richardson (see: p. 52, footnote 17[14]). But he clearly distinguishes between the liberalism of Dewey and the New Deal. There seems to be no consistency in the use of these terms. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

They're quite frequently synonyms, varying usually with geographical location. In the US it's typically called "modern liberalism" while in Europe and much of Latin America it's called "social liberalism." But as Deuces said, there is definitely inconsistency in which terms people use, how they use them, and what the two terms mean (we got a taste of that recently with someone wanting to insert material about social liberalism and civil liberties).UBER ^(talk) 16:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)