Talk:Liberalism/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Liberalism in various countries

other???

Comments? Suggestions?

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on the later part of the article, which contained a lot of repetition. So far, I've only tried to group paragraphs with a common theme under a common heading. Much work remains to be done, especially in the area of references.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia

all of you must read the definition of liberal in conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal) it is very funny. and maybe put a section in this article "conservatives/conservapedia's view on liberals. --Violarulez (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

The following has been added to the first paragraph of the lead:

Liberalism is not an undifferentiated philosophy, as their (sic) is disagreement among liberals on things such as regarding the legitimacy of the welfare state, the virtues of democracy, the boundaries of toleration, or even the nature of the liberty they think liberals ought to seek, whether negative liberty or positive liberty.

There are of course differences in many ideologies, however I think that the placing of this statement in the first paragraph gives too much emphasis to the differences. The reader is told that there are differences before s/he is told what liberalism is.

Also, the terms negative and positive liberty are jargon which should be avoided as much as possible. When they are used they should be explained in the first instance.

I will therefore remove this unnecessary text. Please discuss further before re-inserting.

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It needs to be made clear straight from the start that liberalism is not one monolithic philosophy but includes a set of philosophies, some in significant disagreements with each other. The way the intro stood before just left the reader with the impression that all liberals agree on the same things. As the statement points out, they don't even agree on what "liberty" means. Don't give the reader the impression is one undifferentiated philosophy. It has a long history and different schools of thought within it. Introman (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the article explained what the points of agreement were before launching into differences and you should not use jargon without explanation. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces is correct. It makes no sense to put differences before commonalities. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I also agree with The Four Deuces. The local differences in its meaning are all listed under Liberalism worldwide. And while this article should briefly make a note of them, I don’t think it is necessary to go into much detail, especially in the lead, where concerns of WP:weight might arise.

I’d also like to apologize for reverting without discussing. I corrected myself. Cheers. Likeminas (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Liberalism" in American versus Europe

Rick Norwood removed this statement from the intro: In the U.S. the term "liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies and regulatory state created by the New Deal, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with limited government and laissez-faire, a philosophy that is closer to classical liberalism or what Americans call conservatism.

The statement is exhaustively supported by six sources. Norwood's edit summary says "Rewrite to reflect what the references actually say. Provide quotation for evidence." Apparently this is a request. I dont know why he just doens't check them himself, but here goes:

"In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies". (Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online))

"Significant differences exist between the use of the term "liberalism" in the United States, in Canada, and in Europe. In the U.S., the term "liberalism" became associated with the welfare-state policies of and expanded regulatory state created by the New Deal and its successors, from the 1930s onwards..Western European liberal parties tended to adhere more closely towards classical liberalism, with a notable example being West German's neoliberal Free Democractic Party (FDP)." (Dijk, Ruud van. Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis, 2008. p. 541)

"Moreover, Ameicans do not use the term "liberalism" in the same way Europeans do. In fact, classical European liberalism more closely resembles what we (and what Americans generally) call consevatism." (Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, Stanley Rothman. Yale University Press, 1996. p. 41)

"Constructive discussion of liberalism has to identify which of the many meanings of the term is being used...The most noteworthy example of the latter is the difference between the conventional usage of the term in the United States and elsewhere in the contemporary period. Whereas generally liberalism has the connotation of a commitment to individual rights, economic liberalism and a relatively limited role for the state vis-a-vis the market and private institutions in genearl, in the United States it usually connotes social liberalism, that is acceptance of varying degrees of state intervention to acheive certain social objectives, and is contrasted with 'conservatism' which..." (Wim van Oorschot, Michael Opielka, Birgit Pfau-Eff. Culture and Welfare state: Values and Social Policy in Comparative Perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. p. 30)

"The term 'liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state." (Patrick O'Meara, Howard D. Mehlinger, Matthew Krain. Globalization and the challenges of a new century. Indiana University Press, 2000)

"The term 'liberal' can also be easily misunderstood by European and American readers. In Europe "Liberal" usually refers to classical liberalism, i.e. the European philosophical tradition of ineividualism that supports policies of laissez-faire in both civil liberties and economics. In the United States 'liberal' generally refers to someone who supports both civil liberties and a significant role for government in the economic and social areas." (Gunlicks, Arthur B. The Länder and German federalism. Manchester University Press, 2003. p. xi)

Ok? Since this is an international encyclopedia, this difference needs to be explained. We can't make this article just about Americans' idea of "liberalism." Introman (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes. There are problems with them. When you put something in quotation marks, you should use the exact words from the source, not a paraphrase. For example, your first "quote" is "In the United States it is associated with ... ." The actual quote is "In the United States liberalism is associated with ... ."

More important is the context. Here is the context of your first quote: "The disagreement among liberals over whether government should promote individual freedom rather than merely protect it is reflected to some extent in the different prevailing conceptions of liberalism in the United States and Europe since the late 20th century. In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies." My version of the paragraph includes that context: regulation of business to promote indicidual freedom. Your version removes the context.

We do not disagree with the statement that "liberalism has a different meaning in America and in Europe." We disagree about whether the primary meaning of "liberalism" is "freedom" or only "economic freedom".

Turning to your second quote, I'm sure the source doesn't use a double apostrope in 1930's. An elipsis consists of three dots, not two. The way you've listed the reference is wrong. You've only listed one of four editors, and left off the comma after the name, and do not mention that he is the editor rather than the author. (While on the subject of general carelessness, your version of the disputed paragraph has an open quote without a close quote.) I don't have a copy of the book at hand, but it seems clear to me that the context of the quote is economic liberalism, and that is not the only meaning of liberalism, just as economic conservatism is not the only meaning of conservatism.

Your third quote lacks a title. I've found several books by the authors you list with other authors, but without a title I can't find what book you're citing.

I have no problem with your third quote. It says explicitly that intervention in the market has as its purpose certain social objectives, which is the point my version of the paragraph makes that your version lackes.

I have to teach a class now. More later. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This information is too trivial to be included in the lead. This topic came up several years ago when User:RJII inserted this into the leads of various articles about liberalism, which other editors moved to the bodies of the articles. Modern liberalism in the United States shows an example where a new section was created and has since been expanded.[1] In the UK, Canada and Australia, liberalism usually refers to the policies of the Liberal Party, especially when capitalized. These three parties differ in their policies. Should we put this in the lead too? The lead is supposed to give a concise explanation of the topic not digress into linguistic variations. Note too that the article begins: This article discusses the ideology of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in Liberalism worldwide. For other uses, see Liberal. Also, the lead is followed by a section called "Etymology and historical usage". That's enough coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Trivial that "liberalism" means a whole other thing in half of the world? I don't think so. If it was trivial then it wouldn't be explained in the sources. Introman (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman said "liberalism" means a whole other thing in half of the world. Got any sources for that? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just listed them above. The whole developed world, is what I meant. I don't know what it refers to in Somalia. Introman (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What about UK, Canada and Australia (which I mentioned above) - are they not part of the developed world? And your sources do not support the term "whole other thing". That is a misreading of the sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking population-wise. Regardless of what I say, the sources say what they say. Introman (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Population-wise more people live in developing countries than in the US and continental Europe combined. Could you please make a clear argument for your case. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman: Your edit is trying to make the case that "liberalism means a whole other thing in half the world". This is not a mainstream view. The mainstream view, as reflected in the Encyclopedia Britannica, is that liberalism is the belief in personal freedom, as contrasted with conservatism, which stresses conformity. In a part of the world, Europe, where state control of business is much greater than in the US, greater freedom is found by resisting the state. In the US, where state control of business is much less than in Europe, greater freedom is found by resisting corporate interests. Freedom is always found in a balance of power, not in an absence of power. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Richardson's three categories

Currently the article has this, which at first I liked.

"According to James L. Richardson, in Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power, there are three main divisions within liberalism. The first is elitism versus democracy. The second is over economic questions. The third is the question of extending liberal principles to the disadvantaged."

Now, trying to get the latter part of the article in better shape, it occurs to me that one major division within liberalism is big government vs. small government, which doesn't seem to fit into any of Richardson's categories. Do we want to replace Richardson with another source?

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The big government versus small government seems to usually POV. But I think it is covered by the other distinctions. Support for greater regulation and redistribution of wealth are seen as big government. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement probably doesn't belong in the intro, unless it can be shown that this "elitism versus democracy" is a common thing. Classical/modern liberalism is a more common distinction. Introman (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The classical/modern liberalism distinction was important 100 years ago. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's extremely relevant today because liberalism is the international term for the laissez-faire philosophy. So to avoid confusing readers in the U.S. who don't use the term in the classic sense but use it to refer to social/welfare liberalism, "classical" is put in front of the term. Introman (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My copy of Richardson's book arrived, and while it is interesting, it is also openly contrarian, putting forth a point of view in opposition to the standard academic view. As such, I think it is a poor choice for the section on different forms of liberalism.

Clearly, we need something on disagreements within the liberal tradition. I'm going to look for a more standard academic source. Can anyone suggest a book on this subject? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is one possibility: Two Faces of Liberalism by John Gray. Here's what the ALA had to say about it, "Gray traces the historic roots and modern manifestations of liberalism; not the one bandied about by politicians but the one based in the philosophical underpinnings of Western civilization. Gray's premise is that tolerance is a major element in the tradition of liberalism and that there are currently two conflicting philosophies regarding tolerance. One is the assumption that there is one ideal of the "good life" and that rational progress will lead all to this conclusion; the other allows for many philosophical paths to the "good life." Gray examines some of the one-ideal philosophies of John Locke and Immanuel Kant versus the peaceful coexistence of multiple-ideal philosophies postulated by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume. But Gray is at his best when he evaluates the human quest for the "good life," modus vivendi . Gray notes that modern reality reflects such a multitude of paths to the good life, not only among different people but also within a single group, that to assume a single ideal is incompatible with modern life. This is an appropriate philosophical paradigm shift in this age of globalization and diversity."

I don't know that this is ideal, but I think it is certainly better than Richardson, and I am going to change the lede accordingly. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think Richardson is contrarian? While his specfic views on liberalism today maybe controversial, there is no reason to question his historical analysis and it is well-sourced. John N. Gray on the other hand is really contrarian. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Richardson is contrarian because he says so. "The governing Australian elites became zealous converts to neoliberalism, and the Australian universities were among the minor casualties of an ideological offensive that exposed the fragility of academic traditions..." And so on. He may be right, but he is explicitly expressing views in opposition to what he considers the standard academic view (in Australia). Also, his book is not from a major publisher and was not reviewed by the ALA. John N. Gray seems to have a better reputation, and reviews of his book are generally favorable.

I really don't know a lot about either author except for what the reviews say. What leads you to favor Richardson over Gray? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

James L. Richardson's book was published by Lynne Rienner Publishers which "is an independent scholarly and textbook publishing firm. It was founded in 1984 and publishes in the fields of international studies and comparative politics in relation to the world". Richardson himself was a professor emeritus of International Relations. Chapter 3 of his book (which is called Contending liberalisms and is the chapter that is used as a reference) 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[2] and probably in other university courses.

You may be misreading the passage in the Acknowledgements. During the 80s and 90s governments turned to market solutions and globalization and cut funding to universities and social programs. He actually explains this better on p. 42[3] Whether they were right or wrong can be argued, but the policy shift did occur.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Gray presents a new thesis on the two strands of liberalism: "First, there is the belief that liberalism leads to 'a rational consensus on the best way of life'.... Second, says Gray, there is the liberalism... which seeks peaceful coexistence rather than principled consensus."[4] There is no evidence that this thesis has broad support. But seeing liberalism as having a tension between elitist and democratic strands (even if the terms are not agreed) seems uncontroversial. It's part of both the progressive and consensus views of American history (Charles Beard and Louis Hartz). The Four Deuces (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You know more about this than I do. Certainly, Richardson's elitist vs. democratic, economic vs. cultural, and local vs. expansionist seem to me roughly correct. Gray's idea that liberalism accepts many best ways to live vs. one best way to live also seems to me roughly correct. Gray has an article in Wikipedia, Richardson doesn't, but that doesn't prove anything. I guess I like (what little I know of) Gray, because I also think a true liberal accepts peaceful coexistance. Lord knows, I peacefully coexist with my conservative relatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In Political ideology today Ian Adams writes about conflict within liberalism but is less explicit than Richardson.[5] I can't find any other sources, but the division of liberals into separate parties (often with conservative liberals joining conservative parties) seems to have occurred in some European countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish you were doing more writing within the article. I'm trying to learn the material and then write about it. The only reason I'm here is to counteract the misinformation and disinformation I found in the article.

It seems to me that we cannot use Richardson alone, because he is writing in oposition to the neo-liberal view, and we need to present both sides. While Richardson identifies three conflicts within liberalism, they seem to boil down to one real conflict, which is the conflict that Gray also describes, the conflict between multinational corporations as the best guardians of freedom vs. democratically elected governments as the best guardians of freedom. That freedom needs organized guardians is made clear by the revolutions (Iran and Burma come to mind) that have snuffed out freedom, especially freedom for women. The neo-liberals seem to distrust government, and turn to corporations to rule the New World Order. The traditional liberals look to governments to regulate corporations.

Neither group seems to talk a lot about what to me looks like the main enemy of freedom, overpopulation. How can there be freedom without food to eat, water to drink, and air to breathe?

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Richardson's point of view on neoliberalism, his chapter Contending liberalisms appears to be a straight forward history that sources different scholars (including John N. Gray) and explains different viewpoints. It seems that there has been little study of the history of liberalism, compared with socialism for example. Guido De Ruggiero wrote a history of European liberalism in 1927, Hartz wrote about American liberalism in the 50s and Arblaster wrote The rise and decline of Western liberalism in 1984. I am not an expert on the subject however and it would be helpful if someone who had studied the subject would assist with the article. However I can certainly tell when people are trying to inject a POV into these articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to Aquillion

I am slowly working my way through this article adding references and removing POV not supported by references. Help is appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now added references to the section on Totaltarianism and corrected one misquote. I'm moving on to the next section. Help is appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I finished adding references to the section about Liberalism after WWII, and moved the parts of that section that debated varieties of liberalism to the section with that heading. Varieties of Liberalism is a real mess, but somebody needs to work on it. Help is appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"citation needed"

The "citation needed" flag should only be added when there is not already a citation. The flag added recently is here:

By the beginning of the 20th century, political liberalism had become the norm throughout the West, but economic liberalism had resulted in a

vast concentration of wealth, with the majority of mankind living in a state of extreme poverty(citation needed).

The economic world was shaken by a series of depressions. Freedom, which in the past had been threatened by autocratic governments, was now threatened by the despotism of the rich.

The citation is here

"By the end of the 19th century ... the ideal of a market economy ...

concentrated vast wealth in the hands of a relatively small number of industrialists and financiers ... great masses of people ... lived in poverty."

"The system periodically came to a near halt in periods of stagnation that came to be called depressions." "those who owned or managed the means of production had acquired enormous economic power that they used to influence and control government ... some of the very energies that had demolished the power of despots now nourished a new despotism.", http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339173/liberalism.

In view of the above, please explain the "citation needed" flag or it will be removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The result was merge into Liberalism. -- The Four Deuces (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose that Political liberalism be merged into Liberalism. Political liberalism appears to be a content fork. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Merge. It looks that way to me too. There's not much there, so it should be an easy merge. The question I see is what to do with the redirect? Point it here or to the book? I could see going either way on it, maybe to the book, which already has the appropriate hatnote. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Merge? There is nothing here! Just redirect to liberalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Comment It makes more sense to re-direct to the book. The book's article has at the top "This article is about John Rawls's book 'Political Liberalism.' For a broader description and history of liberal philosophy, see the article: Liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC) The article should be deleted. I know that changing it to a redirect is easier, and better than nothing, but deletion is the right thing to do. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC) A disambiguation page seems the right thing to do then. Either you mean the book, or the politcial ideology. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC) A dab page seems unnecessary for a term that could only have two meanings, particularly when at least one target page has a hatnote in place that redirects to the other page. But I'm open to any of the possibilities suggested here. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Convergence liberalism

Certain political scientists have written about the emergence of a new kind of liberalism called convergence liberalism which is opposed to multiculturalism and which insists on the primacy of modern secular philosophy in the civil sphere. It stresses the predominance of civil rights, especially gender rights, over traditional rights such as religious freedom, arguing that religious freedom is a mere cultural right that ought to be relativized. [6] [7][8][9] ADM (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this has gained enough traction to be reported here, but if it is still around in six months, it might merit a short article of its own. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the attachments you provided the theory is from John N. Gray who is mentioned in the article. Since there is very little in the article about modern liberal thinkers it would probably be wrong to provide details of this theory in the article. However the article about Gray could be expanded. The details about the Canadian Charter are probably too local in nature to include in this article although it might be appropriate to the article on the Charter. Note too that "convergent" is a name assigned by Gray and his followers which would probably not be accepted by people who are called by that name. It is interesting that in the first case mentioned, Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36,[10] the court sided with the teacher who was following the provincial School Act, while the Board claimed that the Charter's section on religious freedom protected them. The Brockie case only required the printer to print stationery and allowed him the freedom to refuse other work.[11] In both these cases it could argued that the courts were conservative in upholding statute law, and the statute law could be defended as protecting individuals rather than imposing values on people. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern Liberalism

The first paragraph misleads by quoting Encyclopedia Britannica out of context. The paragraph concludes with, "Freedom, which in the past had been threatened by autocratic governments, was now threatened by the despotism of the rich." However, this is not necessarily factual, and in fact Britannica indicates this was a matter of opinion: "Such, at any rate, was the verdict reached by an increasing number of liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

Further, this segment ends by concluding that the social programs advocated by modern liberalism "provided jobs for the unemployed, who would otherwise either starve or be a threat to orderly society." And links to this same Britannica article. The Britannica article only mentions that the market economy ignores the needs of those lacking opportunity and/or are exploited, and does not suggest that modern liberals advocate public employment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.52.58 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

After World War II

The end of the "After World War II" section is horribly biased when it says that:

"Deregulation in the early 21st century, especially of the banking industry, led the world not to the predicted prosperity, but to the brink of economic collapse."

There is plenty of evidence that the crisis was caused by the Fed's inflation of money supply and that the regulation of the banking and housing sectors of the economy where part of the problem... The article should at least include this view as well...

I agree, this a controversial interpretation of current events, not a historical fact. This sentence has nothing to do here. If possible interpretations are to be given, it has to reflect the opinions of all sides. If this is not possible, it has to be removed.--ThePridg (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You will need a source for that. By the way any idea why the Canadian banking industry was unaffected? The PM said it was because of regulation. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly not a consensus on what caused the current economic meltdown. All current interpretations are controversial and unless we include the many possible interpretations, this statement needs to be removed. Wikipedias own article:[[12]] cites 11 different possible causes. Dark567 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You still need a source and other WP articles are not reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Deregulation in the early 21st century, especially of the banking industry, led the world not to the predicted prosperity, but to the brink of economic collapse." Hi, Four Deuces, just to clarify, you're seeking citation to support the contention that "Deregulation in the early 21st century.. led the world... to economic collapse" is NOT a controversial conclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.177.253 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Such has been reported by virtually every news organization in the world. Presidents Bush and Obama alike said that only hundreds of billions in spending could stave off complete disaster, and most other governments in the world agreed. I don't understand your objection. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am asking for a source that supports your position. In an unregulated market, some businesses, including banks, will fail. That is how free markets work. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would disagree with that; however, deregulation was not necessarily the primary cause of the financial crisis, as stated by the 42nd source of Wikipedia's "Financial Crisis" article: [[13]] I believe that in order for this article to be completely neutral, it should reflect that the cause of the recession is still under debate. Marbles1136 (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference you cite is about one employee at Fannie Mae. It does not suggest that this one person brought down the world financial system. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The actions described by Fanny Mae employees were possible because of deregulation. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kinds of liberalism

Just wanted to raise a point - isn't the first paragraph of the "Modern Liberalism" section, with its reference to the "despotism of the rich," horribly, horribly biased? Someone should find some more neutral language to express the growing trend in some liberal movements at the beginning of the C20th towards favouring welfare provisions.

Despotism may be too strong a word, but the concern that the rich will take away the freedom of the majority is a real concern, and has nothing to do with welfare. It has to do with laws -- and not just 20th century laws -- restricting when and where the working class can travel (the police line keeping the working class in New York out of the financial district in the early 20th century), what they may wear (sumptuary laws), how they must behave in the presence of the rich (tugging the forelock, and so on). Today, the main concern is with multinational corporations, conspiring to exclude certain people from hiring (mostly to exclude older people, today, but in the past to exclude Blacks and Jews), to fix prices and wages, to destroy the environment, to bribe the government to give them land belonging to individuals or the public, or to force individuals to sell their property using eminent domain. Many other examples can be given. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's some very interesting populism you got there, Rick, and I'm sure Michael Moore would love it. What I wonder is whether Wikipedia should support this kind of conspiracism. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Those ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how touching. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the POV aspect is about what caused the great inequalities of wealth and concentration of power among small groups of people, not that it had occured. However, few people today defend the Kaiser's Germany or the power of the Lords to veto legislation passed by the Commons or political corruption in the US in 1900. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Economic Liberalism

The statement:

Modern European liberals generally believe that governments have gone too far in providing for their citizens, and decry what they call the "nanny state"

lacks any sort of factual evidence or research, and does not necessarily reflect the appearance and behaviour of liberalism as it currently exists, either here in the UK, or on the continent. In the current political environment, it could be argued that the exact opposite is true. This highlights the need to either provide quotations of the Liberal philosophers and commentators who believe this statement, or either remove it or counter-balance it with the opposing view.

The use of the phrase "nanny-state" is one that is generally used in Conservative commentary and would lead us to believe that this section reflects the author's personal views, rather than an objective statement of the current situation. I suggest that this statement should be expanded to include the diverging view as espoused above, if either are to be present within the article.

At the very least, the names and the countries of origin need to be presented as evidence, rather than a blanket statement about 'European Liberalism', which, effectively includes 750 million different opinions over 50 countries, each split into a multitude of groups. The Red Threat (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The people who make this claim, and they make it in many different articles, have been repeatedly asked to cite sources, but have not yet done so as far as I can tell. Feel free to edit the article accordingly. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The writing is point of view. See the article social liberalism for a better explanation. However, that is about liberal thinking c. 1975. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC for Note of European versus American liberalism

The result was no consensus. -- The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Two users keep removing this statement from the intro: "In the U.S. the term "liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies and regulatory state created by the New Deal, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with limited government and laissez-faire, a philosophy that is closer to classical liberalism or to what Americans call conservatism. I think it should be kept because this is an international encyclopedia, and the U.S. and Europe are large population centers that read this article that use the term "liberalism" is very different ways. And it's even notable information prima facie just from the fact that it's explained in several sources. This is what books and encyclopedia articles on liberalism do in order to help the reader out to know what "language" they're speaking, or at least to let them know that it does refer to different things, because there is an international audience. For a liberalism article, on a widely read international encyclopedia like Wikipedia, this is especially crucial. For your convenience, quotes from the sources provided follow and are all available to verify see on Google books except for Encyclopedia Britannica which is available on their website. (I also ask that anyone who thinks it belongs there shoud help put it in rather than simply commenting, because I'm pretty much by myself against two editors who want it out. Hardly anyone is paying attention, so what the consensus is probably won't make a difference without that assistance. Thanks.): "In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies". (Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online)) "Significant differences exist between the use of the term "liberalism" in the United States, in Canada, and in Europe. In the U.S., the term "liberalism" became associated with the welfare-state policies of and expanded regulatory state created by the New Deal and its successors, from the 1930s onwards..Western European liberal parties tended to adhere more closely towards classical liberalism, with a notable example being West Germans neoliberal Free Democractic Party (FDP)." (Dijk, Ruud van. Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis, 2008. p. 541) [14] "Moreover, Ameicans do not use the term "liberalism" in the same way Europeans do. In fact, classical European liberalism more closely resembles what we (and what Americans generally) call consevatism." (Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, Stanley Rothman. American Elites. Yale University Press, 1996. p. 41) [15] "Constructive discussion of liberalism has to identify which of the many meanings of the term is being used...The most noteworthy example of the latter is the difference between the conventional usage of the term in the United States and elsewhere in the contemporary period. Whereas generally liberalism has the connotation of a commitment to individual rights, economic liberalism and a relatively limited role for the state vis-a-vis the market and private institutions in genearl, in the United States it usually connotes social liberalism, that is acceptance of varying degrees of state intervention to acheive certain social objectives, and is contrasted with 'conservatism' which..." (Wim van Oorschot, Michael Opielka, Birgit Pfau-Eff. Culture and Welfare state: Values and Social Policy in Comparative Perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. p. 30) [16] "The term 'liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state." (Patrick O'Meara, Howard D. Mehlinger, Matthew Krain. Globalization and the challenges of a new century. Indiana University Press, 2000) [17] "The term 'liberal' can also be easily misunderstood by European and American readers. In Europe "Liberal" usually refers to classical liberalism, i.e. the European philosophical tradition of ineividualism that supports policies of laissez-faire in both civil liberties and economics. In the United States 'liberal' generally refers to someone who supports both civil liberties and a significant role for government in the economic and social areas." (Gunlicks, Arthur B. The Länder and German federalism. Manchester University Press, 2003. p. xi) Introman (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC) [18] Introman (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Keep Of course. Introman (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Exclude The Introduction to the article should give a brief overview of the subject, including different strains of liberalism. But detail about the varying uses of the term liberalism in the US and continental Europe (while excluding the varying uses in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and the developing world) excessively bloats the lead. Also, the issue is complex: there are variances of the use of the term "liberal" within Europe and within the US. There is already a line at the top of the article saying: This article discusses the ideology of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in Liberalism worldwide. For other uses, see Liberal. The section immediately following the lead ("Etymology and historical usage")[19] provides ample opportunity to discuss varying usages. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC) You can't "discuss the ideology of liberalism" without pointing out the different conceptions of liberalism. Introman (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Introman, could you please explain what your comment has to do with my posting? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Do not exagerate the importance. I also point out that you have requoted your "references" without going to the trouble of correcting the many mistakes I noted above. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Don't nitpick on typos and syntax. That's not what this is about. Introman (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC) To point out that a reference omits the title of the book it cites is hardly a nit! But the larger point is this: your careless and hasty changes take up the valuable time of the many people who are serious about keeping Wikipedia a scholarly work. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC) OMG, you are hardly one to call someone else careless. You original research is rampant. You misinterpret sources, and say things are in sources that are not there, constantly. For example, the bottom of the Liberalism in the United States talk page you are claiming a source is saying something that it's not. Introman (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Concur with Four Deuces, this seems a crusade to change the lede with material which might be worthy of some reference in the main body (although in a veryu different form). This seems to a campaign across several articles and should be resolved in one place. Raising it [here] illustrates the issue. --Snowded TALK 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Keep I concede that the lede is bloated, but I contend that it is bloated with such as the 'I like pie, flowers are pretty' truism "Today, most nations accept the ideals of freedom" (note that Freedom is too ethereal a concept to merit more than a Disambiguation page), and not with two sentences that clarify a complete disjunct between usage in the US and the rest of the world. Which is summarizing the issue into a generalization, I will concede that also. But summarizing is what we do here at WP, no?, and especially in the lede, so I find that argument to be specious. The sentences call attention to and complement the link to Liberalism worldwide, and two sentences is not undue weight for such a weighty distinction in my opinion. I propose the addition of 'libertarianism' to 'conservatism', or replacing conservatism with libertarianism. I have not looked at the source texts, so that might require additional citation. Side note: I propose the inclusion of libertarianism in the See also section, and although anarcho-capitalism is more closely related to libertarianism, it is related to Classical liberalism as well, and I support its inclusion also. Anarchangel (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I support inclusion because the readers would get a much clearer picture about how the term is used. -- Vision Thing -- 11:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC) First, note that nobody disputes a statement that Liberalism is used differently in different countries. The dispute is over the claim that the US usage is unique (the sources mention Canada and Germany, and limit themselves to the West -- what "liberal" means in Japan is obviously important), that the European usage is universal throughout Europe (one source mentions Western Europe and makes an exception for Germany), that the European "liberal" corresponds with the American "conservative" (do European liberals oppose the teaching of evolution?), and that the American usage corresponds with the "welfare state" (as if the Civil Rights movement never happened). Clearly, we cannot and should not try to cover all this in the lede. Therefore, I favor a sentence or two that limits itself to economic views. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Briefly mention and link to main article That should be enough. There's no need for Wikipedia having duplicate information of what is already presented in a separate article. Chomskyian (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Looks like lede POV pushing to me, by. To a certain political segment of the US, liberalism may have some associations with the "welfare state", but that's by no means universal, and (as someone else noted), it's not like liberals in Europe are pushing for prayer in schools and eliminating pensions. The perspectives and refs might have a better place in the wider discussion of the body of the article, but the lede is not the best place to put a POV. Ronabop (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC) What do you mean welfare state isn't universal? Are you aware of any American modern liberal that isn't for public healthcare? That's welfare state. Besides, it's sourced, so how can it be POV pushing? If you can find sources that say they're not for a welfare state then you might have an argument to go on. Good luck. Introman (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC) You're using your own OR to redefine "welfare state" as "public healthcare", but be that as it may (since you asked), modern US liberals who aren't advocating for state run public healthcare include Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. Instead, they're advocating for a mix of state, and private healthcare plans (which we already have with Tricare, Medicare, both supported by liberals and conservatives alike). The right is pushing the phrase "welfare state" right now as a scare tactic, because of historic negative connotations (it was a Nazi slur, and later, welfare was demonized under Reagan). Have a look: http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+"welfare+state" In the more accurate form of usage of the term "welfare state", almost all liberal and conservative politicians in the US (and most of the democratic world) generally support and fight for numerous welfare state programs , but it's only used (as a catchphrase) in a negative sense towards liberals. Hence, my opinion that it looked like POV pushing. Ronabop (talk) A welfare state is just where the government provides for the welfare (material well-being) of the citizens as opposed to not interfering. I dont mean it in any negative sense. Liberals themselves use the term. For example Paul Krugman said: "It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised." (If you want the source, it's in the Krugman article). Introman (talk) So, if "welfare state" is liberal, was Reagan a liberal? Would Reagan's fans object to him being labelled as such? Ronabop (talk) He might have been partially liberal, I'm not sure. His philosophy was to reduce the welfare state, though, not expand it. So I don't know how you could say his philosophy was liberal, in that sense. But it's rare to find anyone that 100% conservative, 100% classical liberal, or %100 social liberal, and so on. These are just philosophical ideals. You have to look at a person's overall views of a person and see where they might fit on a scale. Introman (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC) RFC Comment: RFC Requesters should not comment within an RFC. The purpose of an RFC is to elicit disinterested editors. As the RFC Requester has acted as though this is a discussion; I will not be commenting in relation to their RFC. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Are you sure? How about the other commenters here besides the requester that are not disinterested parties? Introman (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Keep The very term "liberalism" has substantially different meanings to two different audiences who each comprise a significant proportion of wikipedia users. "Liberalism" is widely used in political debate on each side of the Atlantic to say different things. The intro should accommodate this difference. Bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Exclude. The viewpoint expressed here significantly oversimplifies both the complicated distinctions between the way the term is used and the wide range of meanings that have come to be attached to it both in the US and internationally. It is entirely inappropriate for the article's lead. The comparison to 'what Americans call conservatism', while glib, is particularly objectionable; American conservatism varies, but it generally contains a great many strains of thought that would be irreconcilable with European-style economic liberalism. Additionally, this construction obscures the fact that most European-style economic liberals have embraced things that US laissez-faire advocates tend to reject, such as a greater degree of government-subsidized healthcare. --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Keep. If they objected on redunancy issues, I would find the objection more credible. Me-think-lady-protest a tad too much.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Keep or expand It is important to make clear that the term has different meanings in different parts of the world. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) PROs: Archangel, Vision Thing, Bobrayner, Die4Dixie, Martin Hobbin; CONs: The Four Deuces, Rick Norwood, Snowded, Ronabop, Aquillion; UNCLEAR: Chompskian; BANNED USER: Introman. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found the word liberal to be very confusing. It seems like half the time, it is used to refer to the free market, and the other half is when Americans are using it to describe those who are socially liberal. It is pointless to even use the word when it is not matched up with social or economic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.29 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen economical liberalism defined as classic liberalism which implies that Americans may have used the word liberal to refer to econonic liberalism. If this is the case then why, and when did America switch definitions for liberal from economic to social? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BUKET.TKO (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "liberal" is not defined as primarily economic by any major reference book. The word "liberal" means "freedom", and for most of its history, freedom has meant freedom from tyranny, not economic freedom. The "switch" was from the Bill of Rights, in the 18th century, to the idea that "freedom" means, primarily, economic freedom, during the 19th century, in the administration of President Andrew Jackson. Then the meaning switched back to Civil Rights, in the 20th century, until Ronald Reagan became president. But Reagan, unlike Jackson, used the word "conservative" instead of "liberal" to describe classical economics, thus the present confusion. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"until Ronald Reagan"??? Please provide an example of the definition of Modern Liberalism (post Progressive Ideology influences) from the 70's that mirrors that of Classical Liberalism (pre Progressive). The Progressive's changed the meaning of "Liberalism" during the first half of the 20th Century. The liberal ideology that is at the core of the Founding Documents of this Country, the ideas of the rights of the individual over the rights of oppresive, bloated Government are the very characteristics that caused Modern Liberal Barack Obama to label the Constitution a "Charter of Negative Liberties". It was those rights of the individual built into the Constitution that caused the Founding Fathers ideology to be labeled "Liberal". The ideology of rugged individualism has no relation to Modern Liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRentman (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is, of course, the Republican view of liberalism. It ignores the Civil Rights movement. The constitution does say "All men are created equal". It ignores the Republican push for censorship of television (such as a half a million dollar fine for showing the film Saving Private Ryan). The constitution says "free speech". So, if you don't let facts get in the way, your view makes a good bumper sticker. But this article should be supported by facts. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TheRentman, please provide a source for your comment "Progressive's changed the meaning of "Liberalism"". The Four Deuces (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal2

As there was no opposition expressed the result was merge into Liberalism. -- The Four Deuces (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose that National liberalism be merged into Liberalism. National liberalism appears to refer to the National Liberal Party (Germany) and to other parties with similar names. In every case the term "national" was meant to describe the party not the ideology and there is no concept of "national liberalism". I suggest that the National liberalism page re-direct to National Liberal Party, which is a disambiguation page. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

further reading section

If you can have a further reading section, what about a section for documentaries and other sources of information about the topic? Simsimian (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Any docs you have in mind? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Any videos too? 59.161.89.122 (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Etymology

The etymological details do not belong in the lead, or at least not so early on in the lead. The first sentence should provide a concise definition of liberalism, and now it does.UberCryxic (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you will look at other articles, you will find that it is standard for Wikipedia articles to begin with a note on the etymology of a word or phrase, and also often with the Greek or Roman root. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to phrase the etymology in the lead more concisely, as was done in the Conservatism article?

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous"[1])....

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1]....

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the suggestion by Deuces. I would also note that the proper root is 'liber', which means "free."UberCryxic (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Deuces, it now simply reads "of freedom," which I think gets the point across without bogging the reader down in academic definitions.UberCryxic (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic rewrite

Good work, UberCryxic, but I have one question. Most sources I read capitalize White and Black when the words are used as the designation of racial groups. You changed them to lower case. Any thoughts on that subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be lower case, but I could be wrong. Any advice from someone who fancies himself or herself a linguistic expert would be appreciated though.UberCryxic (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Major FA Push Coming Up

Hello everyone, on behalf of Rick Norwood and myself, I would like to announce that we are planning on making this article featured and eventually placing it on the Main Page. Such a prestigious article more than deserves to receive the highest honor Wikipedia can confer, and we welcome anyone who wants to join us in this endeavor. This talk page will serve as our HQ. Here we will uphold the Three Cs of teamwork: coordination, communication, and commitment. Ok, I just made all of that up, but hopefully you can feel the spirit!

Featured articles are regarded as the best that Wikipedia has to offer. They often undergo a hellish, brutal review process that can last weeks and, in some absurdly humorous cases, months. Everyone who joins this effort should work under the following assumption: the reviewers will nitpick anything and everything. Some will abstain from supporting the nomination because of dangling links, poor prose, bad grammar, incorrect referencing style, unthoughtful categorization and structure (oh yes, even that), or even superficially unbelievable reasons like lack of links to other articles. Because of the rigorous task before us, I strongly advise those unfamiliar with the FA process to spend some time reviewing the guidelines that any FA must meet, in addition to glancing over current featured articles and current FA candidates. But whatever you do, don't be intimidated!

Now that the generalities are behind us, let's get down to specifics. At this point, I will mainly address Rick because he'll be the other main contributor to this effort. Rick, before we can start revamping the article, we have to get three things out of the way immediately. The first is easy: sources. For an article of this caliber, the reviewers will demand nothing less than books exclusively, with extreme exceptions. Being a history buff and a political junkie, I have a fairly extensive collection of historical and philosophical works relating to liberalism. If our personal collections aren't extensive enough, however, we always have that magical resource called Google Books, which should easily allow us to find reputable sources on such a prominent topic. The second problem is far more difficult: structure and content. I looked around for featured articles that might resemble this one and the best I could find were Transhumanism, Anarcho-capitalism, and Atheism. The structure and the type of content that I'm about to propose is unique for this article, but it was heavily influenced by all these three. I propose the following general structure and content:

[Lead] - Obviously should concisely describe the subject and, just as importantly, give people a taste for what's coming later in the article. In other words, and this is very important, the structure of the article should be reflected in the lead. I think the main focus in the lead should be describing liberal history, philosophy, and the current state of liberalism globally. Probably three or four paragraphs, but that's not important now. In a way, I think we should ignore the lead until the end, largely because it will be the most problematic part. As for the body itself....the main sections should be:

I. Etymology This will be the first and, probably, the shortest section in the article. Should just mention the origin and evolution of the word through history. It will need no subsections at all.

II. History Might quite likely be the longest section of the article. Should describe the major thinkers and the major events in liberal history, which is essentially modern history.

III. Theory (or Philosophy) Fairly self-explanatory. Should look at the major traditions in liberal philosophy, the centrality of liberty, etc. Social and classical liberalism need to receive heavy attention here.

IV. Liberalism worldwide Should talk about the current state of liberal thought and politics. Should mention dominant or prominent liberal parties throughout the world.

V. Influence Fairly self-explanatory. Should talk about the legacy/impact of liberal thought and the thinkers/movements that shaped it. Stuff about how democracies, elections, constitutions, free trade, and free markets are hallmarks of the modern world and were brought about by liberal individuals.

VI. Criticism Should cover the main arguments against liberal ideology from both the left and the right. So from the conservative side, stuff about how liberal society places too much emphasis on the individual and not enough on communal bonds. From the left, stuff about how liberty doesn't mean much when people are starving under bridges. This section will obviously need a shitstorm of references. I mean like...every sentence needs to be cited.

[Citations, References, Further reading, External links] - Normal stuff at the end of every FA (or just any good article!)

That's my structure, and as you might have noticed, I deliberately left out any subsections. That brings me to third biggest problem: who's writing what. The most disastrous thing to do would be for both of us to work together on the article section by section. That kind of system I think is just intrinsically designed to hold us back because we're likely to argue over minor, silly points that will prevent rapid completion of this article. Instead, I propose we do some good old fashioned division of labor. You take three sections and I'll take three. Each individual works on his section with no interruptions or reversions, and when we're all done, we'll come back and do an internal review right here in the talk page. You'll criticize my sections, I'll criticize yours, and we'll come to some understanding before submitting the final product. I would prefer History, Liberalism worldwide, and Influence, but I'm more than happy to let you select what you want. What I really want is to get the selection out of the way quickly.

Once we solve these problems, we can finally start editing. I would like to start this Friday, so I strongly urge us to resolve these issues before then. Obviously we can't edit the article at the same time, so we should designate days for editing. I'll edit the article on certain days, you edit it in others. I have a tendency to work in extremely intensive bursts, so it wouldn't take me more than four or five hours to completely revamp much of the article. As I said, I've done this gig many times before, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to go first so that you become comfortable with factors like prose or citation style when it's your turn to write your sections.

Finally Rick, don't worry about the nutjobs that this article will attract when it reaches the top. I've had some "experiences" here too. The Military history of France, my flagship FA, caused an explosive convulsion when it went to the Main Page in May 2006. On Wikipedia, the aftershocks lasted for months through response articles nominated for deletion and some pretty bad blood between myself and other people. It set the standard for pretty much every article on national military history across nearly all wikipedias (even the French copied the article almost word for word at one point). Outside Wikipedia, it inspired countless numbers of internet articles and plenty of Youtube videos by French nationalists listing victories over the English! This article will be something like that, and one can only hope. I had a hell of a time back then. It'll be fun don't worry. We're going to kick ass.UberCryxic (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A few questions. 1) Books exclusively for reference? I would have thought articles in respected journals were at least as good as books. Am I wrong? 2) Criticism of liberalism from the left. I would have thought that it was not so much the starving people under bridges that the Left criticized, though that too, but the bourgeois sentimentality of liberalism. The extreme Left does not trust democracy to decide things according to rigorous Marxist principles. 3) Three sections each? I don't see that working. I've just finished doing a rewrite of the entire article from top to bottom. I think what would work best is for you to do the same, and then we discuss differences here. And, of course, others will not doubt want to contribute. But if you really want me to do the three sections you did not choose, I will. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles from respected journals are fine too. I plan on using only books though, unless there's some extreme circumstances that prevent me from doing so. There are various criticisms against liberalism from the left, including what you mentioned. That's all going to be included in there. In principle, I would be more than happy to rewrite the entire article, but be aware that it would look radically different than your version. Trying to reconcile the two might be like trying to breach the differences between Obama and the Republicans on health care! That was the whole point of me asking you to form this collaboration: so you could feel involved in the process and so that this would be a team effort. I've never worked with another person for a featured article before, so this is new ground for me. I think I could easily take this article to the top in a few weeks by myself, but I don't want any bruised feelings along the way. Ok so I will take History, Liberalism worldwide, and Influence. That means you have Etymology, Liberal philosophy, and Criticism. I'm going to start editing this Friday, and I'll probably finish History and Liberalism worldwide over the weekend.UberCryxic (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best to keep the article concise and to explore the various topics in more detail in other articles, e.g., social liberalism. Criticism is best interspersed throughout the article. I would also keep discussion of liberalism in the U.S. to a minimum. A good source of left-wing criticism of liberalism and liberalism in general is Anthony Arblaster's The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (1984).[20] Peter Viereck wrote an interesting criticism of liberalism called "But I'm a Conservative" (1940).[21] Guido De Ruggiero's The History of European Liberalism[22] is still probably the best source for liberal history. Both these books are frequently cited in modern books that describe liberal history. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have much respect for De Ruggiero, but I'm concerned about the date of the source. I will use a number of different sources for the History section, but the linchpin is going to be the eighth edition of A History of the Modern World (1995) by R. R. Palmer and Joel Colton, two of the finest historians in recent memory. They do a great job of covering liberalism (and everything else, as it turns out, since the book is gigantic, coming in at nearly 1,100 pages of narration).UberCryxic (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that Robert Roswell Palmer's book would be the best source because of the broad range and scope of the book. Another problem I have found with textbooks is that they often do not have adequate footnoting. If something is said in them which conflicts with other sources it can lead to content disputes which are difficult to resolve. Unlike scholarly papers, textbooks do not receive the same critical review in academic journals. Since the subject is controversial there are bound to be different interpretations of liberal history and theory. If you want to use Palmer (and colleagues) as a source, may I suggest you use instead his other writings, including his academic articles and other books. I notice that his The age of the democratic revolution is available in Google Books.[23] Presumably all the information you would find in his textbook is available in these sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A History of the Modern World is one of the most authoritative English-language texts on modern history you will ever find. I'm using it precisely to avoid controversies and interpretations. Like I said, it's not going to be the only source I use. I have plenty of great books to choose from.UberCryxic (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there can be no authoritative view of history, especially of intellectual history, unless of course we have reached the end of history. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, but I already told you that it won't be the only source I use. What are you complaining about exactly? Don't tell me this is going to turn into another one of your marathon sessions on talk pages.UberCryxic (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) As you are aware, there are disputes about how liberal theory and history should be interpretated. It would not be helpful to repeat the opinions of your textbook, no matter how reputable it is, without using clear sources. I am assuming that most of the opinions in the textbook are not original and can be found in reliable academic sources, many of them written by the authors themselves. We have come across many of these issues before: did Locke support or oppose slavery, is American conservatism part of the liberal tradition, was social liberalism a development of classical liberalism or its rejection, is modern American liberalism social liberalism? Rather than debate these issues here, it would be better to present various opinions in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree, and again I ask: what are you complaining about? This is quite humorous on top of being surreal: even when we agree you still keep going. You're like the energizer bunny of Wikipedia.UberCryxic (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice to you Deuces is the following: wait until the article is actually written. You're already criticizing and nothing has been done yet. Once we're done, you'll have plenty of time to bring up objections and complaints when we conduct the internal review that will precede the final nomination.UberCryxic (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is unfair to ask me "What are you complaining about exactly?" and then criticise me for replying to you. Also I would ask that you assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I'm done here, for now.UberCryxic (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, be seated.

It seemed very strange to me that what began, in the section above, as a reasonable discussion in which both parties were essentially in agreement turned into a pissing contest. Both were in the right until they began talking about the personality of the other. That has no place here.

On textbooks: I use them occasionally, for elementary facts, but they are seldom the best source. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok Rick, so what I think you should do is the Etymology, Philosophy, and Criticism sections. But I want you to wait until after this weekend when I'll be done (I hope) with two of my sections. That way we can be consistent in our prose, referencing style, and other important factors.

Don't worry about the sources; I have like two dozen books that I'm going to use for History. It was my mistake in the first place for announcing any one of them beforehand and inviting unhelpful and unnecessary enfilades from Deuces.UberCryxic (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to give everyone advanced warning that I will probably start editing later today. Be aware of the following...

I edit quickly, intensely. The article is likely to change dramatically in a few hours, with whole parts deleted and rewritten.

For the next few days, the article will look like a war zone. That's ok. Don't panic or freak out. I usually use my sandbox for much smaller and manageable projects. This article I want to edit in real time to eliminate mistakes immediately.

Rick, I'll let you know when I'm done with my parts. Then it'll be your turn. I don't think we should set any hard deadlines, mainly because I've done that in the past and failed miserably, but I do want to finish the actual writing within two weeks. Our internal review itself might take about a week, then we can go ahead and nominate. That's the timeline I have in mind.UberCryxic (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition

With exception of North America, everywhere else "liberalism" is what you call "classical liberalism" (laissez-faire economics and originalism). People from other origins are getting very mixed up with the definition of Liberalism that you are posting in Wikipedia. The translation of this to Portugues and Spanish will be highly criticized. In Brazil, the liberal party is right wing party, for example. The definition you had before was better. (please, check this definition in the Portugues Dictionary: Novo Aurélio, O Dicionario da Lingua Porguesa, Século XXI, Editora Nova Fronteira.)

(The above unsigned comment is by 173.177.156.218.) This article is primarily about the standard English language usage of the word, not about cognate words in other languages. The article does note how usage has changed over time and varies from country to country ("everywhere else" is an exageration). Note that the first use of a cognate of "liberal" to mean political freedom was the Spanish Liberales. Instead of criticizing English usage, I hope those whose native language is Portugues or Spanish will be interested in learning a little history and philosophy. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could be warm and welcoming here, but the anon is confused on multiple levels. First of all, the definition of liberalism given in the very first sentence keeps all global perspectives in mind. It is general and comprehensive enough that essentially all liberals—both modern liberals and classical liberals—would agree with it. The anon likes to make a general complaint about the definition of liberalism, but provides no specific references in the article that require change or modification. Secondly, the Liberals in Brazil changed their name several years ago. There is no Liberal Party in Brazil anymore (although point taken: when they were around, they were considered right-wing, true). There's a Social Liberal Party in Brazil, but it's very small and center-left anyway. Thirdly, the anon is wrong on a factual basis, as modern liberalism has actually displaced classical liberalism over much of the world. If we're giving (reliable) "examples"...consider Latin America, which features dominant social liberal parties like the Colombian Liberals, Radical Liberals (Paraguay), etc. There's ambiguity even in Europe. I could list scores of examples, but I just want to point out the following: go back and review the early archives of this talk page when the article first got started on Wikipedia. The person getting accused of pushing an American-centric POV on liberalism was a former member of the Dutch party D66, a leftist liberal organization.

Overall, this article does a great job at highlighting regional differences in the way people understand liberalism, and it also showcases major parties around the world that champion different kinds of liberalism. In that sense, it's fairly neutral and comprehensive.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing in progress

Ok I'm about to start now. Wish me luck.UberCryxic (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Done for now. I'm absolutely exhausted. I'll sleep for about seven or eight hours and then get back to editing, so it's best if the tag remains on top of the page. I expect to be finished with History tomorrow, and then I'll start on Liberalism worldwide, which I've already categorized. I should definitely be finished with all three of my sections by Sunday.UberCryxic (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Luck. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm starting again now. I freaking overslept.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wohoo I'm done with History! I still have to put more links in there and reformat some other stuff, but overall it's essentially done. I feel pretty good now. This is going faster than I anticipated. The Influence section will be no more than four or five paragraphs, I expect, and I will not categorize it into subsections to keep things short. Liberalism worldwide will be somewhat more challenging, but it will still be far shorter than History. I definitely think I'll be done with my parts by Sunday.

Rick, although it's completely up to you, I got rid of the Criticism section because I think Deuces is right in that philosophical criticism can be considered in the Philosophy section, and I've already mentioned some criticisms against liberalism in History. Having that section would be wildly tautologous. There's an even better reason though: length. I want to resist the temptation to turn this article into a book, even though it's very easy to do on such a prominent topic. Also I have another request to make: do you mind if I do Etymology? Etymology is short and will not require much work, so I can dispatch it this weekend. That would leave you with "just" Philosophy, but that's going to be either the longest or second longest section of the article. You've already done a lot of work on this article so I wanted to pull my weight, but most importantly I want to move at a lightning pace. In Wikipedia, waiting is the fastest road to mediocrity.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

By all means, do Etymology. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey I had somewhat of a technical question: is there any way to collapse the individual sections of the liberalism box to the right of the lead so that you have to click "Show" in order for them to pop up? Right now that box is too long and it makes the article unseemly. I went to the liberalism template, but I couldn't figure anything out while I was there. If anyone knows how to fix it, please just go ahead and do so!UberCryxic ^(talk) 15:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done with lead and with Etymology. Tomorrow I take up Liberalism worldwide and Influence, although so much (unexpected) stuff has come up this weekend that I don't think I'll be done with my parts by tomorrow.UberCryxic ^(talk) 08:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'm done with Liberalism worldwide, but I won't be able to finish Influence until the end of the week. Rick, if you have time in the intervening period, go ahead and get started on Philosophy and do as much as you can. Obviously I don't know what your schedule is like, but it'd be great if you could get started this week, or even finish! If you got Philosophy done this week, the article will definitely be ready by Sunday. Remember to follow my referencing style: citations only need last name of author followed by page number in format "[Last name] pp. [x]", use ibid when appropriate, etc...(just look at what I've done). The actual information for the book goes in the References section (follow the format there too). Beyond that, stick to encyclopedic prose, categorize Philosophy into several subsections with fat and juicy paragraphs (we want pleasing and aesthetic structure), and add images that do not violate any copyrights (!), although that shouldn't be a problem for this article. Good luck.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed all the citations.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

standard form of a name

The article uses variously "Charles Montesquieu", "Charles de Montesquieu" and "Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu". We should pick one and stick to it. Anyone have a strong preference? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would use simply "Montesquieu", the name by which he is generally known. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Deuces. Either that or just call him by his title (Baron de Montesquieu).UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

style

I am working on converting all references to the same style, and note that most references give the ISBN-10 instead of the preferred ISBN-13. We should change to ISBN-13 where possible.

In other references, I usually see the abbreviation p. for a reference to a single page and pp. for a reference to multiple pages. Here it is always pp. Should it be?

"Smith, pp. 3" or "Smith pp. 3", the footnotes use both and should consistently use one or the other.

Is "like" and acceptable synonym for "such as"? I don't think so.

Manuel of style? MLA? Chicago?

Comments?

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The ISBNs have always been a source of major confusion and headache for me and for other editors. Here's (basically) the way it works: you can pick either standard in Wikipedia as long as you stick to it throughout the article. There is no automatic preference for one over the other, and the vast majority of featured articles I've seen use ISBN-10, hence my decision to go with that standard. As for the citations, you'll find differences across featured articles here as well. Sometimes you'll see....

"Smith, pp. 3." or...

"Smith, pp. 3" (no period at the end) or....

"Smith pp. 3." (no comma in between) or...

"Smith pp. 3" (current version here) or....

"Smith, p. 3." and then rinse and repeat!

What's the point? There is no universal standard in Wikipedia for citations, and the reviewers usually won't bother with such irrelevant details. However, whatever standard we choose has to be consistent throughout the article. If we fail on this requirement, we're going to hear a mouthful. I would follow my standard ("Smith pp. 3") because it's simple and quick, and because there's already over 100 citations with it that I don't feel like going back and changing! If you're going to quote after the citation, then you should add a period after the page number, followed by the italicized quotation.

I'm not aware of any fundamental linguistic opposition between "like" and "such as," but I'd have no problem switching if you insist.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Like sounds colloquial. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm....I guess. Ok I'll go ahead and change all instances of "like" with "such as" or some other appropriate phrase.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Like" indicates similarity but not identity. "Kevin Bacon is like Kevin Costner." "Such as" gives examples, "Actors such as Kevin Bacon and Kevin Costner are movie stars."

Good modern bibliographies must mix ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, as many books have one but not the other. Many older books have never been assigned an ISBN-13 by R. R. Bowker, many newer books will never be assigned an ISBN-10. ISBN-13 is preferred.

Any objection if I change "Smith pp. 3" to "Smith, p. 3", reserving pp. for multiple pages and adding the comma to those footnotes that lack it? Quoting Meriam-Webster: "p abbr 1) page", "pp abbr 1) pages".

Any preference as to style manual? I don't care which we use, but we should be consistent.

Rick Norwood (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the only thing that's preferred is consistency. We could choose ISBN-10 or 13. I don't really care. But I'm basing this article on other featured articles to avoid any mistakes. If you want to make those changes to the citations, be aware that you'll have to do it for all of them. If you're comfortable with that (you're going to waste time on something very mundane), go right ahead. I'm telling you though....that doesn't matter. They just want you to be consistent. I'd stick with my current version for the sake of brevity.UberCryxic ^(talk) 15:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally....I'm done with Influence! That means I've completed all my sections. There are still issues on prose and other technicalities that I'll address later, but the main writing is done for now. Rick, now it's all up to you buddy. Bring it home this weekend. I assume you're very busy, but I was very busy too dude (neglected my homework and a bunch of other stuff to finish this article), so that doesn't count as a good excuse for me (for most other rational people, it would be). Let's go go go. By this Sunday, I want Liberalism to be the pearl of Wikipedia.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Important: Please Read Ok I've done another review of the featured articles, and yes Rick you're right that single-page citations should be in the format "p. #". More than one page and it's "pp. #". That definitely needs to be changed. I'll either do it later today or you can take it on yourself when you have time Rick.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

All I have planned for this weekend is preparing the Power Point presentation I'm giving at Boca Raton the second week in March and putting the finishing touches on Comics Revue (a magazine I edit) which is due at the printer March 1, so I should have plenty of time to edit this article. P.S. Your homework is more important than Wikipedia!  :) Rick Norwood (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My homework is easy, or at least that's what I think. My classmates often disagree. Also: my homework will only be seen by my teacher. In two months, this article will draw a million readers in one day. Homework is never more important than publicity. I'm glad to hear you have time this weekend. Happy editing, and good luck with your conference! You said it was a math conference; are you a professor by any chance? Your userpage says your area of expertise is algebraic topology, which is the greatest field in mathematics (that needs no citation). What areas of topology specifically? I'm not an expert, but I know quite a bit about the field. It's my favorite area of mathematics.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a knot theorist by trade, though the talk I'm giving is on graph theory. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)