Talk:Classical liberalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Definition of classical liberalism

Is classical liberalism (a) liberalism before 1900 or (b) laissez-faire liberalism? The Four Deuces (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the term classical liberalism is usually used to describe laissez faire liberalism as developed in the nineteenth century, it is sometimes used to describe pre-1900 liberalism. This has created confusion in this article that jumps from the 18th century to neoliberalism, and leaves out detail about 19th century liberalism, making it appear that neoliberalism is a revival of 18th rather than 19th century liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

:It's both. There is no difference. It's the liberalism that existed prior to the development of social liberalism, and that's the philosophy of laissez-faire. As this source says: "Typically, classical liberalism is assocated with eighteenth and nineteenth century classical economics It stands for freedom of the individual within a framework of law, self-reliance, and a minimum role for government." Macesich, George. Integration and Stabilization: A Monetary View. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996. p. 68, What's causing confusion is what you and Rick Norwood are doing to the intro, which is making it look like they're two different things. The intro needs to go back to the way it was before: [1] Introman (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are we using a economist as a source, rather than a political scientist? This is a political science topic. It would be like citing a chemist on a geology topic. 174.49.77.138 (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be a much better source. 174.49.77.138 (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article does not appear to be well supported by the source. Just thought I would say so. --FormerIP (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll double check and get back to you -- but probably not until tomorrow. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica and does not support the statement. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Britannica online: "Classical liberalism » Liberalism and democracy The early liberals, then, worked to free individuals from two forms of social constraint—religious conformity and aristocratic privilege—that had been maintained and enforced through the powers of government." That seems to confirm that when they use the phrase Classical liberalism, they don't intend the adjective "classical" in any special sense, but just mean "early liberalism". The second references uses the phrase to mean Jacksonian Liberalism, which was more about free markets. In this sense, it seems to parallel "Classical Econmoics", meaning pre-Keynsian economics. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, though, the source doesn't specifically say "liberalism before the 20th century", which is what it is used to support. --FormerIP (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I'll change it to "early liberalism". Rick Norwood (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC response: as a descriptive academic term in the humanities and discourse based social sciences, the use of the term will vary and be defined from credible source to credible source. Recommendation: Clarify all major academic uses with appropriate sections; restrict non-academic uses to "In popular culture" cited out of recent media works." Fifelfoo (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it also looks to me like theres another hurdle in the way. Seems like there are two distinct ways of using the term "classical liberalism". One is simply to mean "an original or archetypal form of liberalism". The second is as a name that some libertarians have adopted. It seems to me that the article needs to decide whether it is about one, the other or both, and this should be made clear for the reader.

What the article should not do is follow any particular POV over the distinction. In particular, it should not present as fact the aptness of the use of the term "classical liberal" for "libertarian", either explicitly or impliedly (by favourable comparison). Quite probably, this is a view held exclusively by libertarians, and so considerations of due weight should be observed (it seems to me that the article isn't doing that at present).

The article seems to me to be seriously in error in focussing almost exclusively on liberalism as an economic doctrine, whereas it is, historically speaking, a much broader set of political doctrines, having their origins in a philosophy of religious toleration and pluralism. Liberalism in the sense of laissez-faire, whilst it certainly exists, is a relative latecomer. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the more accurate view of "classical liberalism" is one which takes the term "classical" seriously, i.e. considers it to be a purely historical forerunner to a number of different modern liberal movements as diverse as social democracy, libertarianism, socialism, and anarchism. That there are present-day libertarians and anarcho-capitalists on the political fringe who insist that they are the only true 21st-century standard-bearers of "classical liberalism" is no more relevant than the fact that some fringe Catholics insist that the spirit of the Second Vatican Council is inherently a corruption of "true Catholicism", or the fact that some Trotskyites and Maoists on the fringes of the Marxist movement insist that their specific variant of Marxism, to the exclusion of all others, is the only "true Marxism". If I were to call myself a "Colonial American", it would dilute the significance of that phrase to the point of meaninglessness. Andrew Levine (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism as defined in Modern political philosophy

Below is a description of classical liberalism from Modern political philosophy.[2] While the term can be used to refer to pre-1900 liberalism from Locke to Gladstone, it usually has a stricter definition. I think that this definition should be used because there is no need to have an article that describes pre-1900 Liberalism since it is contained in the Liberalism article. Secondly, there should be an article on what is normally called "classical liberalism'.

Classical Liberalism

By the middle of the nineteenth century a coherent vision of how society should be organized had taken shape in England, western Europe, and the Americas. This vision is the political ideology of classical liberalism.... Central to the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is a commitment to the liberty of individual citizens. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly were core commitments of classical liberalism, as was the underlying conception of the proper role of just government as the protection of the liberties of individual citizens. Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life.

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition above is a good one, but I think the article needs to at least mention other and conflicting usages of the phrase. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a new lead. Please read it and discuss. I have move the original lead to the next section. This needs to be edited for duplication with parts moved to other parts of the article. Also, I have archived discussion before the RfC. Most of this talk involved discussion with the disruptive editor User:Introman, who has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet of User:RJII. I have also archived additional threads he began and struck out his comments on the current talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your new lede is much better than the old. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into DESTINATION PAGE. -- The Four Deuces (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Propose merging History of classical liberalism into Classical liberalism. The history article duplicates material in this article and also is largely unsourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support per reasons given by proposer. --Snowded ^TALK 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons. --FormerIP (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputes over whether social liberalism is derived from classical liberalism

This section provides information irrelevant to the article, is American-centric and POV. Does anyone have any reason why it should be in this article? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to do something about this dispute. I don't think we can just sweep it under the rug. One thing I've noticed in my recent reading of the article is that "freedom for individuals" is silently conflated with "freedom for multi-national corporations". The statement is that individuals should be free, but the application is that multi-national corporations should be free to eliminate competition, fix prices and wages, pollute the air and water, form monopolies, and use their wealth and power to control the media. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The origins of social liberalism, progressivism and modern American liberalism should all be discussed in their respective articles. Obviously progressivism and social liberalism were influenced by both conservatism (e.g., the welfare state) and socialism (e.g., universal adult suffrage), but at least in the UK can be seen as a reaction to both. But I see no reason why this should be discussed here. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of your examples seem alien to me. I suspect I'm missing something. To me, social liberalism is clearly derived from classical liberalism. By social liberalism I mean the modern welfare state with human rights guarantees (as contrasted with the Soviet or Maoist welfare state with no human rights) and classical liberalism means 18th Century liberalism with a strong government and a strong capitalist economy. Both systems support freedom, limitations on the power of government, and capitalism. The difference is well-expressed in the Britannica Online article "Liberalism": social liberals see the greatest threat to liberty to no longer be the church and the aristocracy but rather now to be the upper class and the business interests. It does no good for the modern "classical liberals" to say I'm "free" if my only freedom is to allow myself to be cheated by all-powerful corporate intersts or to starve.

If this were clear to everyone, the article would not need to say it. But throughout most of the articles on politics one finds paragraphs that claim social liberals want to take money from the "most productive" people and give it away to "lazy, good-for-nothing" poor people. If that were true, then social liberalism would not be related to classical liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems they are referring to 19th century liberalism in particular. (Friedman refers to "The nineteenth century liberal" and "turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism".) In any case it seems to be the wrong article. We have modern libertarians commenting on social liberalism in an article about classical liberalism. The examples: Classical liberals saw welfare as originating with Bismarck's State Socialism and thought the social liberals were influenced by Fichte. Universal suffrage was not accepted by classical liberals (except in the US) until the late 19th century. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you know more about this than I do. If you think it should go, let it go. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it and also a paragraph about Hayek's comparison of classical liberalism in the UK and France.[3] He was not referring to classical liberalism but liberty and political traditions in general. (See Hayek, Constitution of Liberty, ch. 4) The Four Deuces (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. Hayek was discussing the "two different traditions in the theory of liberty" of the eighteenth-century which merged into a liberal movement in the nineteenth-century. He further says they are both "now commonly lumped together as the ancestors of modern liberalism": i.e they were classical liberals. All thinkers he mentioned are usually described as "liberal" and are mentioned in Wikipedia's "List of liberal theorists". His perceptions explain why so many varied, often contradictory, thinkers are labelled "classical liberal".--Britannicus (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several definitions of classical liberalism but the article's focus should be on 19th century liberalism (per the lead) because the origins of liberalism are discussed in the Liberalism article. That 19th century liberalism drew on both traditions is important but probably best addressed when discussing the various theorists. BTW Hayek' listing of Edmund Burke and mention of Whigs and Radicals shows that he is discussing the liberal tradition in its broadest sense. Also I question why we would present the comparison of French and English political traditions as Hayek's opinions rather than present it as fact by sourcing it to reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with removal. Article's lead is focusing on 19th century liberalism only after you have replaced it [4]. -- Vision Thing -- 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Most writers including Hayek draw a distinction between 19th century liberalism and its predecessors, usually calling the former "classical liberalism". There may be a tendency among some of Hayek's professed followers to group Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton with Herbert Spencer and Andrew Jackson, but that is a minority POV. Could you reply in the following section to my suggestions. Incidentally Hayek's book is not a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you claim that Hayek's book is not a reliable source? -- Vision Thing -- 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Because he was so closely involved in it himself, he had a strong incentive to present his beliefs as having a firm and elaborate background that had been 'usurped' by new challengers, while claiming the mantle of widely-admired historical figures and movements for himself; this was a narrative that cast his beliefs in a favorable light, and therefore it is hardly surprising that he would be enamored of it. But tracing the antecedents of political thought is difficult and prone to personal interpretation, especially when spanning such a long period of time throughout which such turbulent social change occurred; for that reason, in evaluating changes in political thought it is better to rely on neutral scholars of political history who themselves are not affiliated with or invested in the topics being discussed. Hayek not a reliable source for this article, except to source his own personal beliefs and statements when they are directly attributed to him; and even in that it should be kept to a minimum to avoid over-representing one person's views. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hayek was a public intellectual who wrote popular books outside his area of expertise, like The Constitution of Liberty. The book is not part of the academic discourse of the history of liberalism and in any case was written fifty years ago. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit that is discussed. Hayek is an extremely notable political philosopher and his works are certainly reliable sources for his opinions. -- Vision Thing -- 14:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename article

Since the term classical liberalism has several meanings, it might be helpful to rename the article "19th century liberalism". The Four Deuces (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism originated in the 19th century but it is wrong to describe it as a "19th century liberalism". For example, in his book Classical Liberalism David Conway writes:

"After falling into almost complete intellectual disrepute towards the end of the nineteenth century, classical liberalism was rescued from oblivion and revived in the twentieth century by such notable thinkers as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The revival has spawned a whole spate of more recent thinkers inaccurately and now somewhat anachronistically known as the 'new right'. Included here are such figures as Robert Nozick, Loren Lomasky and Jan Narveson."

For additional discussion you can also see Richard Epstein's book Skepticism and Freedom: A Modern Case for Classical Liberalism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I put in the lead: "The term classical liberalism is also used to refer to liberal ideology before the twentieth century and to laissez faire or economic liberalism." It is a problem when a term has several differing meanings. But there should be a separate article about mainstream liberalism c. 1830-1900. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think that another article is needed, you can create it. However, I think that this article should be kept under current title. -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, though, the problem with your sources is that you rely, above, exclusively on writers who consider themselves to be classical liberals. Obviously they are going to make the argument that they are a genuine continuation of nineteenth century liberalism and that those who call them the 'new right' are wrong; but for the article to take sides in that dispute itself by relying uncritically on their flattering self-descriptions is improper and POV. It should either rely on neutral sources, or at least describe the opinions of modern self-described 'classical liberals' as their own opinion rather than impartial fact. --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Hayek, Epstein is also a public intellectual who writes popular books outside his area of expertise. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In A companion to contemporary political philosophy Alan Ryan says that "Classical liberalism is associated with John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville and Friedrich von Hayek. It focuses on the idea of limited government, the maintenance of the rule of law, the avoidance of arbitrary and discretionary power, the sanctity of private property and freely made contracts, and the responsibility of individuals for their own fates." So to me it seems that classical liberalism has a clear definition, more the notable proponents and a long tradition. -- Vision Thing -- 15:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(out)It would be helpful if you would read the article and the comments before commenting. I wrote the following several posts up:

I put in the lead: "The term classical liberalism is also used to refer to liberal ideology before the twentieth century and to laissez faire or economic liberalism." It is a problem when a term has several differing meanings. But there should be a separate article about mainstream liberalism c. 1830-1900. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, if you think that there should be a separate article about 19th century liberalism (my suggestion is creation of article called "History of liberalism") you can create it. What this article needs is expansion. -- Vision Thing -- 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack of the gold bugs!

As a classical liberal, I take issue with the claim that "Classical liberals advocate a gold standard", added by User:Can I touch it?. It is one thing to say that classical liberals generally support personal freedom, free markets, and limited government. It is quite another to suggest that they all agree on specific policies. A person who supports civil liberties and neoclassical economics could easily be called a classical liberal. However, neoclassical economics does not favor a gold standard. Milton Friedman, for example, favored monetarism instead of a gold standard. Modern neoclassical economists are far more likely to favor inflation targeting over a gold standard as a way of promoting a stable monetary policy.

Although this article has existed since October 12, 2001, the gold standard claim is only a recent addition to this article, being added about a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. I cannot find the book referenced (i.e. "Money and Economic Change"), either on Amazon.com or Google Books.

On another note, regarding the "Classical liberalism" and libertarianism section, I'd argue that libertarianism is a subset of classical liberalism. Thus, classical liberalism is a general belief in personal freedom, free markets, and limited government, while libertarianism is much more focused on specific issues (e.g. guns, drugs, and taxes) and solutions. --JHP (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the gold standard seems dubious to me as well, but since I am not a classical liberal, I hesitated to change it. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I added external links for two of the sources. Mark Skousen's book is unacceptable because it is a popular book, not academic. The problem with the section is that there was no debate about the gold standard before the twentieth century. Seems like another attempt to show that classical liberals were libertarians. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Since the claim that "Skousen's book is unacceptable" diverted the debate away from the original point of this section, I have broken the "unacceptable source" debate into a different section. Continue debating inclusion of the gold standard claims here. Again, I think the claim that "Classical liberals advocate a gold standard" should be removed. --JHP (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) If I interpret the comments above correctly, it seems to me that we have three Wikipedians (Rick Norwood, The Four Deuces, and me) in favor of removing the gold standard claims and none against. Am I correct on that? (If not I apologize.) Is it safe for me to remove them? --JHP (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I removed the dubious gold standard claims from the article. If anyone objects to this, please speak up. This may make the "unacceptable source" debate moot, but to me the debate was never about Skousen's book per se. It was about the standards for acceptable sources in general. --JHP (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable source

I added external links for two of the sources. Mark Skousen's book is unacceptable because it is a popular book, not academic. The problem with the section is that there was no debate about the gold standard before the twentieth century. Seems like another attempt to show that classical liberals were libertarians. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular books are not unacceptable sources. See WP:RS for Wikipedia's reliability guideline. If a college professor writes a book for a broad audience, it would be foolish to assume that it's automatically unacceptable. Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman are two Nobel laureates who have written excellent popular books. Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger are two former government officials who have written excellent popular books (The Age of Turbulence and Diplomacy, respectively). Historian John Keegan has written multiple popular books on warfare that are also used as college texts. Although I have not read Skousen's The Making of Modern Economics, I have read his The Big Three in Economics and it is very good—essentially The Worldly Philosophers from a neoclassical perspective. However, I think we need to be wary of taking any book's claim out of context. --JHP (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Skousen in not in the same league as those other writers, and also not in the league of Mises and Hayek who would be better sources for a "neoclassical perspective". The problem with popular books is that there is no way to tell the acceptability of their views or whether errors have been made, since they do not form part of academic writing. If you want to quote Friedman or Krugman it is better to find a source in their academic writing. RS states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." (Seems to exclude M. Skousen.) The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be joking! The text you quoted disproves your claim that non-academic books are unacceptable sources! You are essentially making up your own Wikipedia policy. To quote WP:SOURCES, "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." (Emphasis added.) Let me also point out that Mark Skousen has a Ph.D. in economics from George Washington University. His book is about the history of the subject his Ph.D. is in. --JHP (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He actually fails all the criteria that you cited. Your quote begins "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals" which your source fails to meet and then the rest of your quote further explains why his quotes are unacceptable. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

First, it's not my source. If you go back to the top of this section, you'll see that I'm the guy complaining about the gold standard claims. However, I got diverted by the fact that you are making up your own Wikipedia policies. WP:SOURCES clearly lists different types of reliable sources. It lists peer-reviewed journals as "the most reliable sources", but it by no means suggests that those are the only reliable sources. Quite the opposite, it goes on to list other types of reliable sources. The sections I highlighted in bold are the categories that apply to Mark Skousen's book. You, however, have decided to resort to a red herring fallacy by quoting the "peer-reviewed journals" section of WP:SOURCES, when you know full well that that is not the part of WP:SOURCES that is applicable in this debate. WP:SOURCES clearly states that "books published by respected publishing houses" and "material from reliable non-academic sources" are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. You have done nothing to assert that Skousen's book is not published by a respected publishing house, nor have you presented any information to suggest that Skousen's book is somehow an unreliable non-academic source, rather than a reliable non-academic source. Skousen's publisher, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., is a publisher of textbooks, reference books, and academic journals. Mark Skousen is a Ph.D. economist who is writing about the history of economic thought.

If you want to claim (backed up by evidence) that Skousen's publisher is not a "respected publishing house" and that Skousen himself is not a reliable source despite his Ph.D. in the subject he's writing about, that's fine with me. However, your initial claim was that a book is unacceptable if it is "a popular book, not academic". This is flatly refuted by WP:SOURCES which states that "material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used". I don't care about Skousen's book. I actually want to see the whole gold standard section removed. What I do care about is correctly applying existing Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources, rather than having some editors just making up their own policies on the fly. --JHP (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) You should assume goodfaith in discussions. Non-notable books by non-notable people are non-notable. That is my understanding of the policy. If what Mark Skousen wrote can be found in mainstream sources by known economists then use them. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you are right that I should assume good faith. I apologize. Notability is not the standard for references. Reliability is. Notability is the standard for the subject of Wikipedia articles. Please don't confuse the two. --JHP (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a tendency among academics to write books for the popular press that present topics in ways that would be unacceptable in academic writing. Many of these books are helpful for laymen to gain an understanding of topics without having to read complex jargon. Others however are highly partisan or even propound fringe theories. The problem is that there is no way to know the reliablity of any of these books without examination. Let me provide an example I came across in another article.

Arthur C. Brooks is a leading expert on charitable giving and wrote an academic book called Gifts of Time and Money (2005) and a polemical book called Who really cares (2006) using essentially the same data. What is striking about these two books is that very different conclusions are reached. Notice that he provides a chart in both books comparing volunteerism in the US with other countries: [5] [6] His second book argues among other things that Americans are the most generous people in the world.

M Skousen is not as well renowned as Brooks and his father Cleon Skousen, who was also a professor, wrote books that are clearly non-mainstream. Lots of editors too will use these sources when they wish to present opinions that do not appear in academic literature. To me, including sources like these does not improve articles.

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but it still doesn't change WP:SOURCES. Again, you don't get to make up your own Wikipedia policies. If you don't like existing Wikipedia policies, go argue your point on the talk page of WP:VERIFY. This is not the place to do it. On article pages, we work by existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines whether we agree with them or not.

Wikipedia's standards are lower than those for academic work. Since the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are not academics and don't read academic publications, if Wikipedia did have higher standards it would also be a much smaller encyclopedia. It's what you call a trade-off. --JHP (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic work, of course, also allows original research, as would contribution to an ordinary encyclopædia. —SlamDiego_←T 04:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The essential point has already be made: “reliability” is the standard for references. A party who insist that others must operate by a different standard should either work in a forthright manner to change existing policy, or move to some different project. BTW, while I have not read any of Skousen's books, the one (on history o' thought) at which I glanced in a library had been praised by Friedman, a well-known, mainstream, academic economist. —SlamDiego_←T 04:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Mark Skousen is an idiot. From what I know, he writes from an Austrian-school perspective, not from a neoclassical one. He has, however, published in peer-reviewed journals, for example, the Journal of Economic Literature, if I recall correctly. And M. E. Sharpe publishes much good work in economics - their journal Challenge, for example. Skousen's recent book would then seem to be a "Reliable Source". The proper way to challenge the comment about the gold standard would seem to be to find another Reliable Source that says the opposite. -- RLV 209.217.195.179 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all the comments above, dropping a quick comment after reading this request for input. Based on his WP biography, it seems like Skousen is educated in economics and notable as a libertarian economist (FEE for example, is notable in my opinion). A popular book commenting on economics can be an appropriate source, certainly a reliable source for reporting opinion. I'd make the same argument about Naomi Klein's books, although her (formal, at least) education in economics is much less. That said, I'm not willing to say yes or no yet to whether referencing Skousen is appropriate, but as a matter of WP:RS, but as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. It might give undue weight to those views. Sorry I don't have input on whether I think it does or not at this time. CRETOG8(t/c) 01:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that the book qualifies as a reliable source, but a partisan one. It can be used but with the caveat that it is attributed. ie. "According to Austrian school economist Mark Skousen ...." This is the standard formula used for sources whenever there is a dispute. LK (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you require a comparable qualifier when using The Worldly Philosophers as a source? Robert Heilbroner is known for his own beliefs that were a bit out of the mainstream, but I don't think most reasonable people would require such a qualifier when using his book as a reference. I haven't read The Making of Modern Economics, but I have read The Big Three in Economics by Skousen. It's supposedly a condensed version of The Making of Modern Economics. Skousen himself may be out of the mainstream, but The Big Three in Economics describes the history of economic thought from a fairly conventional neoclassical perspective. --JHP (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. while Lawrencekhoo admits that the work appears to be a “reliable” source, he proposes that we instead treat it exactly as if it were a “notable” but unreliable source. —SlamDiego_←T 17:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Diego, please do not make snide remarks about me again. Please read WP:RS before making up your own policy. Note where it says "Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." When ever there is a dispute between sources, it is customary to attribute the source. LK (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo, that was a perfectly accurate appraisal of what you were proposing to do. It has not been established here what claims are to be supported by reference to Skousen, let that these claims are somehow outside of consensus; so the passage that you now cite is thus far irrelevant. When Skousen (like any “reliable” source) were used as the support for unexceptional claims, there would be no policy-based call to attach caveats; nor is there a peculiar need to note when caveats might in theory be needed for Skousen as opposed to them being needed for any other “reliable” source. I am plainly not making-up my own policy, and this is yet another of your habitual misrepresentations of what I have actually said. Whether snide (as here) or not, these misrepresentations are grossly inappropriate. Stick to the facts about policy, and about those with whom you disagree. —SlamDiego_←T 16:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

LK gave a perfectly reasonable general approach to the reference in question (which happens to agree with my view). That is, almost anything from the book could probably be referenced in the article with attribution to identify the possible bias, because the book appears to be a reliable source based largely on its author, who is a reliable source for certain views of economics. The presentation of this general approach probably should not be taken to mean that anything from the book must be so presented. It's just simpler to give the general approach. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever one may think of the approach presented in Lawrencekhoo's response to me, the approach that he presented in his earlier remark wasn't an appropriate general approach, as we would not apply a caveat to claims in general but only to controversial claims (nor of course would we apply the caveat peculiarly to claims from this source that were controversial, but to any claims that were controversial from any source); JHP's question in response was quite apropos. In its originally statement, Lawrencekhoo's recommendation would have treated a “reliable” source not as “reliable” but merely as “notable”. —SlamDiego_←T 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking WP:NOTE is irrelevant for this discussion, because that guideline doesn't apply to article content, or sources. "Notability" is a worthwhile point of discussion, but for collegial discussion purposes, not apparently for appealing to WP rules. LK contributed to this discussion by answering the question asked, and gave a little more context. You have criticized LK's contribution to the discussion, in a manner which implies LK's contribution to the discussion should be dismissed ("Of course.") merely because it comes from LK. And you have gone into the intellectual and legal history of the gold standard. However, you have not yet actually contributed to the discussion at hand.CRETOG8(t/c) 00:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm linking to WP:NOTE to make available what is entailed in the contrast between treating a source as “notable” as opposed to treating it as “reliable”. Anyone who feels that they clearly understand that difference is free not to follow the link. No, I'm not treating Lawrencekhoo's contribution as one to be dismissed because of its source; rather, with that “of course” I am noting that it has come from an editor whose history should cause his interpretations of policy to be viewed with increased skepticism. As to my contribution to the discussion at hand, I suggest that you read that discussion more carefully. —SlamDiego_←T 00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no need to write, "According to Austrian school economist Mark Skousen ...." in referencing this Reliable Source unless you can find another reliable source that contradicts Skousen. -- RLV 209.217.195.183 (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As to there being “no debate about the gold standard before the twentieth century”, that's simply not true. Nor is the cartoon version of history (which, I acknowledge, is not being presented by any editor here) that the world or the United States were on the gold standard through most of the 19th Century. Nor the cartoon claim that classical liberals in general or libertarians in particular all agree or ever agreed that the gold standard were the best available regime. The United States began with a de jure silver standard, with gold and other metals as subsidiary coinage. The de facto situation was that precious metals tended to leave the economy. Under the Jackson Administration, the subsidiary ratio of gold was changed, which shifted the United States onto a de facto gold standard, but it wasn't until 1873 that the dollar was redefined in terms of gold (rather than of silver), and this caused a substantial political struggle that wasn't closed until 1900. (In a sense, then, the gold standard only prevailed for about 35 years.) Meanwhile, the rest of the world was likewise struggling over what to use as money. —SlamDiego_←T 19:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Slam, I do not understand your postings. Why do you think that Skousen is notable and why do you think that there is something in his popular books that does not appear in his peer-reviewed writings? Do you believe that there is some sort of conspiracy that prevents the publication of his views in academic papers? Your introduction of the subject of bimetallism is a red herring. Why should other editors have to read comic book versions of economics when substantial literature already exists? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just how much are you going to get wrong here?

1. I have never said that Skousen was “notable” (nor that he wasn't).
2. I have never said that anything appears in his writings that does not appear in peer-reviewed literature (nor that it all does).
3. Trying to label me as a conspiracy theorist would be bad enough, but doing so based upon a wholesale misrepresentation of what I have said is truly over-the-top.
4. A straight-forward rebuttal to your incorrect claim that “there was no debate about the gold standard before the twentieth century” is not somehow a red herring.
5. I was not confining myself in that rebuttal to noting the arguments about bimetallism — 19th Century challenges to the gold standard were more wide-ranging than that — though that would be sufficient to rebut you.
6. I didn't suggest that anyone should have to read comic book versions of economics.

Now, what can you offer in response to my prior comments that isn't based on such wildly counter-factual claims?

—SlamDiego_←T 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Slam, perhaps you could answer my question: why should a popular book by Skousen be used when higher quality sources are available? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

First, because Wikipedia policy allows it. If you are unhappy with Wikipedia policy, then take your disagreement to the talk page for the given policy. This is not the place for it. Second, because few Wikipedia editors read academic publications. You act as if the choice is between nonacademic sources and academic sources, when in practical terms the choice is between nonacademic sources and no sources. --JHP (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have offered an defense or apology for the above misrepresentations before pushing on to another question. As to that question, I remind you that I've not said that Skousen should be used when higher quality sources exist; I don't know whether higher quality sources exist. (As I said, “I have not read any of Skousen's books”, which leaves me unable to judge its relative merits.) We were asked to comment on whether a source were good, not on whether other sources were better. You were claiming that it wasn't “reliable” based upon a pronounced misreading of policy. JHP was right in his objection to that reading, and I commented exactly to that effect. There's a huge break-down in logic here, in terms of how you read policy, and in terms of how you read the comments of other editors. —SlamDiego_←T 07:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion page is to improve the article, not to assign blame. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the source of debate between SlamDiego and Lawrencekhoo is that Lawrencekhoo appears to be advocating an overly-broad use of the qualifier "According to Austrian school economist Mark Skousen ....". It appears that Lawrencekhoo is advocating use of that qualifier for anything Mark Skousen says, even noncontroversial statements. Thus, if Mark Skousen said the Earth orbits around the sun, it would result in the statement "According to Austrian school economist Mark Skousen, the Earth orbits around the sun." It may be that Lawrencekhoo just used poor wording that is subsequently being misinterpreted by SlamDiego. If Skousen or any other author says something that is not controversial, then no qualifier should be used. The qualifier should only be used if the statement itself is subject to disagreement. I think that's the point SlamDiego is trying to make.

At first I was confused by SlamDiego's reference to WP:NOTE and notability. I think he just weakened his argument by mentioning it, as he seems to have confused everyone by mentioning and linking to an inapplicable policy. I think SlamDiego is saying that Lawrencekhoo agrees that Mark Skousen is a reliable source, but then advocates a qualifier that would suggest to readers that Skousen is an unreliable source. I think that's a misreading of what Lawrencekhoo was saying, but I understand why SlamDiego sees it that way.

The 03:08, 14 December 2009 comment by The Four Deuces is nonsensical. I agree that he seems to be systematically misreading both Wikipedia policy and other people's comments. --JHP (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo could always have declared that he'd initially said something other than he'd intended to say; he didn't subsequently make such a declaration. (Based on previous observations, I think that he initially said pretty much what he'd intended to say.)

The weakness or strength of an argument is not a function of whether people follow it. It is a function of the plausibility of its assumptions and the soundness of its logic. If I failed to anticipate how people would make unwarranted inferential leaps in response to my linking to WP:NOTE, that may speak to a poor choice of expression on my part, but it does not speak to the strength of the argument. —SlamDiego_←T 08:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing Definition section

Yeah...the section reads like someone grudgingly admitting that there has been a change and then immediately trying to attack their opponent (the sarcasm is extremely ill-advised). I suggest a complete overhaul. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this addressed to me? If so, and if I was sarcastic, please point out where, and I will apologize. I detest sarcasm.

If the libertarian point of view about what liberals believe is to be given a place in this article, then the liberal point of view about what liberals believe should also have a place in the article.

I think you are sincere in your beliefs about liberals. But what this article says liberals believe is not what liberals really believe. And what it says classical liberals believed is not what classical liberals believe.

I'll try once again to explain what liberals believe. Libertarians would not accept it if someone physically stronger than you came up and used their physical strength to take away your freedom. But they accept it if someone financially stronger than you takes away your freedom. Liberalism arose at a time when we were much less free than we are today, and when the main enemy of freedom was the state. But today, we are free to do almost anything we please. And the enemy of freedom is no longer the state, but the multinational corporation. The only force that stands a chance of keeping our freedoms alive is the government, which can at least be voted out of office if they behave too badly. Without any government control, the multinational corporation can do anything it pleases. And what it pleases to do it to pollute the environment, make short term profits with no view for the long term, reward those who strip their own corporation of its assets for their personal gain, fire workers who are too old, or the wrong color, of talk with an accent, and allocate the benefits of the corporation in a ratio of 99.9 to .1 in favor of the chairman and the board. (Ben and Jerry's, in an effort at egalitarianism, tried to limit the pay of an executive to one thousand times the pay of a worker. They couldn't do it.) If the corporate interests, the Rupert Murdoch media, succeed in convincing the American people that "small government", by which they mean government that allows multinational corporations to do anything that makes a profit, is "freedom", all I can say is that they won't like what they get. The Bush Great Depression II will look like a cakewalk. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has far too much information about libertarianism and the U.S. I suggest removing all the text sections except for the lead and history sections, and part of the "world peace" section, and trying to build from there. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be conservative in my approach to changing articles. Why not remove one section, see if that is accepted, and then remove another, instead of removing many sections at the same time? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, remember, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that you should BE BOLD when making changes.

I agree with The Four Deuces that this article is too focused on the U.S. and libertarianism. This may be because the term "classical liberalism" is an American term for what much of the world simply calls "liberalism". Also, libertarianism is a modern American incarnation of classical liberalism.

I recommend defining classical liberalism entirely by ideology, and not by time period. That ideology has a history, which should be mentioned, but it should not be an integral part of the definition. In this sense, classical liberalism is analogous to Marxism. Marxism has a history that begins in the 19th century, but Marxism is defined entirely by ideology. Marxism largely fell out of favor around 1990, but few people would define it as only a 19th and 20th century phenomenon. I would define classical liberalism as "a belief in personal, political, and economic freedom" or "a belief in civil liberties, free markets, and limited government". I would argue that classical liberalism is a more general ideology than libertarianism, just as liberalism is more general than classical liberalism.

While this article claims that classical liberalism was developed in the 19th century, I would argue that it reaches back to the late 18th century, as that is when Smith published The Wealth of Nations.

A final comment: In the article, "libertarian" is being capitalized when it should be lowercase. It should only be capitalized when referring to the Libertarian Party or members of the party. A libertarian is a person who holds libertarian beliefs. A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party. A democrat is someone who believes in democracy. A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party. (An exception is Marxist, because Marx is originally a name.) --JHP (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Be with caution bold." We all agree that the article is too focused on the US and on Libertarianism. But you make a number of assertions that are controversial: first the claim that "classical liberalism" is an American term and that in most of the world "liberalism" is taken to mean "classical liberalism", second that libertarianism is a modern American incarnation of classical liberalism. These assertions may be true, but I'd like to see sources.

Of your two suggested definitions, I think the second is closer to the mark than the first. Classical liberals often claim that their ultimate goal is freedom, but freedom for the strong often means slavery for the weak. If the white southerner is free to own slaves, then the slave is not free. If a banker is free to cozen me out of the house I've lived in all my life, then I'm no longer free to live in that house. Freedom is an important part of the rhetoric of classical liberalism, but the end result is often that greater freedom for the rich leads to less freedom for the majority. In short, a claim in the lede that classical liberals believe in freedom would require an explanation too complicated to neatly fit in the lede.

As for whether classical liberalism began with Adam Smith or followed Adam Smith, I've read sources for both statements and I think this article can go either way.

Your point about capitalization is well taken. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While Adam Smith and other 18th century liberals had an influence on classical liberalism, the theory did not really emerge until the 19th century. Classical liberals advocated universal education, democracy and free markets in order to enhance individual freedom and wealth (and world peace too!), leading them to oppose established conservative and liberal elites. Throughout the century their theories evolved as they were forced to deal with problems caused by industrialization. Eventually this lead to regulation and the creation of the welfare state. Modern libertarianism and neoliberalism (or neoclassical liberalism) are not classical liberalism but an attempt to return to classical liberal principles, particularly those of the earliest classical liberals. They are clearly discussed in their own articles and there is no need to repeat their views here. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

External links cleanup needed

I recommend removing many (most?) of the external links. WP:EL provides guidance on appropriate and inappropriate external links. I think links that are only tangentially related to classical liberalism should be removed. Links to libertarian organizations that don't provide readers with an immediate deeper understanding of classical liberalism should probably be removed. On the other hand, I just added a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article about liberalism (specifically the section on classical liberalism) because it is another reference for curious readers. --JHP (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would argue, that classical liberalism differs with modern liberals on the basis of empiricism vs metaphysical. Empiricism comes from the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. Modern liberals swung towards The Metaphysics or Romantic Philosophy. Darwins theory upset the scientific world, and Marx upset the economic world. Classical Liberal would both beleive and practice Darwins theory and Adam Smiths. Smith used empiricism thru observations in his books, and Marx used the Romantic Hegallian dialect to create a problem with capitalism. Darwin used empiricism as well, which worked with Smiths economics of a free market. The modern liberal rejects Smiths observations, but excepts Darwins all the while saying that they hold the higher grounds of humanity because nature and the natural order as far as humans are concerned is inhumane. What rise out of modern liberalism is the Government Paternal order as opposed to the Individual Paternal. The popular Nanny State and its govt paternal orders, are cavalier and rise out of the same romantic philosophy that Ante-Bellum South was involved in. Uncle Tom's Cabin is a classical liberal book. The runaway slaves giving up their security of the Plantation, ie, shelter, warmth, food, and even medicine, set out on a open hostile road not knowing if they would even eat that night, sleep under the stars..but they have their freedom. Modern Liberals like Engels said that they were still slaves because they lacked wages, money, food and everything they gave up on the plantation. Hence the Term Plantation Nation.----pooldadi...Uncle Toms Cabin, Adam Smith, engels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooldadi (talk • contribs) 5 January 2010

JHP, please take out irrelevant or biased links. Pooldadi, these pages are for discussion about the article not for general discussion of the topics. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The sourced is being removed and the unsourced being put back in

In the lede, I am taking out ""It followed earlier forms of liberalism in its commitment to personal freedom and popular government, but differed from earlier forms of liberalism in its commitment to free markets and classical economics" because it's NOT in the source. The source given for this is http://www.google.com/books?id=sq-1z8VMhDEC&lpg=PP1&dq=Modern%20Political%20Philosophy&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=&f=false It does NOT say that it DIFFERS FROM EARLIER FORMS OF LIBERALISM by supporting economic freedom. And I put this in instead, which IS in the source, explicitly: "It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets." However when I do this it has been reverted by two editors. They are doing the opposite of what is supposed to be done, by removing what is sourced and putting back in what is not sourced. Can I touch it? (talk)

Also, being removed in the process is the paragraph on the gold standard which is amply sourced: "Classical liberals advocate a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government Adam Smith was concerned with the government manipulation of the money supply. To prevent this he favored a monetary system based on gold and silver, and also supported free banking. Other classical economists that formulated the tenets of a gold standard include Cantillon, Hume, Ricardo, Thornton, Mill, Cairnes, Goschen, and Bagehot. [7] Can I touch it? (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You took out freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are in the source, and added popular government, which is not. Popular government was not a core liberal principle. Also the gold standard stuff is misleading. The gold standard existed long both liberalism emerged and was not challenged until the twentieth century. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No I did NOT take out freedom of speech and the press. I put them IN. YOU are taking them OUT when you are reverting. Read again. And I took OUT popular government, which was not in the source. YOU'RE putting popular government back IN. You have it all backwards. Pay attention to what you're doing. And the gold standard stuff is sourced as being part of classical liberalism. It doesn't matter if a gold standard existed before liberalism. Classical liberals advocated it, and it is considered part of the classical liberal philosophy. So it belongs. Can I touch it? (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede should not contradict itself

As I've pointed out before, if "classical liberalism" is 19th century liberalism, then it is not the same as "liberalism" without the adjective, because "liberalism" without the adjective began in the 17th century. Also, "liberalism" was all about individual freedom, especially freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. "Classical liberalism" is sometimes used to mean all early forms of liberalism, as the article says, but more often used for Jacksonian liberalism, which is primarily focused on economic freedom. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, People like Jefferson, ect were mostly political liberals, believing in freedom of speech, the press ect. Trying to connect then with the Austrian school is ridiculous. Bobisbob2 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson was a classical liberal. http://books.google.com/books?id=hJGpAT7IWhwC&pg=PA45&dq=%22jefferson%22+%22classical+liberal%22&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22jefferson%22%20%22classical%20liberal%22&f=false It's just that this article's claim that there was some kind of liberalism prior to classical liberalism is wrong. Classical liberalism is just a term to distinguish modern liberalism from liberalism prior. Can I touch it? (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical libearlism did not begin in the 19th century. It began in the 17th century. The claim that it began in the 19th century is not sourced. I can source it beginning in the 17th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=oaK6AAAAIAAJ&q=%22classical+liberalism+developed%22&dq=%22classical+liberalism+developed%22&cd=7 And the claim in the article that classical liberalism is used "more often" to refer to Jacksonian liberalism isn't in the source either. Can I touch it? (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source provided for the claim in the article: [8]. Note that the lead also says: The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century. Despite the conflicting use of the term there is general agreement that the liberalism developed in the early nineteenth century represented a reformulation of the earlier elitist liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it saying that. I see it saying that classical liberalism became "coherent" by the middle of the 19th century. Classical liberalism just means the early liberalism prior to the development of modern liberalism. Can I touch it? (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Classical liberalism first crytalized at the end of the seventeenth century and during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century." http://books.google.com/books?id=oSLckSBh1qAC&q=%22classical+liberalism+first%22&dq=%22classical+liberalism+first%22&cd=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can I touch it? (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said the word is used in two different senses. Perhaps this article should be re-named 19th century liberalism to avoid confusion. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's used in two different senses. If you could bring up another source that you say says classical liberalism began in the 19th century, then I could give your claim credence. It's just not clear that it's saying that in the source you gave above. Can I touch it? (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would do some research on the subject. Here's another reference from a textbook Political ideology today (p. 20).[9] Although different writers use different terms, 19th century liberalism represented a change from earlier liberalism and that is accepted by all mainstream political scientists. The US provides a prime example: Jacksonian democracy differed in many ways from the elitist liberalism of America's colonial rulers. (John Locke had helped write Virginia's colonial constitution.) The Four Deuces (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote something from there? I don't see anything there that says classical liberalism didn't appear until the 19th century. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just popping-in, with a perhaps inadequate appreciation of prior discussion, but it seems to me that The Four Deuces raised a hugely important question and point at in his comments of early September, and there was never a proper resolution. Different and notable senses of “classical liberal” are used by different parties. The lede ought not to simply pick one and perfectly ignore the other. If the article itself is going to use “classical liberal” to mean a 19th century variety of liberalism, then the article at least needs a hat note and a sister article for the more general tradition that runs from Locke through this 19th Century liberalism. Alternately, the article could cover the more general tradition, with the lede making plain that some parties use “classical liberal” more narrowly, and with sections specifically focussing on 19th Century liberalism. —SlamDiego_←T 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, but I haven't seen a source yet that inarguably says that classical liberalism only refers to the liberalism of the 19th century. So if a couple sources can be shown that say that, we can move on to make adjustments. I gave a couple sources that say "classical liberalism" began in the 17th century. I can give more as well, if anyone asks. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No one says it only refers to 19th century liberalism. Clearly it can also refer to pre-20th century liberalism or include libertarianism or even modern American liberalism. Richardson for example uses the term broadly and calls 19th century liberalism "laissez-faire-liberalism". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean where is a source indicating that they don't use the term to apply to pre-19th century liberalism? Can I touch it? (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) Well clearly some writers use the term to refer to all pre-twentieth century liberalism. Note that the lead says: The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century. However they usually then use some other term to distinguish 19th century liberalism from its predecessors. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with that is it's later in the next paragraph of the lede, as if it's a minority view. It hasn't been established that that's a relatively rare use of the term. 00:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How about: "Some use the term "classical liberalism" to refer to all liberalism beginning from the 17th century until the advent of modern liberalism, while some others use the term to refer to the liberalism beginning in at least the 18th century when economic liberalism, represented by the economic laissez-faire ideas of Adam Smith, was melded with the already-existing political liberalism."  ?? Can I touch it? (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle I am fine with giving greater prominence to differing definitions of classical liberalism with hats as Slam suggested. Let's try to work on the phrasing. But I think it is incorrect that Ian Adams implies that classical liberalism developed in the 18th century. It was really after the Great Reform Bill (1832) which increased political power of the emerging middle class. There do not appear to be any writers calling for limited government before that time. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith was 18th century. Not sure why you say no writers called for limited government before that time. ALL liberals prior to modern liberalism called for limited government. That's what liberalism IS. Locke for example: "[Locke's Second Treatise of Government]'s doctrine of limited government and a right of revolution was widely referred to in the years leading up to the American Revolution." [10] Can I touch it? (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For an example of a notable author who uses “classical liberalism” to mean a variety arising in the 19th Century, I would note Noam Chomsky, who at least once claimed that classical liberalism was the creature of von Humboldt. The relevant work would be On the Limits of State Action, which wasn't published until 1850. Elsewhere, Chomsky has pointed to both von Humboldt and Adam Smith. (Please, no one mistake me for a fan of this use or of Chomsky.) —SlamDiego_←T 05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was using the term "limited government" as it is generally used today, i.e., minimal government interference in the economy. The editor of Locke's treatises was referring to limits to executive power. Also, Ian Adams wrote, "It was the coming together of the ideas of Adam Smith and his followers (known as the 'classical economists') with the ideas of Locke, and other advocates of civil rights and limited government, that created classical or laissez-faire liberalism , based on the principles of the free market, minimal government and individual freedom and responsibility." He was not saying that Adam Smith was a classical liberal, merely that classical liberals synthesized the ideas of Smith and Locke. But this did not occur until the 19th century. Slam, thanks for the reference to Chomsky and no I did not think you were a follower of his. I will have to read that. It could be argued that classical liberalism developed earlier than the 19th century, but as the source used states it only became a coherent and influential theory in the 19th. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Limited government" does not just mean minimal interference in the economy, it means minimal with liberty overall. Liberals are for liberty. This is the same thing as saying they are for limited government, because who is it that they don't want to take their liberty away from them? Government. Anyway, what you deleted did not say that classical liberalism did not develop until the 19th century. It said did not develop until "at least" the 18th century.I put this in order to include any source that says the 19th century. In fact the Adams source you gave, says the 18th century: "When the case for economic liberalism began to be argued in the eighteenth century, the startling claim was made that if everyone was simply left to their own economic devices, then the result would not be chaos but a harmonious society of ever growing prosperity. The fusion of this economy liberalism with political liberalism produced one of the most powerful and influential doctrines of modern times, known as classical or laissez-faire liberalism." Can I touch it? (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor of Locke's treatise was referring to the executive branch of government. The King cannot set a tax upon the people, but the people through Parliament may impose a tax upon themselves which the King collects. The King cannot take away civil liberties except through the approval of Parliament.

Adams does not say that classical liberalism developed in the 18th century, merely that economic liberalism developed then. Notice that his narrative jumps from Adams to liberals in the 1830s. They are the ones who combined political and economic liberalism. And their political liberalism went far beyond that of Locke. Their economic theory also went far beyond Smith who was writing about international trade. And of course the people who would advocate classical liberalism had no political influence until after 1832.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"The roots of most liberal ideas can be found in classical liberalism, which emerged with the writings of Adam Smith in the late eighteenth century" [11] ; "The theoretical roots of liberalism can be found in the seventeenth-century writings of John Lock and the eighteenth century works of Adam Smith. These early liberals are known as classical liberals. In the nineteenth century, liberalism was modified by theorists such as T. H. Greene and Jane Addams. This later for of liberalism is termed modern liberalism." [12] ; "Eighteenth-century classical liberalism" [13] ; "Liberalism has taken three distinct forms...the classical liberal era ran from the late seventeenth century until some time around the end of the nineteenth century in the United States. The furst true defense of classical liberalism was John Locke's Second Treatist of Government, published anonymously in 1690. Classical liberal ideas germinated throought the eighteenth century and become the dominant approach to U.S. politics by the early to mid-nineteenth century. Classical liberalism's day in the sun was short-lived, however. By around 1900, the older, limited government philosophy began to give..." [14] Can I touch it? (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We have already been over this. Various writers use the term "classical liberalism" in different ways. Nonetheless there is concensus that a new liberalism emerged in the 1830s that merged economic liberalism with political liberalism. Politically it was represented in the UK by the new Liberal Party and in the US by Jacksonian Democracy. Do you have any problems with that statement? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do have problem with the statement. There are sources that say the philosophy of classical liberalism, when taken to mean to include the theories of laissez-faire economics, existed in the 18th century. You're saying that there's a "consensus" that it didn't exist until the 19th century but I don't see a consensus nor have you given evidence of such consensus. The APPLICATION of the ideas in politics may have only happened until the 19th century, but that's a different issue. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The theories of laissez-faire economics certainly did originate in the 18th century. There is an article about it called Economic liberalism and an article explaining the concept of Laissez-faire. But it is the combining of economic liberalism with political liberalism that achieved a new political ideology that emerged as a coherent doctrine by the 1830s with advocates like Cobden and Bastiat. The fact that some writers use the term classical liberalism to refer to 17th and 18th century liberalism or to economic liberalism does not mean that they believe the ideolgy of English Whigs and Manchester liberals were identical. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The changed version of the lead is poorly written and difficult to understand and therefore I am changing it back. Please read WP:Lead and help develop a lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seemed ok to me, except for perhaps lengthy sentences. Do you have any suggestions for improvements? Can I touch it? (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Citi, re your comment: "Modern liberalism is obviously not classical liberalism, hence the name." Could you please state what your definition of "modern liberalism" is and provide a source. And since the Intro should summarize the article, it cannot be written until agreement is found. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern liberalism that liberalism that came after classical liberalism. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That is begging the question. What is the demarcation between classical and modern liberalism? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical liberalism is the same as 18th Century Liberalism ?

It appears from the recent back and forth that Can I touch it? wants the article to state that Classical liberalism is the same as 17th & 18th Century Liberalism, whereas other editors have argued that they are different. Given that there is a page on liberalism, and that it states that what is currently called liberalism is the same school of thought as 17th & 18th Century Liberalism, I find this claim a bit dubious. However, I suggest an AfD to resolve this issue. In the mean time, I suggest keeping the lead as it is. LK (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the way scholars use the word "liberalism" and the way the word is used in the popular press. Of the various editors currently working on the article, The Four Deuces seems to be the most well-read. If I understand him correctly, in the scholarly press "liberalism" is used for John Locke's philosophy which stressed freedom, "classical liberalism" or "Jacksonian liberalism" for the philosophy which stressed free trade and small government, and "social liberalism" or "modern liberalism" for the philosophy which stresses jobs and social security. Very roughly, these seem to correspond to the 17th, 18th, and 20th centuries, respectively. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I want the article to state. I want the article to state all notable views of what classical liberalism is. One view is that it includes the very early liberals like John Locke. The other view is that it only includes the later liberals who talked about the operation of free markets. I just want the article to state that these are both views of what classical liberalism is. User Four Deuces as already acknowledged that both views exist. Can I touch it? (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

An article elsewhere claiming that the philosophy of the New Deal &c was an expression of the same school of thought as figures such as John Locke would be disingenuous to the extreme. There is no doubt that was was called “liberalism” evolved in some way from the time of Locke into the 19th Century, but it consistently turned on a notion of equality found in §54 of Locke's Second Treatise of Government:

54. Though I have said above, Chap. II, That all Men by Nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of Equality: Age or Virtue may give Men a just Precedency: Excellency of Parts and Merit may place others above the Common Level: Birth may subject some, and Alliance or Benefits others, to pay an Observance to those to whom Nature, Gratitude or other Respects may have made it due; and yet all this consists with the Equality, which all Men are in, in respect of Jurisdiction or Dominion one over another, which was the Equality I there spoke of, as proper to the Business in hand, being that equal Right that every Man hath, to his Natural Freedom, without being subjected to the Will or Authority of any other Man.

(underscore mine); in Spencer, this same proposition is labelled “the Law of Equal Liberty” and “the law of equal freedom”

Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.

which he places as a first principle. (See, for example, chapter VI of Social Statics.)

Of the normative side of laissez faire economics, 19th Century liberals such as Bastiat and Spencer would have said that they were merely working-through the implications of that principle of liberty, though clearly there was also a belief that “practical” economics was coming to be better understood, and that it argued that free markets promoted greater material wealth

The liberalism of Hobhouse &c, on the other hand, moved away from this principle of liberty, and is indistinguishable in principle from some preëxisting variants of social democratism.

The term “classical liberalism” was originally introduced to distinguish a tradition that included figures such as Locke. Whether that use is now the best present use is evidently subject to debate. The proper resolution in WIkipedia involves mention of “notable” figures associated with each use. —SlamDiego_←T 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Private property as well. Locke's defense of private property rights is naturally a belief in economic laissez-faire, because it means he believs the government shouldn't take that property or dictate how to use it. So the view that classical liberalism began with the early figures is common. Can I touch it? (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Locke and Spencer would each tell you that there's no “as well” to it; that a right to property was an expression of that principle of equal liberty. —SlamDiego_←T 20:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, an AfD would be a remarkably poor response, not-withstanding the repeated suggestion of one editor ([15] [16]). —SlamDiego_←T 01:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Locke certainly expressed liberals ideals that are accepted by subsequent liberals. But it is incorrect that the views accepted by liberals in 1690 were the same as the views of liberals in 1832. One key element was democracy: the legislature should be chosen by the people and the executive should be chosen by the people's representatives. Another was laissez-faire: government should not intervene in the economy. Also corporations could be established for the pursuit of profit, they no longer had to follow a Royal charter that set out a public good that they were following. Economic theory changed too from mercantilism to economic liberalism. Another was religion: no longer would the government choose bishops and people who did not belong to the established church would have equal civil rights. The view of slavery also changed from being a positive good grounded in law to a (possibly necessary) evil. Power moved from a small group of merchant princes to the middle class. If subsequent liberals see themselves as the heirs of Locke it is nonetheless biased to say that they enjoyed the same belief system. There is certainly a big difference between the ideology of America's colonial masters and the liberalism of Jacksonian democracy.

Slam has provided a good example of the difference between 17th and 19th liberal concepts of equality. Locke said, "Birth may subject some... to pay an Observance to those to whom Nature... may have made it due". Unlike conservatives who believed that one's station in life was based on one's worth, Locke supported distinctions in rank according to contract: both the king and the slave owed their positions to contracts entered into by their ancestors.

If you want to believe that Herbert Spencer and John Locke had identical political philosophies, then there is no need for this article. It is a POV-fork and should be deleted. If you think the article should be about semantics then it can be reduced to one or two sentences.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Locke made it plain that he believed in some degree of degree of democracy (§96); meanwhile, there were plenty of 19th Century liberals who feared that democracy could get out of hand. (See Mill on “the tyranny of the majority” in On Liberty.) And Locke certainly did not see slavery by condition of birth as just, regardless; for Locke, slavery was acceptable for prisoners taken in just war (§85) and not otherwise. (In interpretting Locke's position based upon his participation in writing the colonial constitution of Virginia, one must recognize the difference between consent within a system and consent to a system. Within the system, Locke would have sought the best that he thought presently attainable.)

While I don't feel that this article needs to endorse a definition of “classical liberalism” that includes Lockean liberalism (and the like), I'm not aware of an article that focusses on that tradition which includes both Locke and Spencer and excludes “social liberalism”, so I don't see that the article would necessarily be a fork if it did use such a definition. It could, rather, be an expansion on a topic covered in less detail by another article. After all, in theory, one could wad everything together into just one article, “Political ideology”. —SlamDiego_←T 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Although Mill warned of the tyranny of the majority, he was a supporter of democracy. Note that today most liberal democracies have written constitutions that protect minority rights. However you interpret Locke, he was not advocating what Mill or any modern person would consider a democracy. Whatever Locke's personal views, liberals justified slavery using Locke. There should be an article about laissez-faire liberalism that explains its development from the ideas of Locke (and Smith) with emphasis on Spencer and 19th century liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Protections of minority rights are, of course, limitations of democracy. The real point is that one is hard-pressed to find a liberal without some democratic sympathies, and hard-pressed to find one who is simply a democrat; there isn't a simple distinction to be found here. As to liberals attempting to justify slavery as a condition of birth, I'd say it's more the case that people who were otherwise liberal attempted to justify slavery, and if they were invoking Locke then their arguments were especially poor. (We're not simply dealing with Locke's personal view, but with the position in his most influential published work on political theory.) In any case, let's not hang an albatross inappropriately around Locke's neck.

I've no problem with the proposition that there should be some article talking about development and innovation is liberal thought of the $n$th Century, for pretty much any value of $n$ (so long as enough material can be found). But of course using “classical liberalism” as if there's a solid agreement that it applies to a sort arising in the 18th Century or in the 19th Century is problematic. —SlamDiego_←T 08:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that while Locke accurately set out liberal principles, it was not until the 19th century that they were fully understood by people who then took action to implement them through the newly founded Liberal Party. But since liberalism is both an intellectual and a political movement, this still represents a break from the elitist liberalism of the 18th century, which contained illiberal elements. Of course NPOV does not allow us to determine how Locke should be interpreted, merely how he has been interpreted.

Incidentally if you use the wider definition of classical liberalism then there is the problem of where it ends. Ian Adams for example writes: "Essentially they [all US parties] espouse classical liberalism...."[17] That is consistent with Hartz's view that there is a "Lockean liberal" concensus in the US. So essentially this article would just duplicate the Liberalism article.

The Four Deuces (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I've no problem with having articles on phases of development and innovation within the tradition in question.

There's a problem of “where it ends” no matter what. But the article “Liberalism” concerns everything that has called itself “liberalism”, whereas I remain unaware of another Wikipedia article that focusses just on the tradition that gave primacy to the consideration for which it was originally named, “freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man”. Regardless of what it's called, such an article wouldn't intrinsically represent a fork. —SlamDiego_←T 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "eighteenth-century liberalism". The term "liberal" was not used as a political label during that century. It was not until the early nineteenth-century that the term liberal came to be used politically, taken from the Spanish Liberales in the 1810s. There was a political ideology that existed in the late seventeenth-century and the eighteenth-century and that was Whiggism (of which John Locke was part of, being closely-connected with the Whig leader Lord Shaftesbury). Whig ideology was concerned with establishing the rule of law as opposed to absolute monarchy and safeguarding the Protestant religion against Catholicism, with Protestant Dissenters and Catholics excluded from all political power to safeguard the Anglican Church establishment. That was mainstream Whiggism. Free trade and "laissez-faire" were not part of Whig ideology, and the doctrine of mercantilism was the mainstream (interestingly it was Tories who were often the ones advocating peace and free trade, such as Lord Bolingbroke, and Whigs for an aggressive nationalist commercial policy). The classical liberal stress on the small state and the freeing of commerce from restrictions is really a product of the nineteenth-century, although of course it has its origins in the late eighteenth-century.--Britannicus (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The immediate problem with this argument is that no one was using “classical liberalism” to refer either to liberalism from before the 19th Century or to 19th Century manifestations, until after they arose. So saying that we similarly cannot use “liberalism” for Lockean &alii because that wasn't the term used at the time commits one to a principle which (in the context of allowing “liberalism” also to mean “social liberalism”) leaves one unable to communicate. —SlamDiego_←T 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The liberals of the nineteenth-century called themselves liberals, liberals of the twentieth-century who held essentially the same ideology as their nineteenth-century predecessors added the "classical" appendage to their political forebears to distinguish them from those who now claimed the label "liberal" but who believed in something quite different from what the original liberals stood for. It is quite different to lump Locke and Gladstone together under one label ("classical liberalism") since Locke never described himself as a liberal and his ideas were different from nineteenth-century liberals (naturally, considering they lived centuries apart). My point is that to describe them as seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century liberals is misleading since it suggests that they believed in much the same thing as those in the nineteenth-century who were liberals. For example in religion Locke and the other Whig theorists were products of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation battles in that they all allied themselves with Protestantism (see his Letter on Tolerance which forbid Catholics and atheists from toleration). This is largely absent from nineteenth-century liberals such as Gladstone, Cobden, Bastiat, Mill and Spencer (who all were concerned with other issues). In economics too the difference is considerable. Sometimes historical context (and accuracy) is lost in claiming that political figures who lived centuries apart believed in the same doctrines. Classical liberalism is the liberalism of the original liberals who lived in the early and mid nineteenth-century.--Britannicus (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources supporting this use of terminology? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"The political vocabulary of democratic society, especially the terms 'liberalism', 'radicalism' and 'conservatism', still lay in the future: to write of eighteenth-century liberalism is as much of a solecism as to depict an eighteenth-century socialism or fascism, and for the same reasons."—J. C. D. Clark, English Society, 1660–1832 (Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 5. Also: "'Liberal' had no specifically political connotation until it was borrowed from the name of the Spanish party, the Liberales, in the 1810s, echoed in reformers' belief that Parisian politics was divided between 'Ultras' and 'Liberals', and adopted as the title of a journal written by Leigh Hunt, Lord Byron and others, The Liberal (1822-3). Until then, a man could not be identified as 'a liberal', and only when the word became a noun was it reified (although less clearly than other ideologies) into 'liberalism'. That twentieth-century invention, 'Lockeian liberalism', is a solecism".—Clark, pp. 6-7.--Britannicus (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"...the political concepts of liberalism and radicalism both came into existence at a particular time, neither earlier nor later, and for specific reasons. To attempt to write the history of liberalism before the 1820s is thus, in point of method, akin to attempting to write the history of the eighteenth-century motor car. "—J. C. D. Clark, Revolution and Rebellion. State and Society in England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 102.--Britannicus (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, whomever we may take to be the first classical liberals, they did not use the term “classical” to describe themselves. And there is zero basis for any claim that they applied the concept of classical to themselves, whereäs Locke certain did apply a concept of liberal to himself, albeït that he's unlikely to have used that name for it. You might as well claim that philosophy didn't begin until the English word “philosophy” were developed. (In fact, philosophy existed well before the Greeks had a term for it.) —SlamDiego_←T 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Alphabet soup

How do people feel about a RfC about this issue? As the discussion seems to be moving well, can we go forward without one? I suggest a few things to keep in mind going forward:

• Major changes should be avoided for now until things are resolved.
• What is stated here must not contradict the page on liberalism, and should complement it.
• We should strive to be polite to one another and ignore any apparently snide remarks.

LK (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would accept that but it seems there are two issues:

• are "Whiggery" and "laissez-faire" liberalism the same thing, and
• (if not) what are their appropriate names

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that one editor's undoing of a major change is itself a major change, it might be quite hard for some editors to abide by the first suggested principle. I could support it if applied to all major changes, and not just towards keeping the article in a stated favored by one party. That would mean, for example, that a major change effected by an editor who was not (yet) involved in the discussion would have to be tolerated.

The second principle here is perfectly unacceptable. Wikipedia itself is not a “reliable” source, and a notion that $X$ must stand in one article because it stands in another, when applied symmetrically, creates a lock-in for error.

There's a fair chance that the third suggestion would serve principally to set up a denunciation of alleged snideness, rather that to actually motivate people to ignore apparent snideness. Somewhat relatedly, I wouldn't bother to get everyone to agree explicitly to refrain from passive-aggressive paraleipsis. —SlamDiego_←T 18:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence starting the lead was problematic: "The term Classical liberalism may refer either to all liberalism prior to the advent of modern liberalism beginning in the 17th century[1][2][3][4] , or it may refer only to liberalism after it acquired an explicit economic theory after embracing Adam Smith's free market economics in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas."

First it is not clear which definition the article will use. In fact the article concentrates on the second definition. Also some forms of modern liberalism are included in the Lockean liberal definition, including modern American liberalism, libertarianism, and neoliberalism. Some of these may be included in the second definition as well.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the article focuses on the second definition. It appears to cover both political and economic laissez-faire. The lead says that the term may refer to the totality of liberalism prior to modern liberalism, or liberalism after it developed an economic theory, then the article goes on to discuss both. I don't see a problem. And if the definition is the latter, i.e. after Adam Smith was integrated into liberalism, classical liberalism still includes Locke because classical liberalism would be the merger of political and classical liberalism. so he would still be discused anyway. See what I'm saying? Can I touch it? (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that the whatever article ends-up with the title “Classical liberalism” would be first about disambiguation. One question, then, would be whether it should be itself no more than a disambiguation page, with most of the content to which you refer in an article with a different title. In any case, it really isn't intrinsically necessary that an article with the present title commit (in its lede or elsewhere) either to a wide definition or to a narrow definition. —SlamDiego_←T 01:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Think I agree with this. Suspect that the slant of the article at present may be a little North American. Allowing different perspectives on the terminology to have their own independent space may be a good way forward. Feel free to slap me with a wet fish, however. --FormerIP (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A disambiguation page would probably be best. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone agreed? Anyone care to write up the disambiguation page? Something to discuss though, how should the current content of the page be treated? LK (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not oppose the use of a disambiguation page to handle the term “classical liberal”. And, as I have said in reply to The Four Deuces, I am not opposed to an article focussed more specifically on the sort of liberalism that characterized figures such as Spencer. I do think that it's problematic trying to draw lines of separation that exclude figures such as Smith or, earlier, Physiocrats, Galiani, and Philosophes. (And perhaps my concern here overlaps that of FormerIP.) —SlamDiego_←T 09:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously any article about laissez-faire liberalism would include the ideas of Smith which were incorporated into it as well as the influence of earlier writers like Locke. What it should not include is political conflict in the 1600s. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The point here is not simply the need to mention antecedents, but the lack of obvious lines of ideological demarcation separating figures such as Bastiat from thinkers in the previous century. —SlamDiego_←T 18:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) The story begins with the Wealth of Nations (1776), then skips ahead to the founding of liberal and radical parties and supporters of the the Orleanist Revolution (1830), the Great Reform Bill 1832, and Jacksonian Democracy and ends with the Progressive era (1900) and the Liberal Reforms (1906). None of the history books seem to have any difficulty with this. It is not to hard to separate Bastiat who was elected to the National Assembly in 1848 to people who wrote more than half a century before. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What you are calling “the history books” seem to be some unfortunate, Anglocentric subset of history books. If you'll read some that focus on whence Smith's own ideas arose, then you'll find discussion of the Physiocrats. (And you should find that it is from them that we get the term “laissez faire”.) A better treatment will also cover some of the other figures whom I've named. You might, for example, look into the histories of economic thought by Schumpeter and by Pribram.

Some European economists, and perhaps especially Italian economists, had been advancing liberal notions (and not just in the sphere normally seen as “economic”) for some time before Smith. This liberalism tended to rise out of the Franciscan tradition (which also happened to inform the college attended by Locke, and certainly his epistemology). —SlamDiego_←T 19:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All writers in Western intellectual history were influenced by previous writers If we included all antecedents then every article would begin with the Pre-socratics. However, classical liberalism is a political rather than economic theory. The economic theory has its own article, Economic liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier “The point here is not simply the need to mention antecedents, but the lack of obvious lines of ideological demarcation”. And, as I said in my immediately previous comment, those economists whom I mentioned did not confine themselves to “economic” liberalism. If one is to begin with any given figure (Smith or otherwise), the question of why him (or her) needs to be answered, and not with myth. —SlamDiego_←T 20:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When a group of people establish a poltical party with a radical agenda then make sweeping changes to society it can be seen as an "ideological demarcation". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that indicates a change of organization and of power; it does not (in and of itself) indicate any change of ideology. Certainly there could be an article on how liberals of the 19th Century distinctively pursued objectives, even if the objectives themselves were not distinctive (relative to earlier liberal objectives); but let's not confuse the two. —SlamDiego_←T 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So you think that the Glorious Revolution was led by people committed to democracy, free markets, freedom of the press, and de-regulation? If so why did liberals form new parties and fight revolutions when all their demands had already been made? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Imputing a view of the Glorious Revolution to me and then beating on it is a form of straw-man argumentation. I've previously said nothing here about the Glorious Revolution. And even had the Glorious Revolution been no more or less than an expression of the liberalism of its day, rather than the effort of a coaltion whose members had different ideologies and agenda, one would none-the-less have expected illiberal parties to have struggled, with various successes, to make Great Britain less liberal over time. (After all, the 19th and 20th century fates of classical liberals were neither to reälize all their goals nor to continue in control of major parties.)

What I have actually asserted is, again, that there are no obvious lines of ideological demarcation to distinguish liberalism in the late 19th Century from earlier figures, to distinguish liberals in the mid 19th Century from earlier figures, to distinguish liberals in the early 19th Century from earlier figures, nor to distinguish liberals from the late 18th Century from earlier figures. Confusing power and organization with ideology is not helpful. Building a straw-man theory about the Glorious Revolution and disparaging it isn't helpful. What would be helpful would be for you to point to an actual line of ideological demarcation; or, if we're not talking about a distinct ideology, for you to say what it is that we are discussing. —SlamDiego_←T 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it your contention that the only ideology existing in England (1688 to c. 1900) (with the minor exceptions of Jacobites and socialists) were classical liberals? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not. —SlamDiego_←T 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you name any other mainstream ideology then and a major figure associated with it? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely, and (though it will be a tangential discussion) I will do so after you've provided either the clear ideological demarcation that I've requested, or explained how you would distinguish “classical liberalism” in non-ideological terms. —SlamDiego_←T 23:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) As it says in the lead, classical liberalism "is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets." To that should be added universal adult male suffrage, world peace, opposition to colonialism, and freedom of religion. In non-ideological terms it is the people who formed the Liberal Party and their views. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That demarcation and association doesn't correspond well to some of the figures whom you have identified on this talk page as representative of classical liberalism. Herbert Spencer, for example, rejected universal suffrage in Principles of Ethics, and about 15 years earlier had (as you've noted elsewhere) called for abandonment of the so-called Liberal Party in “The New Toryism”. You're not providing what's been asked. —SlamDiego_←T 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Spencer argued for rights to life, liberty, property, free speech, equal rights of women, universal suffrage, and the right 'to ignore the state' in Social Statistics (1851). The fact that he reversed himself on universal suffrage years later and abandoned the Liberal Party is irrelevant to the development of classical liberalism in the 1830s. Now please tell me who were the non-classical liberals in 1600s and 1700s England. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're going to take the remarkable position that classical liberalism intrinsically involved participation in events of the 1830s, so that no one could become a classical liberal after 1839, we are not talking about where one stood in that period. “The Right to Ignore the State” in Social Statics anarchistically collides with democracy, effectively denying anyone a vote over anything but himself. And are you going to assert that, after 1884, Spencer were not a classical liberal? I am simply not going to discuss notable 18th or 19th Century alternatives to classical liberalism, Jacobism, and socialism until you've provided a demarcation that works. (Once you have, we might want to hold said tangential discussion of alternatives on the talk page of one of our user accounts.) —SlamDiego_←T 01:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that your description of classical liberalism includes all mainstream Anglo-Saxon ideology from 1688 until the present day, with the exception of socialism and perhaps the English Liberal Party after 1906. So basically what you call classical liberalism is liberalism. Since you are unable to identify anyone who was not a classical liberal after 1688 that is the only reasonable conclusion I can reach. (Incidentally that is how many writers identify classical liberalism.) The Four Deuces (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And what are you calling my description of classical liberalism? I've not provided much of my description. What I have sought to do is get you to see that the definition that you are presenting as the definition is unclear, appears to be somewhat incoherent, and certainly isn't unique amongst notable definitions. Perhaps one can get past the lack of clarity, and wring-out the contradictions (which may be inessential); I'm at least sure that something like your definition is “notable”; but it's not uniquely appropriate.

As to your claim that “basically what you call classical liberalism is liberalism”, its accuracy turns on whatever you might mean by the bald term “liberalism”; but certainly what is typically called “liberalism” in America is not what I would call “classical liberalism”. Indeed, the original purpose of the adjective was not to exclude thinkers such as Smith or Locke, but to exclude thinkers such as Hobhouse and various welfare-state policies; perhaps your definition of “liberalism” does so without further adjectives, which would at least make it closer to mine for “classical liberalism”.

I am not unable to identify anyone who was not a classical liberal (by my definition) after 1688; I am unwilling to do so until you've corrected both the ambiguity and incoherence of your definition. I think it perfectly fair to push you to get your definition in order first. —SlamDiego_←T 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: your comment: "I am not unable to identify anyone who was not a classical liberal (by my definition) after 1688; I am unwilling to do so". Can you please explain to me how this is co-operative? It seems to me your definition of classical liberalism is "Lockean liberalism" that runs from William of Orange to Barack Obama. While this may be your opinion of what "classical liberalism" means I believe that there should be an article about the liberalism of Herbert Spencer and others who some people call "classical liberals". Incidentally, why are you choosing Spencer as your example of "classical liberalism"? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You've left out the conditional in my sentence: “until you've corrected both the ambiguity and incoherence of your definition”. Well before you began asking to answer what I consider to be a tangential question, I've been trying to get you to address properly a very germane problem, and you weren't doing so at all. You're still not offering a workable answer.

We don't have to have any answer from another editor (be that editor I or someone else) to see problems with the answer that you've been trying to impose on the article. If-and-when I begin attempting to present my answer as the answer or even as an answer for an article, then you are certainly entitled to critique it, as part of the editing process. Until then, my giving you my answer would be no more than a personal favor given in response to your providing what you ought to provide anyway.

As to Barack Obama, as I've more than once noted, “the original purpose of the adjective [‘classical’] was not to exclude thinkers such as Smith or Locke, but to exclude thinkers such as Hobhouse and various welfare-state policies”; hence such declarations as that from Simon which I quoted below. The “liberalism” of Barack Obama rejects the equality-of-liberty at the core of Locke's philosophy and of Spencer's philosophy, in favor of something quite different.

I quite agree that “there should be an article about the liberalism and others who some people call ‘classical liberals’”, but some people identify a set containing Spencer and Locke or Spencer and Smith, others a set narrower than yours, containing Spencer but excluding people whom you would apparently include, and so forth. If we're going to have a article devoted to the set that you favor, then we need that set to be better defined. (We also need to have it shown to be “notable”, and to have a decent case that it doesn't just duplicate the content in some other article, such as one on one of the aforementioned wider sets.) —SlamDiego_←T 07:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the original definition of "classical liberal" was to exclude Hobhouse, that does not mean that Hobhouse was not a follower of Locke. He was reformulating 19th century liberalism. Furthermore, Obama is not a follower of Hobhouse and is therefore still a classical liberal under the definition of classical liberalism as beginning with Locke. Incidentally the Liberals who were criticized by Spencer were not followers of Hobhouse either, they were classical liberals under all definitions. Incidentally classical liberalism is not identified by whatever Herbert Spencer happened to believe at the time. My conclusion from your commentary is that your definition of classical liberalism is the ideology that was accepted following the Glorious Revolution. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inferring that Hobhouse was not a follower of Locke from the fact that the original function of “classical” was to exclude folk such as Hobhouse; I am noting that Hobhouse wasn't a follower of Locke from the fact that he walked away from the core principle of Locke's political philosophy. (As to Hobhouse reformulating liberalism, with sufficient reformulation anything can become anything else.) Nor did I claim that Obama was a follower of Hobhouse; I noted, rather, that he also didn't follow this core principle of equal liberty found in liberalism from Locke through Spencer.

Nor have I seen anyone define “classical liberal” as “whatever Herbert Spencer happened to believe at the time”.

As to your claim that my “definition of classical liberalism is the ideology that was accepted following the Glorious Revolution”, it clashes with my previous note that the Glorious Revolution was “the effort of a coaltion whose members had different ideologies and agenda”.

What's most notable here is that after all this back-and-forth, you still haven't made clear and coherent the definition that you want to impose on an article. But your acknowledgement that “the original definition of ‘classical liberal’ was to exclude Hobhouse” at least represents a little progress towards the point that definitions of “classical liberal” can include Locke while excluding much of what has been called “liberalism” in more recent years. —SlamDiego_←T 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Adams: "It was the coming together of the ideas of Adam Smith and his followers (known as the 'classical economists') with the ideas of Locke, and other advocates of civil rights and limited government, that created classical or laissez-faire liberalism , based on the principles of the free market, minimal government and individual freedom and responsibility." You are unable to name a single major ideology existing before the nineteenth century because your definition of classical liberalism includes all major ideologies prior to the emergence of social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If what you've been calling “classical liberalism” consists in a synthesis of ideas found in Locke and in Smith, then plainly it could predate the 19th Century (let alone the 1830s). You've not provide a reason to exclude Smith himself, nor to exclude those from whom Smith got some of the ideas typically associated with him. This gets us back to the French and Italian thinkers whom I mentioned much earlier.

You keep declaring that I am unable to do something that I am simply unwilling to do, but my conditional offer to engage in that tangential discussion has proved an interesting carrot. At least you have finally acknowledged that one can define “classical liberalism” in a manner (as indeed many have done) that includes the political philosophy of Locke without including ideas now popularly called “liberal”.

BTW, just as there are multiple meanings for “classical liberalism”, there are multiple meanings for “classical economics”. Adams appears to knit wool. —SlamDiego_←T 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical liberalism HAS to include 17th century liberalism

Some of you seem to have the impression that if the term "classical liberalism" means liberalism after political liberalism and economic liberalism merged later, as this source offered by user Four Deuces [18] points out, that this means that 17th century liberalism would be excluded from classical liberalism. But that would be logically false. Classical liberalism by this definition would have to include 17th century liberalism. To say that classical liberalism arose in the 19th century is not to say 17th century liberalism is not PART of it. So any article that discusses classical liberalism has to include exposition of Locke's philosophy, whether the definition of classical liberalism used is that 17th century figures are classical liberals, or that classical liberalism is only the developed liberalism that accumulating all of the liberals' ideas prior. So this about there being two definitions really insignificant. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that presents this argument? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"By the eightneenth century, this idea had become incorporated into a political argument by influential theorists such as Adam Smith and Thomas Paine. The argued that, contrary to the practice of many rulers, the state should let social and economic arrangements take care of themselves wherever possible. The state's role was to strongly enforce minimal laws designed to protect the individual's opportunity to express their opinions and beliefs, and to develop their economic prospects. Two key elements of this philosophy - now known as classical liberalism - were provided a century before by John Locke. These were that each individual has a natural right to make and use private property..." [19] Can I touch it? (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, is there any liberalism that you consider not to be classical liberalism? If not, then it would be best to merge this article with Liberalism, since it would be a POV fork. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern liberalism is obviously not classical liberalism, hence the name. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I'm following CITI correctly, but I take the argument to be that, if we assume 17th C liberalism to be "part of" classical liberalism then it must be talked about in the article in order to explain what it is. In the same way as you couldn't write an article about VE day without mentioning WWII. It is an intrinsic part of the subject. Is that right or am I not getting it? --FormerIP (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Classical liberalism doesn't reject Locke's ideas, it accepts them wholeheartedly. They're an intrinsic part of classical liberalism. An article on classical liberalism wouldn't be complete if we didn't point out that classical liberals support freedom of speech, natural private property rights, and so on, and where those ideas came from. Can I touch it? (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now let me take a stab at synopsizing your view:

• that the article entitled “classical liberalism” should report every notable distinct definition of “classical liberalism”.
• that it should not be a disambiguation page, and that there should not be a different article for each of these definitions, because there would be entirely too much overlap across them.
• that the overlap would, amongst other things, involve discussion of Locke, who is a classical liberal under some definition(s), and a core influence on most or everything else that is called “classical liberal” under other definitions.

Fair summary of your position? —SlamDiego_←T 19:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that represents what I'm saying very well. Can I touch it? (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If the lead points out that some definitions consider 17th century liberalism to be classical liberalism, and that other definitions consider classical liberalism to not have existed until the 19th century by combining the ideas of the 17th and 18th century liberalism with economic liberalism that arose later through Adam Smith, then it is not a problem at all for the reader of the article when he sees the ideas of Locke discussed. The reader will think to himself "Ok, Locke is being discussed now. Some consider him a classical liberal, others see his ideas as just a being few ideas that are part of the larger set of ideas what is known as classical liberalism. Big deal." It really is no big deal. It's very insignificant. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That distinction is incorrect. While the term classical liberalism is used in different ways, there is agreement that a new liberalism emerged in the early 19th century, variously called classical liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism or 19th century liberalism. An article implying that 18th century and 19th century are the same time is misleading. Please read the disambiguation guideline: "When an article title could refer to several things, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page so that readers typing in that title can quickly navigate to the article that interests them." The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

John Locke

I reverted an unreferenced paragraph containing the following sentence:

"Classical liberalism begins with the ideas of seventeenth century liberals such as John Locke, whose ideas were combined with those who later writers."

But the big problem with this edit is that it goes against the way most scholarly, referenced sources use the adjective "classical". The lede mentions that some writers use "classical" in this way, but those writers use the adjective to describe all liberalism before the 20th century, and so that discussion belongs in the article liberalism.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing the text which for the reasons given. The reference given is an introductory political science textbook by Thomas Flanagan. I question whether this is a good source because it appears to present a non-standard view of political ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're just claiming without evidence that this is a "non-standard" view. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. Is not John Locke political liberalism? And is classical liberalism not the combination of political and economic liberalism? If so, then classical liberalism includes John Locke's ideas. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're confused. If one grants that classical liberalism didn't arrive until the 19th century, that doesn't exclude John Locke's philosophy from being an element of classical liberalism. It would just means Lock's ideas alone aren't classical liberalism but just part it. So he deserves discussion. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And you're claim that statement "Classical liberalism begins with the ideas of seventeenth century liberals such as John Locke, whose ideas were combined with those who later writers" is unsourced, isjust false. The source was right there. Quoting the source "Classical liberalism is indentified with the free market. Locke did not have a fully developed theory of the market, but he helped lay the foundations for one by stressing that a major purpose of goverment is the protection of private property." There you have it. Locke laid the foundations of classical liberalism. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using this particular book as a source? I note also that your summary is not supported by text and that it is ungrammatical. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean why am I using it? Because it's a source and it supports the text. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stop arguing about the subject matter itself, and start looking at the sources. We should keep in mind the policy on synthesis. Essentially, if the source does not explicitly use the words 'classical liberalism', we should not be using it to make any claims about classical liberalism. Also, I think it would be good to just refer to what other encyclopedias (Britannica and Encarta for instance) have to say on this subject. LK (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's utterly trivial to find “reliable” sources that explicitly identify Locke with the term “classical liberal”. For examples:

• In “Locke's Political Anthropology and Lockean Individualism”, Journal of Politics v50 (1988) #1 pp 42-63, Ruth W. Grant used Locke to argue that “at least one classical liberal recognized fully the extent to which human beings are social beings”.
• Moral Selfhood in the Liberal Tradition, by Paul Fairfield (of Queen's University in Ontario), published by UToronto Press, identifies Locke as “Perhaps the most central thinker in classical liberal thought” (p 30).
• Law and philosophy by Thomas W. Simon (of Illinois State University), a text-book from McGraw-Hill, begins its explanation of classical liberalism by declaring “Classical liberal theorists include John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Friedrich von Hayek.” (p 195)

—SlamDiego_←T 10:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We should not look for sources that support whatever we want to add to the article, but instead should determine good sources for the article. Only one of the sources provided by Slam is about political science and none of them are about classical liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Those sources were examples found quickly to illustrate the point that there was absolutely no originality to the notion that Locke were a “classical liberal”. As to offering sources that have what a party of editors want to add, that seems to be no more true of any party here than of any other party. —SlamDiego_←T 18:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, if a person has some knowledge on a subject and wants to put it in an article, he ought to look to make sure there are sources that say what he's saying. Can I touch it? (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside what is actually being done and by whom, Wikipedians are supposed to put aside their prejudices and preconceived ideas, and research a topic, looking at what the most reliable sources have to say, and then summarize those ideas for an article. When there are disputes, it is even more important to follow such a policy. We should make sure the article reflects what all reliable sources say about an issue, in proportion to the weight given to those views in reliable sources.

As it's obvious from the discussion above that we will not reach agreement on this issue, I'm going to call for an RfC in the hopes that some solution can be reached in that way. In the interest of fairness, does someone else care to write up the RfC question? If not I'll do it in a couple of days. LK (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The standing questions are:

1. Should there be multiple articles on different notions that have been labelled “classical liberalism”, or just one on them jointly?
2. Based upon “reliable” sources, is there a preferred definition of “classical liberalism”? If so, then exactly what is it?
3. Based upon “reliable” sources, is there one distinctive notion of liberalism, associated with something that arose in the early or mid 19th Century (or perhaps in the late 18th Century), that merits its own article? If so, then exactly what is it?
4. Should those “reliable” sources that define “classical liberalism” in ways that include John Locke be dismissed?

If you're sure that you want to make an RfC on such questions, then do so. But

• The answer to the fourth question is pretty obvious, needs no affirmation from an RfC and cannot be over-ridden by one.
• The response from an RfC to the third and second questions is liable to create more heat than light. Right now, we have one editor insisting there to be a preferred definition and notion, though he's not satisfactorily explained what it is; with an RfC we will have multiple editors each insisting something as the preferred definition or notion, and many or all of them will be unable to satisfactorily explain what it is.
• The answer to the first question requires more experience. The immediate question, then, is whether first to try writing a single article, and see if it needs to have portions hived-off, or first to write multiple articles, and see whether they need to be merged. For my part, I expect that multiple articles would be perceived (rightly or wrongly) by other editors as PoV forks, and would in any case need to be merged due to over-lap. I further expect that the merging process would, as a practical matter, reänimate the question of preferred definitions, regardless of what might previously have been decided.

—SlamDiego_←T 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) It may be best to turn "Classical liberalism" into a disambiguation page and develop separate articles. What is important is that each article have a coherent, reliably sourced conception of the topic. I am not "insisting there to be a preferred definition and notion" rather that there should be an article about 19th century liberalism, whatever it is called. One could be called "19th century laissez-faire liberalism". If Slam and CITI want to write an article that treats another definition of classical liberalism that includes Locke and Spencer but excludes Hobhouse and Obama, that is fine so long as they can find a reliable source that explains the concept. Also each title should be as unambiguous as possible with links back to the disambiguation page. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether there is a disambiguation page is part of the question that I numbered 1. I suggested (without endorsement) a disambiguation page a while back. I believe that FormerIP embraced the idea, but Can I touch it? raises the objection that the articles would greatly over-lap.

You had been insisting on a preferred definition, claiming that any definition that included Locke would be coterminous with bald “liberalism” and include Obama. You now seem done with that.

That still leaves question three, which arose from talking about what to do with the major content of the article as it presently stands, regardless of title.

Since it appears that the questions that I numbered 2 and 4 are put to bed, an RfC would concern itself with questions 1 and 3. And I reïterate my doubts about the usefulness of an RfC for resolving these issues, but I think that any editor actually involved in the dispute is entitled to make one. —SlamDiego_←T 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "greatly overlap" is an understatement. I think they would be nearly identical. If one article is using the term 'classical liberalism' to include Locke, then that doesn't exclude the 19th century. So, the 17th thru 19th century would be covered. If classical liberalism is used to refer to only the result of 18th or 19th century merger of economic liberalism with the already existing political liberalism that began developing in the 17th century, then that article as well will have to cover the ideas of 17th through 19th centuries as being part of the resulting merger of ideas. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have some articles that treat subjects the same subject as some section or sections of other articles, but in greater depth. Now, not-withstanding my objections to The Four Deuces's particular attempts to identify a distinct phase of liberalism associated a century or more after Locke's Two Treatises, I don't think that liberalism stood still either as a philosophy or as a political phenomenon. Whole books are written about phases and sub-periods, and we can eventually get at least one article out of ideas and events after Locke. Setting aside labels, my problem with The Four Deuces here is that he hasn't presented a well-defined notion of the subject of the narrower article that he proposes, not more generally that he proposes a narrower article. —SlamDiego_←T 23:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Most writers do indeed see 19th century liberalism as a distinct phase. Richard Hudelson for example writes in Modern political philosophy: "By the middle of the nineteenth century a coherent vision of how society should be organized had taken shape in England, western Europe, and the Americas. This vision is the political ideology of classical liberalism."[20] Various other sources have been brought to your attention. Guido De Ruggiero in The history of European liberalism divides the history of liberalism between 18th century and "modern" or nineteenth century liberalism. This new liberalism was associated with the formation of Liberal parties and the 1830 revolution in France, the Great Reform Bill 1832, Jacksonian democracy, the Canadian rebellions of 1837, etc. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't proved what "most" writers have said about anything. Be careful about using the word "most" until some kind of survey has been done and shown to us. Or, alternatively, you ahve sources that say "most writers say..." Can I touch it? (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that mainstream writers refer to 19th century liberalism in this way without any qualification about whether their categorization is controversial. If you have any sources that challenge their views, could you please direct me to them. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there are "mainstream writers" that may say such and such. I'm saying be careful say "most" mainstream writers say such and such, until you can present evidence of it. Can I touch it? (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A problem is that those who use something like the sort of categorization about which you write aren't using the same something. At one end, some of the assert that a new phase begins with publication of The Wealth of Nations, and another, we have Chomsky effectively claiming that classical liberalism comes into existence about 1850. In between, various other writers use various other dates and figures. Most of them don't clearly explain what it is that distinguishes the ostensible start of the phase from what had come before that time, and many who do utterly ignore (probably from lack of familiarity) various French and Italian writers. We shouldn't simply dump this fuzzy mess on the reader, pretending that it's not only a unified categorization, but that it's a unified categorization uncontroversially embraced by most scholars.

It might well be appropriate, however, to have an article that illuminates this cluster of categorizations as well as it might be illuminated. —SlamDiego_←T 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky is actually a linguist not a political historian. Mainstream histories of liberalism find no difficulty in dividing it into phases. I have already provided countless examples. It may well be that these historians are wrong. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion and mine of Chomsky don't negate his “notability” as a theorist. And I am not sanguine about your claim that mainstream histories find no difficulty in dividing liberalism into phases, as no clear and coherent distinction of the sort that you claim can be found in the 19th Century has been produced on this talk page in spite of my urgings. —SlamDiego_←T 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I have provided a detailed explanation and numerous sources while you have provided no sources supporting your position and no explanation of it. I am sorry that you are not sanguine. Incidentally, the WP:Notability guideline states: "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." Chomsky has his own article. The guideline is irrelevant to this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)