Talk:Classical liberalism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

False

This is typical so-called-austrian trash

"There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and other economists.[3][4][5]"

It is a total lie that interest in liberalism was led von Mises (an almost unknown, third rate economist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.193.201.215 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel prize, so he can hardly be called third-rate. He was heavily influenced by Mises. If one were to include Hayek, I see no problem with Mises. If this section were edited to list "Friedman, Hayek, and other economists" I think it would be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.48.191 (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

its not just hayek and friedman, think of the chicago school and everyone associated with them. although it is not true to say that these people would have described themselves as classical liberal it is true that they would have said that they agreed with most of the principles of classical liberalism.

Hayek was VERY important. Thatcher largely, and to a lesser extent Reagan, based their political ideals on Hayek's ideas and writtings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the article does not say that Hayek and company were correct in their views, only that their views were influential. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Awkward paragraph.

"In Europe, especially, except in the British Isles, liberalism had been fairly weak and unpopular relative to its opposition, like socialism, and therefore no change in meaning occurred. By the 1970s, however, lagging economic growth and increased levels of taxation and debt spurred new ideas, sometimes identified with conservatism and sometimes with classical liberalism. Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman argued against government intervention in fiscal policy and their ideas were embraced by conservative political parties in the US and the United Kingdom beginning in the 1980s. In fact, Ronald Reagan credited Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, and Hayek as influences. [A]t the heart of classical liberalism", wrote Nancy L. Rosenblum and Robert C. Post,"

The paragraph quoted above is awkward, with commas in odd places. It does not make it clear whether the first use of "liberalism" refers to social liberalism or to classical liberalism. There is a phrase near the end with an end quotation mark but no beginning quotation mark, and no clue as to whether it is quoting Reagan or Rosenblum and Post. And the paragraph ends with a comma followed by a stray endquote. It should be improved or deleted. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of deletion --Snowded ^TALK 19:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Come back for a (brief) look at this article. As you say Rick, it's awkward and frankly a bit of a mess. I would suggest that it's trying to be a modern history - what probably needs to happen is an extension of the history section and the overview section breaking into themes. Needs some serious work - like quite a lot of political philosophy articles in english Wikipedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I took it out. TFD (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So why does William M. Connolley take out Ludwig von Mises? I am not a troll. Mises has contributed greatly to liberalism and helped usher Hayek into the arena. He wrote a book on "liberalism" among other great contributions--Trueliberal (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of development

I changed the intro lead-in sentence to 18th and 19th centuries - the source says 19th century, but it is referring to Liberalism in it's completed form (eg, after developments in the US, Europe, etc) and not to the early developments from Smith, Malthus, etc, which are clearly 18th century leading into the 19th. We can add more sources if needed but given the dates of the protagonist's main works are mostly 18th Century and this is just an introductory sentence.... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed extensively. Academics are inconsistent on using the term classical liberalism, some using it to refer to liberalism before 1900, others to the liberalism that emerged c. 1830 and others to refer to moderns who adhere to earlier liberal principals. The article that emerged is about 19th century liberalism, which begins with the Great Reform Act, the 1830 French revolution, Jeffersonian demcracy and the adoption ot the word "liberal". The main liberal article carries extensvie coverage of 17th and 18th century liberalism. While editors disagreed over which termimology was correct, there was agreement that there should be an article about this period of liberal history, with the lead stating that other definitions exist. The reference you changed actually says that classical liberalism took shape by the middle of the nineteenth century, so in any case it is incorrect to change referenced text so that it does not accurately reflect the source. TFD (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above and in my edit summary, this is one narrow source and it relates only loosely to the intro. The article does include Malthus, Ricardo, Smith, etc, and extensively describes Smith's views in particular - therefore your argument appears not to match what's in the article. I also did discuss it on the talk page, so please don't make terse edit summaries implying that I was not discussing. Unless you want to edit war perhaps? If not, it should have been discussed here first by you. Now the theory that Classical Liberalism started in the 19th century is patent nonsense, but if this article is meant to be specifically about 19th C Liberalism, it shouldn't have all the earlier material in it, it shouldn't be called Classical Liberalism and it should be better structured. Shall we start by deciding which article this is? We probably need another article by the sound of it. Where is the extensive discussion you allude to above? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Read through the archived discussion pages. Of course Smith was an influence, so were Hobbes and Locke. But that does not mean that this is a separate subject. If you want to revist this topic, we can always set up another RfC. TFD (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, under WP:BOLD it shouldn't be 100% neccessary to go through acres of previous discussions to fix something that is broken. I've skimmed the discussions though and it looks as if there is a tangle about different factions including libertarians and anti-libertarians, in the midst of which, historical accuracy has become somewhat occluded. Where for example is John Stuart Mill? I find this article a mess, frankly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Now found History of liberalism which is better, albeit long-winded - I will have a closer look at some sources and see if we can agree on some rectifications for this article - in particular to the history part and to what Classical Liberalism is and what it ain't. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that there should be a separate article for 19th century liberalism? If so then the issue is the naming of articles. TFD (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that last point TFD. For one thing, at the moment this article says it was mainly developed in the 19th C in W. Europe and the US - then cites three European authors whose signal works are all 18th C! Just the most glaring of a number of confusions. I suppose it does go back to what you call "classical liberalism" and I will think about it more, but it didn't really develop in the US initially. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

While Say, Malthus, and Ricardo were born in the 18th Century, their work straddled the turn of the century, and influenced the growth of Classical Liberalism (in one sense of the word) in the 19th Century. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not until the 19th century that all the elements of classical liberalism were put together and became a political movement whose followers called themselves liberals. In the U. S. it was represented by Jacksonian Democracy. TFD (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the problem in the intro then is that it skips straight from Malthus, Say and Ricardo to the 20th C, without mention of the middle part. If you take the narrow view that liberalism was not around in the earlier stages like Locke, Hobbes and later Smith and Hume because they didn't call it "Liberalism", then you need a different article intro I think - maybe one that emphasises formal liberalism and briefly explains it's development from the earlier stuff in the 17th & 18th C and then a little more on progress in the 19th? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I will find a source to provide a better lead, and of course the article needs expansion. It is not that they did not call it liberalism, but the political movement arose in the early 19th century and became a force with the 1830 French revolution and the Great Reform Bill 1832. TFD (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But lots of sources say it started much earlier than that. I suspect we are dealing with different definitions of what liberalism is. Do you reject for example TFD that Locke, Hobbes and Smith have anything to do with it? History of liberalism has sources saying they did, by the way. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No sources say that. The confusion comes from using different terminology. Some writers call the period from Locke to Obama "classical liberalism" while others use the term more narrowly. But all agree that the liberalism that emerged in the 19th century is a separate topic. See for example this article from the Cato Institute which calls it simply "liberalism". TFD (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I expanded the lead and you may find the source here. TFD (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition

An editor continues to remove the following line, "It is sometimes difficult to tell which meaning is intended in a given source." Experience editing this article has shown that this is an issue. If someone would like to suggest re-phrasing, that would be helpful, but please do not remove text without discussion. TFD (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is condescending to the reader to tell him it is difficult for him to understand. If you're going to say it is difficult or unclear you should have a source that says this. Otherwise you are inserting your subjective opinion in and assuming everyone else is going to find it as difficult as you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seven days seven nights (talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty does not lie with the reader. The difficulty lies with the sources. Writers use the phrase in different senses within the same document. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is ambiguity of terminology in all topics related to liberalism. Do you know of any sources that discuss this? TFD (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why not just say that instead of saying it's difficult to understand or unclear? But first do you have a source for them using the phrase in a difference sense in the same document?Seven days seven nights (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When different sources use the same phrase with widely different meanings, then confusion is bound to result. Why do you object to the sentence? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you're inserting your POV that it's unclear. I think it's very clear. I don't see reason at all to be confused. Seven days seven nights (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty silly for you to edit war over this sentence. I reverted "it is sometimes clear and sometimes unclear" back to "it is sometimes unclear" because your version is unnecessarily wordy. If something is "sometimes unclear" people can safely assume that the implication is that -- some of the time -- it likely will be "clear". You're clearly beyond 3RR now, though. BigK HeX (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Core principles

An editor continues to change this section. However, the section is sourced and we cannot change it to something not found in the source. If the editor questions the description of core principles in this section, could they please find another source. Note that people living in the 19th century saw the world differently than we do today and many beliefs and policies acceptable then would seem foreign today. TFD (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just seen this comment. I put my reasons for editing on TFD's user talk for discussion and reproduce them here.

1. The entire section is exclusively dependent on Hunt. It is doubtful scholarship to rely so heavily on a single source in an encyclopaedia article; notwithstanding that, the dependence should be acknowledged explicitly. At the very least, it is scholarly courtesy.

2. Hunt's terminology is contentious. The terms he uses, which are his own and not direct quotations, clearly connote moral disapproval ('egoistic', 'coldly calculating' and 'essentially inert' leading to 'just plain lazy' in particular). For example, Chambers define calculating thus:

calculating adj, derog deliberately shrewd and selfish, especially in terms of how one can use other people and situations to benefit oneself.

Use of a derogatory adjective is not adhering to WP:NPOV. We should either quote Hunt directly with ascription, or alter his terms to ones which are less moralised. Indeed, he uses some less moralised terms at points himself: for instance, what is wrong with using 'rational' in place of 'calculating'?

3. In the 'Malthus' section of the book (pp. 49--51), Hunt quotes no-one other than Malthus. No other source at all, primary or secondary. His assertion that classical liberals depended on Malthus is completely unevidenced. Given that, Wikipedia cannot quote Hunt's view as a fact but should quote it as his view, or some similar term.

Wooster (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The source used was published by M. E. Sharpe, Inc., which is an academic publisher and therefore a reliable source. It is a textbook in its 7th edition. The writer was honored by the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics,[1] ICAPE argues that "that each tradition of thought (Austrian, feminist, old and new institutionalist, Marxian, neoclassical, Post Keynesian, social economics, Sraffian, etc.) adds something unique and valuable to economic scholarship".[2] ICAPE is supported by numerous academic institutions and economists.[3] Therefore there should be no neutrality issues.

If you believe that Hunt is wrong, or that his writing is an opinion then you need to find a reliable source that provides a different opinion. You also need to follow the sources for text in the article. If Hunt said classical liberals saw "society as atomistic" we cannot change that to "humans as individuals".

TFD (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I note for the record that you did not respond directly to any of the points I raised. In regard of your first point, I am not questioning Hunt's general reliability, merely a handful of his claims which I think need better treatment. Moreover, you will well know that being given an award, even if it is for pluralism in study, does not guarantee an author's neutrality. You are presuming Hunt's neutrality rather than assessing it. This is not the way that we handle sources.

In regard of your second point, I already took on board the issue you raise after the first edit and made the second edit an enhancement of the section's use of Hunt (plus the minor spelling edit which I have subsequently put through separately). Nothing I wrote diminished the section's use of Hunt; everything I wrote enhanced, amplified and exposed it. You reverted that, too. If your concern is to preserve the integrity of the section's dependence on Hunt, you're expressing it in a funny way.

Let me repeat my points in the form of questions: I politely request a direct response. I'm very happy to seek a second opinion if you will not discuss these important issues of the operation of policy.

1. Do you think it is best practice to depend exclusively on a single secondary source? Do you think it is good scholarly practice to do so without telling the reader explicitly in the text of this dependence? Do you think it is better scholarly practice to have, without a direct reference, a near lift from a source rather than a referenced quote?

2. Do you accept Chambers' description of calculating as a derogatory adjective? Do you agree that a source which attributes, unsourced, derogatory statements or sentiments to its subjects is not providing a fully unbiased view of its subjects? Do you agree, as a matter of policy, that WP:NPOV cannot be obviated by quoting sources whose biases are affecting their presentation, be those sources ever so distinguished and respected?

3. If a secondary source, even a book from an academic publishing house, fails to give any references to back up its claims, do you think we can still report the claims as though they were established facts? Do you agree that WP:IRS, in stating that 'sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article', requires us to assess the source's evidencing of its claims in deciding whether to report them? Do you agree, on re-reading the relevant section of Hunt, that he provides no direct evidence or further source for his claim of classical liberal dependence on Malthus?

Wooster (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. It is better to use more than one source and nothing is preventing you from adding more. The reliance on one source for this section is disclosed in the footnotes. Saying in the text, "according to E. K. Hunt" would imply that the information presented was an opinion. Cf, "according to CBS News, Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the Moon".
2. If subjects use derogatory language, their language may be used. WP:BLP does not apply because no 19th century writers are still living. But I do not think this misrepresents the classical liberals. Their welfare policy presupposed that people were selfish, that you are actually harming people through providing generous welfare.
3. Encyclopedias and some textbooks never provide footnotes, yet are reliable sources. Hunt says that the section summarizes chapter 3 of his book and he provides a list of sources used at the end of each chapter.

The conclusions reached by Hunt seem uncontroversial, and if you think they are wrong you should provide alternative sources. Until you do that it would seem premature to seek a third opinion. I have not objected to anything you wish to include, just object to incorrectly representing the only source used for the section.

TFD (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is better scholarly practice to alert readers in the text when you depend heavily on a single source. It may be within the "letter of the law", so to speak, to use footnotes alone, but it is better practice to make it explicit. Not every reader is going to follow the whole rabbit trail, after all.

1. No, this is more than asserting a widely-known fact, like Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon. Try, "According to CBS News, Armstrong's walk on the Moon was a defining point in US history." For Hunt is doing more than reporting classical liberals' views, he is characterising them; in the absence of direct quotations, we have to suppose that it is in his own terms. (I'll concede 'idle', given the Bentham and Townsend quotes; although it is not as such directly contained in them.) Consequently, we cannot merely report his characterisation without recognising it as such.
2. See point (1) above: in some instances at least, Hunt does not demonstrate that he is using classical liberals' own terms. I agree that if we can source classical liberals using those terms then we have free rein to quote them accordingly; but if we cannot, then we ought to retain a scrupulous neutrality. That means not ascribing negative terms to the subjects where they cannot be found to be using those terms.
3. Hunt does not say that the section on Malthus and population summarises chapter 3; that is the egoistic theory of human nature, in the section on 'The Psychological Creed'. Anyway, let's park this one. I have found that this is a claim which Wikipedia has elsewhere, so it may be in a better-referenced source.

May I make a test case suggestion? I propose to change the first sentence ('...human nature...') so that it is a direct quotation of Hunt, referenced by footnote alone. (Tomorrow; I have no further time today.) Would you object to making that change, and if so, on what basis?

Wooster (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. You claim that the characterization of classical liberal core principles are opinion rather than fact, although they are stated as fact in a textbook.
2. We should use the terms that Hunt uses, because that is what the source used.

Again you must find reliable secondary sources that support the way you think the core principles should be presented and should refer to policy for changes you wish to make. Yes I would object to the change because it would be characterizing a fact as an opinion.

TFD (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. You appear to be misunderstanding me. I have not anywhere described the passage in question as Hunt's opinion, that is your word: I have always maintained that it is a slanted characterisation of the facts. You accept that it is a characterisation, and that it is slanted. Further, you have not contested that it is in Hunt's own terms rather than in terms quoted from a subject. I conclude that you are agreeing that some of the words used do not have a neutral tone, and that the slant is coming from Hunt rather than his subjects. We cannot import the partial tone of even a reliable source to trump WP:NPOV.
2. I don't think WP:V does require us to use Hunt's terms, actually. I'm willing to be corrected, but it seems to me that it only requires us to be able to support article material from the source: much less restrictive. Nevertheless, if you want to insist on that narrow interpretation (and I can see the benefits when a dispute arises), then let me point out that we're not using Hunt's terms currently. The sentence in question is a near lift of one of Hunt's: in it, he doesn't say "selfish" but "egoistic", not "idle" but "essentially inert", and he qualifies his third item with "coldly calculating" (my emph.). You cannot say that we should use Hunt's terms and then defend not using Hunt's terms! Moreover, Hunt later in the same section uses less slanted terms (such as "rational" instead of "calculating", p. 45). It would be an improvement to use Hunt's less slanted language rather than his more slanted language.

Wooster (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We can change terms used in sources to terms that are more commonly used provided we do not change the meaning. Not every writer uses the term "classical liberalism" to refer to this topic, for example. I have inserted mention of Hunt into the section and put his four assumptions in quotes. But if you do not like his views then you must find other sources. TFD (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is not a matter of liking or disliking his views, of course, but a matter of Wikipedia not importing, and especially not building on, his slant. I'd be as frustrated if this were, say, a paragraph importing Hayek rather than Hunt. I'll insert a footnote against the quote, because it makes sense to direct readers to the exact source of the quote, as well as the section which sources the wider paragraph. 94.195.213.22 (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (This was, of course, Wooster (talk) . Forgot to sign in.)

If Hayek wrote about the history of liberalism in academic writing then there would be no reason to question his description. But Hayek's fame rests on his work in economics and his polemical writing, not as an historian. TFD (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the sourcing issue than I am with the simple accuracy of Hunt's 4 core principles. Take Adam Smith, who we often think of as the quintessential classical liberal. He did not think that humans were egoistic or rational calculating for only economic self-interest. First sentence of the Theory of Moral Sentiments should dissuade one of that view, or all the references to one's desire to be praiseworthy in Wealth of Nations. In fact, throughout Wealth of Nations the term he most often uses is self-love, not self-interest. I won't bore you with the problems of the view Hunt ascribes to Malthus, but Smith did not not accept the Malthusian principle, in part because he came before Malthus. Smith does argue that there is a relation between population and food supply, but his general conception of the economy is not one based on scarcity. And Smith, like his good friend David Hume, was not Hobbesian. Both Smith and Hume saw cooperation across the history of human exchange, and discarded "state of nature" theories in favor of an evolutionary account of human cooperation for mutual benefit. Put bluntly, the tragedy of the commons is not a problem for them. In Hobbes' view, humans can't even talk about overcoming their problems -- they just fight until a strong man appears. Smith has a nuanced theory of language and exchange that allows both to help us overcome collective action problems. The last of Hunt's assumptions is right to an extent, except that "government" for Smith is dependent upon the stage of history. That is, in modern civilization, with the institutions of his society, these are things government can do. But that conception of government is not universal to all stages of human history. And the reason we don't need more government is because humans are not egoistic, cooperate with each other, talk about their common problems, innovate as markets expand, and come to think of the interests of others as their own livelihoods depend upon their doing so. I don't know what sources you should use for a general overview, but Hunt's 4 assumptions don't work for at least 1 major classical liberal, and should be questioned regarding its place in what has become "the" standard to which we turn for quick summaries of key ideas. RossEmmett (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)RossEmmett

The article is about liberalism in the early 19th century, which had Smith as an influence. The term classical liberal, as explained in the article, is not used consistently in the literature. TFD (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Formerly called simply liberalism

Why was this deleted? There is a source. This should not be controversial at all. Bullet Dropper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

The source says: "The Industrial Revolution that began in Britain saw the development of economic liberalism. That is, first of all, the belief that the free market was the optimal form of economic life, providing the greatest prosperity for all, and necessitating maximum economic freedom for everyone. This went hand in hand with a wider view of liberty which saw the maximisation of social freedom as the best way to run society in general. It was this version of liberalism that was the first to actually be called 'liberalism', which was in the nineteenth century. It is better known by the name 'laissez-faire liberalism', although it is sometimes called 'classical liberalism'." Page 13: http://books.google.com/books?id=_7t714alm68C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ideology+and+politics+in+Britain+today.&hl=en&ei=75OdTKTIA4GClAes2MyBCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I care one way or another. However, I would say that caring about this strongly is unlikely to be productive. What would be productive would be sunstantive non-controversial contributions to the body of the article or related, rather than touching up the lede William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you can find a source that explains the history of the usage of the term. The insertion was originally removed when it was unsourced. The source you provided is an introductory textbook, which is a tertiary source and should be avoided. TFD (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:Tertiary that says this source cannot be used for this. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But if you need something to buttress it: "Ralph Raico, a classical liberal and professional historian who has an excellent chapter on President Truman in this volume, has correctly state that, "Classical liberalism - or simply liberalism as it was called until around the turn of the century - is the signature philosophy of Western Civilization." Page ix http://books.google.com/books?id=hJGpAT7IWhwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Reassessing+the+presidency:+the+rise+of+the+executive+state+and+the+decline&hl=en&ei=pLueTO2IC8SAlAfg9NC6Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The source you presented is a book from the Mises Institute, not a reliable source. If a fact is true and notable then you should have no problem in providing a reliable secondary source that presents it. Incidentally, later versions of Adams' book have deleted his original claim. TFD (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say it's not a reliable source? Can you cite a policy that says so? Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying that what is called "classical" liberalism today used to be called liberalism?? Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not know anything except what is written in reliable sources. However, I do not remember Robert Peel describing his policies as liberal or contemporary writers such as Dickens or Thackeray using the term "liberal". And the onus is not on me to show that your source is reliable but vice versa. Anyway, if your facts are correct and notable, then you should have no trouble finding a source. TFD (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just gave you two reliable sources. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Find a source from a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal or a book (not an introductory textbook) published by a university or academic press. Your two sources are an introductory textbook (and the claim was omitted from later versions) and a book published by a think tank. If your claim is accurate it should prove no problem finding such a source. My approach has always been to exclude information that cannot be reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are reliable sources by Wikipedia policy. And you're coming across as just trying to be difficult for no apparent reason. Why would it be called classical liberalism if it wasn't called liberalism before it was decided to be called "classical" liberalism? Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. Why don't you find a reliable source that explains this. TFD (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't. Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If I want the Wikipedia article Earth to report that the Earth is flat, I'm sure I can cite a book published by The Flat Earth Society to support this claim. But Wikipedia uses mainstream sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed the list to include only Say, Malthus and Ricardo, who were the writers most closely connected with classical liberal thinking. The list should not be long, but should give a representative sample. Also, I moved the footnote about the etymology of the term "classical liberal" to the body of the article. I also removed Conway's book, which was published outside the academic mainstream, as a source. TFD (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave you mainstream sources. Here is another: "It would be difficult to adequately characterize Jefferson's philosophy. It come closest to what was called "liberalism" in the nineteenth century, and classical liberalism after that term was appropriated by the progressive movement..." Page 846 http://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PR3&dq=%22Encyclopedia+of+American+civil+liberties,+Volume+1%22&hl=en&ei=J4mfTP6lCcP6lwfiytjGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Encyclopedia%20of%20American%20civil%20liberties%2C%20Volume%201%22&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you use an article about 18th century America in a teritary source about American civil liberties for the article? Try finding a reliable relevant secondary source, e.g., a book about liberalism (other than an elementary textbook) that explains the terminology. The correct approach is to read the relevant literature and ensure that the main points are included. You should not data mine for sources supporting your views and then inject tangential or poor sources into the article. TFD (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just an additional source. I gave you other sources above. And textbooks and tertiary sources are reliable sources. I don't know why you keep saying they're not. You even gave a tertiary source for your latest edit. So I don't know where you're coming from with this. Why will you accept your own tertiary sources but not mine? Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not provided any tertiary sources. They should be avoided because they may make generalizations and do not provide sources. They should also be relevant. TFD (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did: You added: "The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier nineteenth-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Richardson, p. 52" The Richardson book is a tertiary source. And I ask again, where are you getting the idea that tertiary sources are not reliable source? Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a secondary source of the highest quality. Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power[4] (2001) by Professor emeritus James L. Richardson was published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, an independent scholarly and textbook publishing firm that publishes in the fields of international studies and comparative politics in relation to the world. The chapter used as a source previously appeared in an earlier book by Richardson and was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997). A Google Scholar search returns 164 hits[5] and the article has been used as part of university political science courses. It is the type of source you should be using. TFD (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's no more a secondary sources than the source I gave, Ideology and politics in Britain today By Ian Adams, published by Manchester University Press. [6] Ian Adams is Honorary Fellow at the University of Durham, where he was a lecturer in political theory until his retirement in 2001. And it's also cited in Google Scholar [7] and cited in peer-reviewed publications there as well . And again, whether your or my sources are tertiary or secondary is not relevant, as Wikipedia policy says tertiary sources are reliable sources. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) See WP:TERTIARY: "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself.

Yes it is tertiary, and no you are not using it correctly.

TFD (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If mine is tertiary, then yours is tertiary as they're the same type of book. And I'm using it no differently than you are using yourse. Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Adams book you are citing is an undergraduate textbook, as one can see from the back cover. I can't see any indication that the Richardson book is a textbook; indeed, the fact that part of it was published as a paper in a peer-reviewed journal suggests that it isn't a textbook. Rather than arguing about whether or not this is a good source, it might be better to look for another source which would be acceptable to TFD; that is, something that is clearly a secondary source, preferably something from a peer-reviewed journal. If the textbook is accurately summarizing the state of scholarship, then it will be possible to find such a source.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD's source is a from a textbook publishing company, so it as well. Textbooks are good sources. And the source I gave is cited in peer-reviewed articles as well, as I indicated. You say we should look for a source acceptable to TFD. Are you saying TFD makes the policy? The Adams is a reliable source according to the policy. Besides, I gave two other sources above for it as well. Bullet Dropper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

The book you used is an introductory textbook and the text you used has been removed from later editions. The correct approach to articles is to read what mainstream sources say and use that. Datamining to find sources that express your prejudices, especially when they are not high quality reliable secondary sources is typical of tendentious editors and is disruptive. if your opinion has any credibility whatsoever then it should be found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It IS a mainstream source. And what's your evidence that it is removed from later editions? Which edition are you saying it was left out of? I'll check. I'm ready to order to book online right now if you tell me the edition it's left out of. And I gave two others sources besides that one. Bullet Dropper (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If something is well-accepted then there is no problem in finding good sources. For example, I believe that Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States. If I provide a comic book, like Classics Illustrated or Humpty Dumpty as a source then I can find a source if challenged. You should do the same. TFD (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no problem finding good sources. I gave three sources. That's enough. There's no reason for me to keep looking. They meet Wikipedia standard's for reliability. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please find quality secondary reliable sources. So far you have provided none whatsoever. TFD (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because you say they're not good sources, doesn't make it so. Those are great sources I've provided. They meet Wikipedia standards. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You should attempt to work toward consensus on this. A passing reference in a tertiary source that was omitted from later editions is not a good source. TFD (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You have no evidence of your claim that it was omitted from a later edition. I asked you before. What edition are you claiming it was left out of? Let's hear some specifics. I will order the book today. Others need to be able to verify your claim. We're not going to just take your word for it. Also, I've given you two other sources here. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bullet Dropper has raised the issue at RSN. Editors may comment here. My concern is that we use high quality reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave both tertiary and secondary sources. And WP:TERTIARY specifically says tertiary sources are reliable: "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary source. Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." And you yourself are using a tertiary source: [8] Why is it OK for you but not anyone else? Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that it says, "providing broad summaries of topics" - that does not include specific claims of etymology that cannot be verified. Also, I did not use a tertiary source, but a secondary source. TFD (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill

I have removed the reference to Mill in the lead which was sourced to an article about ""modern" classical liberalism". [9] TFD (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

While early in his career Mill accepted Classical Liberal ideas, he did not formulate those ideas, and later came to reject those ideas. Adding his name with a personal blog as a reference is not encyclopedic. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor has again re-inserted Mill into the lead with the notation, "Mill is one of the leaders of classical liberalism (On Liberty)". There are several problems with this including that the claim is not backed up by a reliable source and J. S. Mill's On Liberty is not mentioned in the article. Please discuss the issue here and obtain consensus before re-inserting. TFD (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Cambridge University Press edition of Mill's "On Liberty" mentions that "On Liberty" is "...now widely regarded as the most important theoretical foundation for Liberalism as a political creed." If the University of Cambridge isn't a reliable source, then the definition of "reliable source" needs to be addressed. Mill needs to go into the article since he is a contributor to classical liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.99.211 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to your source. The book is indeed now widely regarded, but it was not published until 1859, long after classical liberalism had developed, and its influence is on modern liberalism, including libertarianism as implied by your first source. TFD (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises

An editor has added Mises as a leader of the revival of interest in classical liberalism, along with Friedman and Hayek, who were already mentioned. However the book used as a source for the claim (p. 43 of Contending liberalisms) does not mention Mises at all, and the only mention of Mises in the book is in a footnote.[10] By the way the inclusion of Mises came up earlier on this page with most editors being opposed. TFD (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a better source from Edwin van de haar, PHD, who specializes in international political theory, especially the international aspects of the liberal tradition in political thought. His book Classical liberalism and international relations theory: Hume, Smith, Mises, and Hayek (2009), p, 4 states that Mises was of "crucial importance in the revival of the classical liberal tradition in the 20th century". Afer all, it is fairly known that Mises converted Hayek from his socialist leanings. I am going to add Mises with the source on the main page.--Trueliberal (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We could probably find sources for dozens of economists saying that they were of crucial importance. What we want to do is provide the most important, otherwise we are going to have a list of twenty people, The fact that Contending liberalisms does not even mention Mises means that his significance is not as great as some of his supporters believe. Do you have any sources that say who the most important people were in leading the revival of classical liberalism that mentions Mises? Incidentally, Mises died in 1973, before the revival of interest in classical liberalism which began after the inflation that was unleashed in 1973. Mises had attempted to bring classical liberal solutions to Europe after the Second World War but he and Hayek had been largely marginalized at the time. Also, unlike Hayek and Friedman, Mises did not write books for a mass audience. The fact that he was Hayek's teacher is irrelevant. By that reasoning, we should add Carl Menger, who influenced Mises. TFD (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the source in my previous comment on the most important people leading the revival of classical liberal thought in the 20th century. The author explains it to be Mises and Hayek (he also mentions Friedman briefly). I understand your point that we cannot add everyone but it’s not just my opinion. Two additional sources say the same thing “Classical liberalism was rescued from oblivion and revived in the 20th century by such notable figures as Ludwig von Mises and Frederich Hayek.” Classical Liberalism: The Unvanquished Ideal (1998), p. 8 By David Conway. The other says “Mises and Hayek were the genesis of the revival of classical liberalism in America” Upstream (2008), p. 30 By Alfred S. Regnery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueliberal (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I will have to look at this further. Clearly Hayek and Friedman were the major influences on monetarism and neoliberalism, which became the new paradigm for modern government, while the writers you mention are referring to libertarianism. Hayek's influence on them was his popular books, rather than his economics. The economic theories of Mises and Hayek did lead to a revival of interest in 19th century economists, but this influence was fairly limited to libertarianism (their economic views were influential on Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul). I don't mind mentioning both, but the lead should be mainly about classical liberalism, rather than modern attempts to revive it. TFD (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Hayek was an Austrian in regards to monetary policy (as was Mises) and would better fit with the term classical liberalism while Friedman was a monetarist which may better fit the so called "neoliberal" term. Certainly there is overlap in general views, however, in monetary theory they are NOT both monetarists. Classical liberalism also overlaps with a (minarchist, not anarchist) libertarian to a large extent and they are often used synonymously today. Ron Paul would better fit the classical liberal Misesian position than a Rothbardian anarcho capitalist libertarian even though they have much in common. Mises also identified himself as a liberal and explains what exactly it is in his book Liberalism: In the classical tradition(1929). He did not identify as libertarian even if libertarians agreed or appreciated his work.--Trueliberal (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How does that matter? Neoliberals looked to nineteenth century liberalism for inspiration, and encouraged governments to cut taxes and services. That is what books such as Contending liberalisms mean by the "revival of interest in classical liberalism". The fact that a small group of economists have also kept the flag flying, while interesting, is not really important enough for the lead, although it might be mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Neoclassical liberalism

We need an article on Neo-classical liberalism (currently a re-direct page), which developed out of classical liberalism in the second half of the 19th century out of classical liberalism and continues today as neoliberalism and libertarianism. Neo-classical liberals "argue that government should be as small as possible to provide full scope for the exercise of individual freedom. The more extreme neo-classical liberals advocated social Darwinism.... A later variant of neo-classical liberalism is libertarianism." (From politics past to politics future, p. 124)[11] TFD (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see a few people doing reverts of sourced items, with no real explanation for the reverts. I suggest you guys explain your edits here. Here is the information being deleted: [12] Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As clearly state in the lead, the article is about 19th century liberalism. "The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism". Your source says. "classical or laissez-faire liberalism (Locke, Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Rober Nozick)...." Clearly none of them were part of 19th century liberalism, although the first two were influences upon and the second to were influenced by it. TFD (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Another term for 19th century liberalism is laissez-faire liberalism. Classical liberalism is philosophy of laissez-faire. What don't you understand? And why did you delete the fuller quote from the expert on liberalism, Schlesinger? You're not supposed to delete something just because you disagree with it or you think the writer is wrong. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not delete any passage from Schlesinger. But if you wish the article to state that in the 19th century liberalism was called "laissez-faire liberalism" then you need a source that says that. TFD (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did delete the addition to the words of Schlesinger: [13] . On "laissez-faire liberalism" that's not what the other user put into the article. It doesnt say that it USED to be called laissez-faire liberalism in the 19th century. It says it IS called laissez-faire liberalism. Just as classical liberalism, didnt USED to be classical liberalism. The source indicates that classical and laissez-faire liberalism are two terms for the same thing. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD and make the case for any changes you want to make here. Arguing about what was or was not deleted is not especially helpful; just layout the case so other editors can look at it. While that is going on stop edit warring on the article itself. --Snowded ^TALK 04:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The case is that these things are sourced. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Virtually anything can be sourced in some way on an article of this nature. Layout your case for the inclusion of the material or give it up --Snowded ^TALK 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What's your case for deleting the material? It's reliably sourced and "laissez-faire liberalism" is a notable synonym (I can find give more sources if necessary), and the quote by Schledsinger, a noted expert on liberalism, points out that indeed liberalism was laissez-faire before new American liberalism arose. Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you not think that a magazine article from the 50s or 60s - even by an historian - explaining U. S. political terminology to the French is a poor source for the article? TFD (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an excellent source. The source for that quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schlesinger_Jr. an expert on liberalism, and the magazine article is simply an excerpt from a book of his, The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962) Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, the opening sentence of this article is sourced to say that classical liberalism is for free markets. Maybe you're not familiar with these concepts, but free markets is laissez-faire. Free markets means markets that government does not control, aka laissez-faire. Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems a familiar issue which occurs on many articles, namely an attempt to overlay modern political references (with strong ideological elements) onto a range of subjects. laissez-faire has a different meaning now in a modern context from the 19th C. I think you need far stronger sources to make a case for the change to the lede. Laissez-faire is better explained in the main body of the article where more context can be provided. --Snowded ^TALK 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote was not in the lede but in the body. In the lede was just noting the synonym for classical liberalism, "laissez-faire liberalism." Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source: "Classical liberalism, sometimes called laissez-faire liberalism, is in its historical philosophic sense broadly descended from the Enlightenment project of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill." from Human dignity and contemporary liberalism, By Brad Stetson, page 5 Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998 Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the difficulties in articles about ideology is that the use of terminology is not consistent. The description of classical liberalism used in this article is taken from Hudelson and refers to the liberalism that developed in the 19th century. and developed into neoclassical liberalism by the end of the century.[14] The article mentions that the term is used differently by different writers. Another writer may call it something else and if you have a better name for the article you may recommend one. But your sources do not say that "laissez-faire liberalism" and the "classical liberalism" described in the article are synonyms. In fact they use the expression to describe liberalism both before and after the period discussed in the article. TFD (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The source says that classical liberalism is sometimes called laissez-faire liberalism. The proper thing to do is to note that, as it's notable. The philosophy does not have only one name. If you look at sources you will also find it's called "traditional liberalism." Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not follow you. Are you saying that the philosophy of Hayek is not laissez-faire? TFD (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Hayek. I said that classical liberalism sometimes goes by the name laissez-faire liberalism. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Only if by classical liberalism one includes Whiggery and neo-classical liberalism. Create an article that combines the three and call it "laissez-faire liberalism". TFD (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Bullet Dropper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Title should be bolded

{{edit protected}} Per the MOS on the lead, the title of the article should be in bold. Please bold the term 'Classical liberalism' in the lead sentence. Thanks, LK (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

cquote -> quote

{{editprotected}} Per WP:MOSQUOTE guidelines, please switch {{cquote}} to {{quote}} in the "Overview" and "Free trade and world peace" sections :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Overview section

"The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief."

this is hardly a neutral sentence: 1) request reference(s) to the "series of depressions". 2) "thought to be impossible"...by who? (even a perfect economic system can fall into depression under drought, disease, war, etc) 3) "led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief" - again, provide reference(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.77.249 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 December 2010

See for exammple, A critical history of economics, p. 71.[15] TFD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Factual historical references (newspapers, etc.) from around that period to "a series of depressions" would be far more meaningful than a passive reference to "supply and demand fluctuations" in a economics book written in 2002. If better references cannot be found, can someone please remove the statement. Or rewrite it to be in keeping with the reference used...in this case, something like: "The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until supply and demand fluctuations arose, leading some to call for a change." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.76.199 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2010

Sorry, but we do not conduct orignal research and instead use reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The request was not for original research...the request is that either the statement be backed up by a reliable historical reference, or that it be deleted. The cited reference is not a historical one, it is the POV / opinion of an (apparently largely unknown) author...and if this is used, the sentence in the article should be rewritten to reflect the fact that it is an author's POV / opinion.

What is the purpose of citing a reference if the text is not based on the reference cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.75.69 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 December 2010

Disambiguation needed for "Manchester School"

Please disambiguate the link to "Manchester School" so that it points to Manchester capitalism. You may or may not also wish to change the link in the "See also" section from "Manchesterism" to Manchester capitalism. Thank you! --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with first part. No need to change the see also, because Manchesterism already re-directs to "Manchester capitalism". TFD (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that "Manchester School" is more commonly used by far, so the redirect should be the other way around. --FormerIP (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is called for some reason "Manchester capitalism". I think that "Manchester liberalism" is a more common term too. TFD (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)