Talk:Liberalism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Major announcement

I am pleased to inform you all that the rewriting and restructuring of the article is done! This article is now ready to be featured. I still have to make some minor stylistic and technical changes in the next few days, but I can say with absolute confidence that—in my four years of writing and reading Wikipedia articles—I have rarely seen one with such high quality. The prose is splendid, if I do say so myself. The article contains 180 citations to 69 books, five internet sources, and 1 academic journal. It is only 109 kb, despite the fact that we're dealing with such a complicated and popular subject. I'm particularly impressed with this last statistic; I was sure (and afraid) it would be much bigger. That was one of my biggest worries ahead of the FA nomination, but Elvis just got promoted with 165 kb (!), so I'm not sweating it anymore. Our goal now should be to apply the finishing touches in anticipation for a nomination next weekend (so mark your calendars). This article is great, but as we know all too well, no Wikipedia article is perfect—and none will ever be! A few areas where I think this article could see some improvement:

• Needs more links!!!!!!!! This is what I'll (mostly) be working on in the next few days.
• Needs a copyedit. I think the prose is generally great, but it wouldn't hurt to have an outsider go over the article again. Rick, this is where you could help me a lot. Can you please do a thorough review and copyedit of the article before next weekend?
• We need to finalize the copyright issues with the images, although I'm also perfectly happy to nominate as is and delete any troublemakers during the nomination.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Ideas?UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Peer review—final step before the nomination—is now live. I would appreciate any and all comments. Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 07:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly do a complete read and copy edit. Brace yourself. He who praises his own prose may have other bad habits, such as reading his own poetry aloud (to paraphrase Heinlein). Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha don't worry my friend! As I said in the Peer review: "Be brutal and deliberately scathing." I expect nothing less. This article needs to be in the best shape possible before heading for the nomination.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Relation to other ideologies

"Liberal conservatism" is not a clearly defined term. The source uses the term "classical liberal conservatism", which may be conservative liberalism. Other writers use it as a synonym for Burke's conservatism in contrast to continental conservatism. I would leave it out. You might want to mention Christian Democracy. Also, I would think that liberal feminism is a type of liberalism rather than a separate ideology and could be mentioned elsewhere, perhaps under "Dominant ideas and traditions". The Four Deuces (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to mention classical liberal conservatism instead? I think that's essentially implied because I talk about its relation to classical liberalism later. I definitely agree that the term generally isn't well-defined, but it does appear in the literature and, in this case, I specifically refer to its meaning, or at least part of its meaning (in other words, no one should be confused about what's being said). In that section, I wanted to offer a comparison between liberalism and other ideologies, and I thought it might be a 'novel' idea to show that some connection, however tenuous, exists between liberalism and conservatism. I'm not opposed to mentioning Christian Democracy, but let's get this out of the way first.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is the sentence under question:

However, a few variations of conservatism, like liberal conservatism, expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including "small government and thriving capitalism".

It looks like a pretty restrained sentence, in that it doesn't contain any grand or sweeping claims. Everything is qualified with phrases like "a few" or "some of the". I don't see anything that controversial with it. It's not like we're saying liberal conservatism—whatever it means—is tantamount to classical liberalism. Obviously it's not, and I don't think the sentence would give someone that impression either. But again, people read things differently all the time, so if you have some suggestions for how to modify this part Deuces, I'm all ears. I hesitate to get rid of it entirely because I think it's an essential component of that section, but I would support saying something like "Liberal conservatism is not clearly defined, but blah blah blah".UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh as for the feminism part: feminism is the ideology to which the section is referring, and liberal feminism is a subset of feminist ideology, not the other way around. If it was the other way around—if feminism was a type of liberalism—then I think the appropriate terminology would be feminist liberalism. I've seen that too many times, but the references are, in general, to liberal feminism.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that what Grigsby calls "classical liberal conservatism" would normally be called "conservative liberalism" and in any case would normally be considered a type of liberalism. It is called conservatism in the U.S. to distinguish it from modern American liberalism. If it is defined as conservatism it contradicts the historical narrative in the article as well as many of the other source books provided. (The US conservative narrative as explained by Kirk was that the US revolution was conservative, they were fighting for their traditions, and therefore would be outside the scope of the article.)

Thanks for explaining liberal feminism. I understand the importance of including feminist perspectives in articles, which is often overlooked. However I think it should follow conservatism and socialism as its political significance emerged later. Also, look into Christian Democracy which has replaced conservatism on the right in many countries.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I support calling it "conservative liberalism" instead. Are you fine with that? The political significance of feminism definitely emerged later, as you said, but that section is not really focused on political history (that's what the History section is for). If we're tracing ideological and intellectual history, then I think I did a good job with the chronology, as Wollstonecraft was writing at around the same time as Burke. I could switch feminism and conservatism though, not a big deal.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I will also add something on Christian Democracy, although remember that I can't just add things for the sake of adding them. I have to find out how they are related to liberalism (ie. are they supportive of liberalism, opposed to liberalism, etc). That's the point of the subsection.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just added material on Christian democracy in the Relation subsection.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Grigsby source is a US college freshman textbook and presents views that may not be widely shared. Normally when controversial information is provided it should be balanced by other views. I would suggest using another source and leave discussion of the meaning of conservatism to other articles. (The book's claim that Focus on the Family and the Conservative Party of Norway are both examples of traditional conservatism is distracting.) There is no need to describe different types of conservatism but if they are the normal distinction made is between English and European versions. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

The article does not seem to mention the partial retraction from social liberalism and Keynsian economics following the 1973 energy crisis. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I completely forgot. I'll also add something on that later today in the Relation subsection.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now mentioned neoliberalism at the end of the Modern liberalism subsection. It feels more appropriate there rather than in Philosophy.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Although 19th century radicals are mentioned there is no explanation of who they were. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because they're not mentioned as one general group, but rather as specific political parties or movements (ie. British Radicals or Radical Liberals in Ecuador and Paraguay). I don't really think it's necessary to explain the intellectual foundations of each and every radical liberal political group. People who want to know more can always visit the articles.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

the lede

The main problem I found in the lede is that, like the young man of Japan, it tried to cram as many words in as it possibly can. The goal of my edit is to try to keep the most important points, leaving their elaboration to the body of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've modified some of your changes. I thought some were fine while others interfered with the message of the article. For example, you eliminated the reference to globalization for the sake of brevity and working (probably) under the assumption that the sentence mentioning the EU and the UN covers that subject anyway. However, we would do well to remember that liberal internationalism and globalization are different, though related, concepts. Moving on, it's factually suspect to claim that the English Civil War itself was based on the ideals of liberal philosophy, largely because liberal philosophy didn't really exist in any coherent manner back then. The English Civil War certainly was a major inspiration for liberalism, as was the far more important Thirty Years War, but the war itself did not come about because of liberalism. I also edited and restored other parts because I think your changes were much more than stylistic; they actually fiddled with the meaning. I also question the current structure in the third paragraph, which removes the centrality of the French Revolution and places the American Revolution on an equal footing. That's very historically aberrant as the French Revolution was the overwhelming inspiration for future liberals. The liberal politicians and the factory workers in St. Petersburg that brought down the Czar in 1917 were singing the Marseillaise, not Yankee Doodle. When the Spanish Republic was proclaimed in 1931 by liberals and socialists, people were singing the Marseillaise, not Yankee Doodle. The motto of revolutionary movements all over the world (liberal or not) was liberty, equality, fraternity. You get the point. That was a pretty big change Rick, but I'm willing to live with it if you accept the current version of the lead, which is mostly legit I think (it's never going to be perfect, so we shouldn't sweat it too much).UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a small change in the last sentence. Best not to say what an author's "aim" is, let the author speek for himself. Aside from that, everything looks fine. Onward. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology and definition

I didn't change much, just pruned what looked to me like undergrowth. But one man's weed is another man's herb, so let me know what you think. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fine.UberCryxic ^(talk) 14:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Intro to History

I made a few changes. It is an excellent overview, but I shortened it slightly. I did add one thing: "welfare state". I used to shy away from using that phrase, but it is now so universal that I think people are beginning to understand that it doesn't mean communist dictatorship. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine too.UberCryxic ^(talk) 14:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Prelude to liberalism

This is a great short article, but it really doesn't have that much to do with liberalism. I'm torn. Part of me wants to keep it, part of me wants to cut it severely. Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ehh...some of your changes are shading from copyediting the article into restructuring the article. I want to keep everything that was there, with certain modifications, not least because I'm worried the citations will be all screwed up (certain invalid Ibids etc). The whole point of that section is to give people a sense of what the world was like before liberalism (hence to "Prelude to liberalism"). The information there is very important, and I think readers will not have the best understanding for the future sections of the article if we delete those parts.

I'm fine with the idea of shortening the section significantly, but please don't cut out cited material. That introduces a plethora of other problems. Make sure all the citations that were there originally survive your copyedit...at the very least. If you can just guarantee me that, you can have a lot of leeway to do other things.UberCryxic ^(talk) 15:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One other question: what's your timeline for this copyedit? I am hoping to nominate this article by Sunday, at the latest, and it would be great if you could finish by that point. Remember how you told me not to neglect my work? Well I'll soon be entering the phase of the semester when I really can't do that (midterms, bunch of other stuff), so I want to have this nomination ready by my Spring Break, which comes up next week.UberCryxic ^(talk) 15:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm finished with my edit of "Prelude to Liberalism". I did cut some references (and added one) and moved the Renaissance to before the Black Death, stressing the difference between the intellectual changes in the Renaissance and the power struggle that followed. I tried to be careful not to upset any ibids, but you should check this. The thing that I kept most in mind as I cut stuff I found interesting was: "Did this lead to liberalism, or is this just an interesting aside?" Thus the flagelants had to go.

I'll try to finish before Sunday.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be shortened further. Readers may wish to understand how the world stood c. 1600, but do not need to know that the Western Roman empire collapsed in AD 476. While there had been peasant uprisings that foreshadowed later revolutions, the role of the Black death in paving the way for this does not seem to belong in the article. Also, Filmer and Hobbes are mentioned. Filmer provides a sufficient explanation of the worldview that liberals rebelled against. I do not understand the discussion of Hobbes though - his views were not typical of Royalists and are more often seen as a step in the development of liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they do need to know that information, and historians disagree with you anyway. It's impossible to fully understand and appreciate the rise of liberalism without looking at the Black Death or the role of Christianity during the Middle Ages. Those are important precursors and they should not be left out.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, with what do historians disagree with me? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Enter liberalism

Ok, done with this section. Only a few changes. In my edit summary, I said Hobbes when I intended to say Filmer. Time for lunch. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On the copyediting

Rick, for this to go fast, I say just go through the entire article on your own, make the changes you deem necessary, and I'll review everything when you're done. It's taking too much time for you to go back and forth between the article and the talk page, explaining every little step along the way. Just chug it through it at full speed dude. Don't worry about us. I'll definitely take a long hard look before the nomination. Let's go go go team!UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Rick, just one other thing to rein in my cascading frustration with your changes....it's very easy here to see who has and has not written featured articles. What is this????

After centuries of dominance, the Roman Empire irrevocably splintered in 476. The eastern part of the Roman world became the Byzantine Empire and the western part fractured into a series of kingdoms that collectively represented but a shadow of the erstwhile Roman eagle. Despite these enormous geopolitical changes, however, one constant remained to give Europe a certain sense of unity and stability: Christianity.

Christianity provided the post-Roman European world with a sense of purpose and direction. European experiences during the Middle Ages were often characterized by fear, uncertainty, and warfare—the latter being endemic in medieval life.[15] For much of the Middle Ages, the authority of the Church was virtually unquestioned and unquestionable.

The Renaissance weakened the unquestioning submission to the Church, by reinvigorating interest in science and in the classical world.[16]

You can't write in summary style with those kinds of skinny paragraphs (not even, some are just sole sentences). This nomination will be trounced instantaneously if the article starts off in this shape. Paragraphs have to be thick and generally big, otherwise it ruins the aesthetics and the structure.

Just please keep that part in mind as you go forward. Again, I'll come back in the end and fix a lot of this stuff....sigh. For now, please try and do whatever you're going to do very quickly.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that paragraphs have to be thick and generally big? Brevity is the soul of wit. Your original had one unreferenced sentence on the Renaissance. I put that sentence in a paragraph by itself and provided a reference because the Black Plague and the Reanissance are two different subjects. If you get defensive about my changes, and keep telling me to "hurry up", this is not going to go well. You asked me to finish by Sunday. I'll finish by Sunday. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think summary style means? Chopping up paragraphs into one or two sentences? No. It means a clear and solid narration, almost as if you were reading a history text. The narration must, in general, consist of sizable and coherent paragraphs. Stand-alone sentences often ruin the visual appeal of the article and they also signify a botched transition in the narration. I left your additional sentence and source on the Renaissance intact.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Descartes

The relevance of Descartes to the article should be explained. Was he a political figure or philosopher? Is there any reason that his epistemology is explained while Locke's tabula rasa is not. Is there a liberal epistemology? The Four Deuces (talk)

Liberalism is a product of the age of faith giving way to the age of reason, and the early liberal philosophers used reason as their primary method. Later, the epistemology of reason gave way to a more pragmatic view. It may be, however, that Descartes' doubt and Pascal's faith belong in the Philosophy section rather than the history section. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading the paragraph again, I think it flows. Doubt led to the enlightenment, the enlightment led to liberalism. I'll insert the word "philosopher". Rick Norwood (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of Descartes, in the context of liberal history, is that he helped to inspire the Enlightenment. That's what that paragraphs is explaining.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism and revolution

There are too many details in this section that have nothing to do with liberalism. I've cut it a little, but more remains to be done. It is reasonable to ask, of every sentence, does this contribute to our understanding of liberalism? Rick Norwood (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is virtually nothing in that section that is unrelated to liberalism. It doesn't have to mention the word "liberalism" or "liberal" for it to be related to the concept. Give our readers some credit at least.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On length

Apparently this is turning out to be a major issue and I want to settle it permanently because I'm noticing a lot of confusion. First, let me state the most important point: contextually speaking, this article is not long! I already mentioned above that Elvis got promoted to FA a few weeks ago with 165 good kilobytes. Before Rick started making his edits, this article was a mere 112 kb or so. I emphasize the word "mere" because, for an article of this stature, we'd get no complaints even if we went to 140 or so kb. But certainly no one should complain about length at 112 kb. This is Wikipedia's flagship article on liberalism; if anything, it should be longer. I wrote this article with the clear intention of keeping it short (again, that's a relative term here), and I did a pretty good job. You can imagine my surprise to see you cutting off some major parts there Rick. I'm very confounded by this irrational push for "brevity" when the article is already short, given its status. I'm going to restore large parts of my previous version for Prelude to liberalism, with some of Rick's changes in mind. Rick, as you review the rest of the article, I'd keep these editing tips in mind:

• Never do anything that compromises the aesthetics of the article. In some rare cases, aesthetics can and should trump content on Wikipedia. Specifically, never chop up the individual sections into weeny little stand-alone sentences (you did it again for Liberalism and revolution at the start). That might be normal for second-rate articles, but it's completely unacceptable for featured articles.
• Edit as if you're trying to change grammar and style, not content, unless you see something you think is biased or factually erroneous. The general structure of the article is fine. Please do not tamper with that.
• If you want to deal with content, you are fully and joyously encouraged to add material, not delete it for no good reason. Put yourself in a frame of mind that emphasizes adding content. Remember: this article is not long. It could always use more (good) content.
• If you want to take things away, try to avoid cited material....that raises more administrative difficulties, like fixing ibids, removing uncited references, etc. If you make those kinds of changes, always be sure to watch out for what implications they have for the citations and make the corresponding corrections, otherwise I'll have to do them. But that makes no sense because this entire process is supposed to be you fixing my mistakes, not you fixing my mistakes and then me having to go back and fix your mistakes.

Happy editing.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

After some of my recent edits, the article currently stands at 113 kb. That's fine actually. We're good on length. No need to worry about length.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I edit carefully. I am not trying to make the article shorter, I am trying to make it more focused. You have put in a lot of interesting material that has nothing to do with liberalism. I've kept some of it -- Napoleon's retreat from Russia has nothing to do with liberalism but supplies a necessary transition. Other parts need to go: I mentioned flagellants. You asked me to work with you on this. That is what I'm trying to do. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The fall of the First Empire has very much to do with liberalism because it meant that the reactionary and conservative forces of the European monarchies managed to score a temporary victory against the quasi-modern state that emerged after the French Revolution. The events that precipitated that downfall are being mentioned in that context.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the flagellant confraternities. That sentence is gone.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Christianity

You restored the following two paragraphs. I do not see how they have anything to do with liberalism. The fact that Europe was united by Christianity is important, because to some extent liberalism was a reaction against the established church. The details of how Christianity came to dominate Europe seem to me totally off-topic. Rather than delete these paragraphs again, because I do not want a pointless edit war, I have copied them below. Why are they anything but an interesting aside? How do they help the reader understand liberalism?

"Originally insulted as a fringe cult, Christians were persecuted for centuries after the death of Jesus, but they spread efficiently throughout the empire despite constant harassment from Roman authorities, appealing especially to the poor and those at the bottom of the social ladder. When Constantine integrated Christians into Roman life in the fourth century, the stage was set for the eventual domination of the Christian religion. Although the Roman Empire collapsed and splintered, Christianity was sufficiently entrenched into the fabric of society to survive the resulting sociopolitical chaos that characterized the period."

"Leaders who challenged that authority were often severely rebuked and sometimes even publicly embarrassed, as evidenced by Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV waiting barefoot in the snow at the fort of Canossa to receive forgiveness from the Pope."

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this section is to give people a good idea of what the (primarily European) world was like before the rise and establishment of liberalism. The justification for the section is simple: if they have a good understanding of the world preceding liberalism, they'll have an even better understanding of the world with liberalism. They'll better appreciate the changes brought about by liberals.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. But let it be. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

two historians

To say that "two historians" said something suggests that two historians independently said the same thing. It's awkward and unencyclopedic. It seemed to me best just to leave it out. The footnote identifies the writers. If we must have it in, then we need to either name the historians or name the book. I'll try naming the historians, though since they are not household names, I still think it better to omit "two historians" entirely. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the view expressed seems non-controversial, it may be better to paraphrase the passage rather than provide a quote. The attribution could then be in the footnote. Incidentally the preceding passage should be re-written: "Charles was executed in 1649 and the Parliament finally succeeded in establishing a limited and constitutional monarchy after centuries of chaos." In fact parliament established a republican dictatorship and constitutional monarchy was established following the Glorious Revolution (1688). The Four Deuces (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Deuces is actually right. We don't even mention the Glorious Revolution (haha)! I'll get on that.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way I also agree that "two historians" sounds awkward. Just say "some historians" and we should be fine.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar one more time

Why are the sections of the sidebar expanded again? Nothing changed in the code.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable...I've tried (nearly) everything and I don't know what's wrong. Priority #1 is to fix that sidebar before the nomination.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The template page says all lists are collapsed in the default sidebar, which is what we have...and yet everything is expanded here. Try and wrap your head around that one.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Now it's collapsed again. I did absolutely nothing. There's some bug in the underlying code it seems.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The sidebar may look one way on one computer and a different way on another. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the sidebar is set to collapse right now (it's not a browser-dependent feature). I think what happened is that the page failed to load properly (for whatever reason), and the sidebar got stuck in an expanded version. I just noticed when I saw the article again that the sidebar first appeared expanded and then collapsed in real time (like I saw it happen live). That strongly suggests there was an error with how my computer loaded the page. So the good news is there isn't anything wrong with the sidebar itself, which is what was worrying me.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The French Revolution

You have reverted several of my changes that were, I think, non-controversial. For example, people "who" is correct, people "that" is not. If we get into revert wars over minor points, then the game is lost.

You oversell the French Revolution. After making the point that it is the most important event in the history of liberalism, you make that point again. And again. And again.

Also, you go into too much detail. I will try to edit with a light hand, but some of the detail and especially the repetition has got to go. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The French Revolution has two paragraphs devoted to it in that section (the other paragraphs are about the First Empire, certainly related to the Revolution, but not describing the Revolution itself). The American Revolution also has two paragraphs devoted to it in that section. Now, if I was being fair, the French Revolution would have 10 paragraphs devoted to it and the American Revolution would be a footnote. That's if I was being fair. If I was POV pushing, I wouldn't bother with the American Revolution at all, largely because the act itself was not that revolutionary (what came after it certainly was) and liberals outside the United States rarely looked to it for inspiration or guidance. I think accepting your change in the lead—putting them at parity side by side like that—was more than a serious concession, but I made it in the interest of rolling this process forward. There should be no confusion that the French Revolution is the central event of liberal and modern history (by far), and I regret that I could not cover it more.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I also am willing to compromise in order to move forward. If you can accept the section as it stands, so can I. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the comment you added from the Declaration of Independence was great, except it's not cited. I'm fine with your removal of the Colton and Palmer quotation in the third paragraph, but in that case we need a better transition into Goethe's statement. Besides these, sure I'm good with that section.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add the reference, you work on the transition if you feel it is needed. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Also be aware of something else: there are additional references to the French Revolution throughout the History section (you're really going to love the part about the Russian Revolution), so I would just ask that you please not remove those as they are important to tracing the development of liberalism.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think I'm anti-French. I just want the article to stay on topic. I added the reference. I even used the ISBN-10, even though a recent press release from R. R. Bowker asked that all resources change over to the ISBN-13, and declared the ISBN-10 obsolete and in the process of being phased out. Let them eat cake.

I'm going to take a short break and calm down, and then move on to Children of Revolution.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're anti-French at all, and I'm kind of surprised to see you say that. Believe me I've seen anti-French and anti-French like you wouldn't dream in your worst nightmares. Beyond what you told me in the talk page, I really don't know what your biases are. So far I think you've done a good job, although if I'm being honest, I can also sense that, in some way, this is a learning experience for you when it comes to how a featured article should...well, look like. I think you're a great writer, but participating in a project like this for the first time has also raised other red flags. Anyway, it's quite obvious that I'm not perfect either. No editor is. The most important thing is that the two of us have a good working relationship on Wikipedia. We don't have to be friends or buddies. All we need to do is get this damn article featured. We're going to nominate it together and when it's all finished, we'll be proud of what we've achieved. Let's get it done. I need you to come through for me Rick: finish History today and the rest (I think) should be significantly easier, mainly because the other sections are not long at all relative to History.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Aww the lead looks so cute now. Finally I got the fucking caption to line up nicely with the end of the lead.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On ISBNs: I have no problem switching to ISBN-13. It's just that I don't want to have to do the work for it. I've already done so much with this article I'm exhausted. If you want ISBN-13, I'm not going to oppose you. I just ask that you yourself make the changes. You're looking at over 70 books you have to modify. Good luck if you want to do it.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, let it be -- unless the reviewers ask for it. If we wait, a bot will probably do it throughout Wikipedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Length update

Currently 112 kb. We're doing very well. I'll post occasional updates as we go through the various copyediting phases.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

History is history

I'm done with the history section, and am going to watch Lost. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Hill Green

This quote from Green:

"That there is a sense of 'freedom,' indeed, in which it is very differently affected by such a 'circumstance' as hunger or imminent death, and by such another 'circumstance' as the customs and expectations of a society to which the individual belongs, will hardly be disputed. The freedom of an action must be taken to mean simply its imputability in the juristic sense, if it is alleged that it makes no difference to its freedom whether the agent is influenced in doing it by the circumstance of pressing physical need, or by the circumstance that his honour is appealed to by his family or his state."

is prolix and obscure. Let's see if we can't find a better one. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I found it. That statement is golden; it perfectly highlights what we're trying to say.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy

The philosophy section is excellent, a much better job than I could have done. I made just a few very minor changes, and I'm done with it for now with two exceptions. One is the Green quote mentioned above. The other is the ending, which lacks the punch of the endings of the other sections. I think we need a good quote to wrap it up. We can all look for one. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could look for something better from Green. I should be able to find a few things. I'm afraid, however, that he's a very dense philosopher in general. The ending definitely needs improvement. We don't necessarily need a quotation to end every section (especially since I've done that a lot for other sections). We just need a more interesting ending.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok Rick: I think I found both a great quotation from Green and a great ending for the Relation section. Take a look and tell me what you think.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you finish the copyedit tomorrow, we can be ready to nominate by Friday.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism worldwide

I think the introduction to liberalism worldwide needs more references. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with Liberalism Worldwide. I've added concluding passages to round off two sections. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

All potentially major and controversial claims in that introduction are referenced in the body itself. I always hesitate to stuff leads or introductions with citations because they lessen the visual appeal of the article. It's best to reserve citations in those places for the most crucial claims and cite the rest in the body (that's the strategy of the lead itself too).UberCryxic ^(talk) 15:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Impact and Influence

Unlike the rest of the article, this section is Americentric, and won't fly. Do you want to do a rewrite or shall I? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm I don't think that's an accurate characterization of the section. One paragraph is somewhat centered on the US, true, but the first and third are not. Even that second paragraph, however, does mention and links to the global civil rights movement simultaneous to the civil rights movement in the US, which was held up as one specific instantiation of a global trend. I think we'll actually be ok on that, but if you want to mention (briefly) what happened in some other country, that'd be fine too.UberCryxic ^(talk) 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The big problem I had was with the second paragraph. Maybe a little less about the US and at least a mention of South Africa. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that normally, but we mention a ton on South Africa just before Impact and influence! And either way, the end of apartheid was achieved by the socialist (shading into Marxist-Leninist, at least back then) ANC. Liberals were important in opposing the government during the middle of the 20th century (and again, we do mention that), but they were not instrumental in finally bringing down the system. I mean I hope you agree with me when I say we should keep our focus on what liberals did, not on what others did that could be construed as liberalism. Also, when you analyze that section, do not just analyze the text, but take a look at the images as well. They both have extensive captions, and those do not relate to the United States.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I made my most recent edit before reading this. Change it if you like. I'm out to lunch. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not that fond of the passage. I'd like to give the socialists their due credit. I'm fine with include another example, just not South Africa.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the passage. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.

I'm done. Over to you. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Civil rights

You restored:

"Among the various regional and national movements, the civil rights movement in the United States during the 1960s best highlighted the liberal crusade for equal rights. Two historians, describing the political efforts of the period, asserted that "the voting rights campaign marked...the convergence of two political forces at their zenith: the black campaign for equality and the movement for liberal reform," further remarking about how "the struggle to assure blacks the ballot coincided with the liberal call for expanded federal action to protect the rights of all citizens"."

To me this smacks of American triumphalism. Yeah, finally, after everybody else had granted rights to Blacks, America finally got around to doing it, and that makes us the "best". But I leave it to you. At least find another way to say "two historians", which you agree is awkward. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now it says "strongly highlighted," and yes I'll improve the prose.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence

I'm not wed to my own prose, but I do think the article needs a concluding sentence that says how much has changed in the past four hundred years due to liberalism. Maybe a good quote? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it either way. Editors are usually warned to resist the temptation to end the article "with a bang" or something like that. This is not an English paper. It's an encyclopedic article, so we shouldn't feel the need to have an explosive finish. I think what's there now is fine (not spectacular), but if someone complains about it in FAC, we can always find something to make the ending more interesting.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ibids

Per peer review suggestion, ibids are now gone, replaced with the names of the authors. See WP:IBID, of which I was not aware. I'm very glad we caught this early.UberCryxic ^(talk) 05:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Relation to other ideologies (cont.)

It might be better to put the information for other ideologies in the history section. It is very similar to criticism - all these ideologies arose in opposition to liberalism with articulate spokesmen (e.g., Burke, De Maistre, Marx). The Four Deuces (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh I already think we've overdone it on History with the intellectual stuff. That section belongs more in Philosophy.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is general agreement about saying that e.g. conservative ideology in France arose in opposition to liberalism and what it's core principles were. But if you want to discuss modern "traditional conservatism" and "classical liberal conservatism" as alternatives to liberalism then you have to follow WP:Weight, presenting all major views and giving greatest weight to the most widely accepted theories. The freshman textbook used as a source presents a minority view and therefore should be balanced by providing meanstream views on modern conservatism. It is best to leave discussion of conservatism to articles about conservatism. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think anyone expects that section to be the definitive authority on conservatism. Its main purpose is to show (briefly) how liberalism stacks up against other modern ideologies. What are the points of contention? What are the points agreement? These are some of the questions I was trying to answer there. Now as for liberal and conservative conflict in general: the History section does a fine job here, in that it covers the more mainstream interpretations of conservatism that you want covered. Again, there's little (conservative) intellectual history, but this isn't the article on conservatism, so I thought it best to reserve that kind of material for Philosophy. As for presenting major views: Burke is mentioned first. Maybe we could say something else on "traditional conservatism," but I don't think it's necessary.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The main sentence is "However, a few variations of conservatism, like conservative liberalism, expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including "small government and thriving capitalism"." My criticism is that they are within the liberal tradition, but are opposed to modern liberalism. If they are not then some explanation must be made concerning their origins and how they differ from liberals. Also the source provides a controversial view of traditional conservatism. While I understand the argument that Focus on the Family and the Conservative Party of Norway both seek to support the family they disagree on the definition of the family and how it should be supported. I could find no other source that groups the two under the same ideology. We might want to add a section on "Contending liberalisms". The Four Deuces (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well why don't you just tell me what you think that sentence should read like? Would you be fine with: "However, a few minor variations of conservatism, like conservatism liberalism..." etc. That way we make clear this trend does not represent conservatism in general. Also, the sentence says that those ideas are supported by classical liberals, so I don't know how modern liberalism is coming into this picture. A section on Contending liberalisms does sound interesting, but much of the article before that point has been on that exact subject.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would omit the sentence. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any other major complaints that would prevent you from supporting the nomination of this article? If you do not, I will remove that sentence and will replace it with some additional material on "mainstream" or "traditional" conservatism (or I'll just delete it and not replace it with anything else if that's what you want).UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously with an article of this scope - it covers over 3 centuries and most of the world, there will be disagreements in the weight to be given to various events or viewpoints. I would not oppose a GA nomination. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is going straight to the FA nomination (GA nomination would be a joke for an article of this caliber), but if you are going to oppose that, then let's hash out some of our differences now. That sentence I can easily remove, no problem. What else do you have? Please try to make it reasonable and actionable, at least in the context of the next day. List your demands below. I may not agree to every change you propose, but I'll probably agree to several. It would mean a lot to both Rick and I to have your support because you have been involved with these kinds of articles for some time.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I had to read the criteria for GA and FA status before replying. I am happy to support the nomination. Do not forget to close the peer-review request. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Deuces! You've just made me very happy my friend. For sure, this great news eliminates the previous bad blood between us, even though I find it difficult to understand how that even got started, especially when we already agree on so much (like on recent changes to social liberalism or that study on intelligence). Whatever, that's behind us now. Glad to see you're on board.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I also do not plan to nominate right now because I want to give Rick one last meaningful chance to make minor corrections before the nomination. It's only fair. So the nomination will probably come around midday later today, and yes I'll try not to forget to take down the peer review!UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

final readthrough

I've reverted two changes.

1) the use of the word "recent". Articles should not be written to require a rewrite because what is now recent falls further and further into the past.

2) "unusual combination that ultimately legalized same-sex marriage, euthanasia, prostitution, and instituted a non-enforcement policy on marijuana."

We need an "and" after euthanasia, because the introductory word "legalized" applies to the first three items in the series, but not to the fourth.

And that's it. I've done a final readthrough and think it looks good. I'm also very glad that The Four Deuces joins in the nomination, since he and I have been working together on this article for what seems like a very long time. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's on

The nomination is now live.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review again

The FAC nomination has been withdrawn and a new peer review is now live.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead

The lead could benefit from more citations. At present the only part of the lead that is sourced (other than the etymology of liberal and one quotation) is that it "is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights". Please see Wikipedia:Lead#Citations. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That usually means you either (a) cite everything as you would in the body or (b) cite only direct quotes and extraordinary claims. It seems that most prefer (b) but it is editor's choice. I prefer (b) because it is cleaner, but have no strong opinion. Since this is a collaboration, however, it would be good to decide which way this article will go. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My preference is for (a) because the subject is open to different interpretations. In my experience with similar articles if the lead does not have sources then various editors will continually change it. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to go with (b) for the reasons Nasty Housecat gives.

On another subject, I hope you (The Four Deuces) will take a major part in fixing the stuff the reviewers said needed an expert opinion. You certainly know more about this topic than I do.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I also support the second option. All major claims made in the lead are cited in the body. It's not like we're getting away with anything, and putting those citations in the lead would just be repetitive, on top of ruining the presentation of the article.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry edit currently in progress.

Your edit at 12:24 today introduces a number of errors in grammar. I assume you are currently working on fixes, so I'll only mention this here and leave the fixes to you. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think there are improvements to be made, by all means do so. Stirling Newberry 14:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were well-meant but flawed, so I reverted everything. Please, under no circumstances, given what this article just went through at FAC, should you add that much length to the lead. Length has become a problem and we're trying to be extremely careful on that front. If you think material can be summarized differently, that's fine, but do not try to add that much much content, especially to the lead.UBER ^(talk) 16:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a number of good things in the Newberry edit, but I agree that the lede should be short. As a rule of thumb, the Table of Contents should be visible from the top of the page on most browsers. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms?

I don't see any content on critiquing liberalism, why is that exactly?Twobells (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions both conservative and socialist criticism of liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a whole section entitled Criticism and support, which includes opinions against liberalism from feminism, conservatism, socialism, and Christian Democracy. Later on, under Impact and influence, there are criticisms of liberal internationalism as well.UBER ^(talk) 17:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Very important distinction between "liberal" and Liberalism

This is an important article, as it expresses some fundamental views of people who are on a range of the conventional (American--so very limited) liberal v. conservative spectrum.

Neither of the major parties in the US can ascribe to this as a central dogma. It has various faces, such as in the Libertarians, or in small minority groups (perhaps larger in the Democratic party) of both political parties.

A good discussion could be made over whether or not President Obama would fall within this camp. From the point of view of many Liberalists (i.e. people who ascribe to the views espoused in this article) he may or may not warrant this identity.

This is an important piece of work and it would be encouraging to see more people understand the philosophy which was the life blood of so many of the major world democracies emerging in the 18th and 19th century. The distinction between this historical view and the current parties in power needs further discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.52.41.171 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The focus of this article is not Liberalism in the United States, but rather the origin and spread of liberal ideas throughout the world. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the creator of this section; in this article the distinction between liberalism (the ideal) and Liberal (a person who holds that idea) is very unclear in the lead. Liberal is a term with strong connotations in the United states, but elsewhere it is much less used, and tends to mean anyone to the left of the person using the term. I think the article (the lead anyway) appears to make liberal ideals black and white (you have them or you don't), where it is really a continuum. In a multi party system, more than one party can express liberal ideals, and can espouse liberalism to different extents. As Rick states, the article is not about the US, so we need to be careful of the use of the term Liberal (describing a person) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

A liberal is someone who supports liberalism. A Liberal is a member or supporter of any party called the "Liberal Party". Both conservatives and socialists may impliment liberal policies, without being liberals. However the article could better describe the cleavage between liberalism and conservatism and socialism, and also whether social liberalism represents a departure from liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to discuss here. Per Deuces, a liberal is an adherent to the ideology of liberalism. What seems to be confusing the anon is that liberals understand liberalism differently, which is a point the article makes over and over and over...and over...again.UBER ^(talk) 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

But that is the point - the difference between liberal ideology and someone labeled 'a Liberal' can be immense. To use a US example; a Republican fighting for the right to bear arms is espousing the right for liberty of choice (a liberal ideal) and so is therefore a Liberal. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not make him a large-L liberal. Large-L Liberal means one belongs to the Liberal Party, e.g., the Liberal Party of New York. Parties do not have to be called "Liberal" to be liberal, nor does membership in a "Liberal Party" make on a liberal. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cherry-picking certain issues and calling people liberal as a result is not helpful. Those same Republicans butcher the ideal of negative liberty every time they urge government to pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and abortion. The fact that they categorically do not understand what liberty means, or how to apply it in real life, is a good indication that they are not liberals (not even classical liberals).UBER ^(talk) 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

citations

Sa.vakilian has requested citations for a number of facts that can be easily found in any good history book on the period in question. I suppose more citations are better than fewer, but I wonder if we really need to cite references for commonly known historical events, such as the English Civil War. Doesn't it make more sense just to link to the article on that subject, where numerous references can be found? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly right. The user is requesting citations for things like the Consulate replacing the Directory in 1799 or the US Constitution establishing a republic. I'm sorry but if you can't see why that's borderline insane, perhaps you shouldn't have taken the task upon yourself to review this article. You can try to hassle with the reviewer if you want Rick, but I doubt you'll get very far. I've given up hope on any GA or FA ambitions for this article, but you're more than welcome to press ahead yourself if you so wish.UBER ^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the article could better explain the significance of these events to liberalism, which requires sources. TFD (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Addition of a "Psychology" Section

Since Wikipedia is NPOV, I assume that it's just as acceptable to have a psychology here as it is in the "Conservatism" article. It will therefore be interesting to see how swiftly it gets deleted from the "Liberalism" article. Hanxu9 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to read this article and see whether your entry is appropriate. Your 1976 study[1] was conducted in the US and draws a distinction between American liberals and conservatives, while this article includes both groups as part of liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, please read up on some Wikipedia policies, like this one. You can't justify a bad decision in one article by looking at a bad decision in another article. These psychology sections are way too cryptic and liable to POV for these political articles, so I support their removal categorically.UBER ^(talk) 18:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, you shouldread some of the huge amount of research that his been done on the topic. It is essential for understanding the appeal of conservative politics. The main determinant for how people vote is socio-economic status, people vote for the party that they believe will provide them with the best economic outcome. (You certainly would not complain about using this type of data inarticles.) But if that were the sole determinant of voting behavior, Tory parties would have disappeared as the franchise was widened. Hence the need for additional theories to explain conservative support. TFD (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I kind of think these sections, if 1) well referenced 2) non-selective and 3) careful about the relevant operational definitions of liberalism, etc being used by the respective studies, are appropriate. Per TFD. de Bivort 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My reading suggests that the main determinant for how people vote is not socio-economic status but mutli-cultural environment vs. homogeneous environment. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not read anything claiming that and would like to know what those sources are. A recent book American government & politics today (2008), shows income as a major determinant in the US.[2] Of course one would expect the connection to be weaker in the US than other countries. But look at the UK election map - Labour won the inner cities, while Tories won the leafy suburbs.[3] TFD (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I remembered the source. (I wish my brain came with footnotes.) It was during the 2008 election and probably came from Slate.com. But note that inner cities tend to be mixed cultures, with a Black neighborhood and a Korean neighborhood chock-a-block, while leafy suburbs tend to be culturally homogeneous. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to mentioning these things in passing, but I strongly oppose including separate sections for them. We have a limited amount of space and it could be used on much more important topics related to liberalism or to any other ideology.UBER ^(talk) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

work on the later part of the article

The next big task, it seems to me, is putting the later part of the article in some kind of order, and adding references. As a first step, I'm going to see if it is possible to organize the material along the following lines:

revert and lock please

can someone who knows WP protocol (or whatever) revert the page to a version where the introduction doesn't read like psycho-babble and then lock it from being randomly edited? ...I'm not sure if someone was trying to vandalize it, or what...but it's unintelligible.

Liberalism and Conservatism

On the one hand, there is no point in trying to appease people who think Wikipedia favors one of these philosophies over the other. Each article should be correct and unbiased. On the other hand, there is the principle of style that parallel ideas should use parallel construction, so there is an advantage in having a similar structure in the two articles. I'm currently trying to accomplish parallel structure in the articles ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola (without much success). Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you recommend changing this article or the one on conservatism? The parallel nature is not entirely accurate. Liberalism has been far more influential, has a more reasoned body of literature and has been better defined. TFD (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rick, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but if it's about that scuffle a few days ago over where the box should be placed, then my reasoning was purely aesthetic. The article just looks better this way, or so I think. No Wikipedia policies are being violated regardless of where we position it, although it would be incorrect to argue that the style guidelines in this article have to follow those used in the article on conservatism (per WP:OTHERSTUFF). That's mainly what I was objecting to. In terms of what content and material the articles emphasize, I agree that the two should be fairly similar.UBER ^(talk) 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism in America

It is incorrect to suggest that those who currently call themselves liberal are doing so in the classical sense. Franklin Roosevelt was a progressive, a philosophy very different from classical liberalism and from which the modern liberal derives. After "progressive" fell into disrepute it continued under the name liberal. Recently however, the label progressive has come back into favor and is used interchangeably with liberal (in the modern sense). Ironically, it is the Buckley conservatives who adhered strictly to liberalism in its classic form. Most conservatives still do. The progressive seeks a strong centralized government to manage all aspects of private and public life. A strong departure from John Locke. Meanwhile, the Buckley conservative prefers limiting the powers of government to provide for more freedom and liberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.86.246 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is about liberalism, not liberalism in the U. S. TFD (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

wrong again

liberalism means new so buckley is not liberal and only republicans say liberals want socialism (a common tatic called red bating, hitler used it lots of times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sean Young

"Shaun Young examines the work of a number of prominent political liberals, and concludes that as it presently manifests itself, the concept of political liberalism cannot achieve its stated goals." is what the only review I can find of Young's out-of-print book from a minor publisher says about it. It is easy to find some minor book that agrees with any preconcieved notion -- those interested in a subject should first read major books. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already says, "The early messenger for that movement was the English philosopher John Locke, frequently identified as the Father of Liberalism...." That seems adequate, any other views should be addressed in the history article. Some scholars claim that liberalism did not begin until the 19th century. TFD (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hobbes

Why no mention of Hobbes? Everyone who takes a college course in liberalism studies Hobbes and has to read Leviathan. Everyone agrees he was a major contributor to liberalism, though not himself considered to be a full-fledged liberal. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Why did you revert instead of supplying the title of the book?

2) Since Hobbes is considered a major conservative, a supporter of absolute monarchy, it would be hard to justify him as a major contributor to liberalism, except to the extent that Locke was reacting to Hobbes' absolutism.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hobbes is considered an influence because he justified authority on the basis of agreement, as opposed to divine right, anticipating Locke's arguments. He was brought up in the various reviews of this article that may be read by looking at "Milestones" above. The article does not go into much detail about influences on Locke. If someone wants to add material about that I would not object, but just adding Hobbes would be unhelpful.

Also, I noticed an editor wishes to include something about the etymology of the word "classical liberalism". The source used howver is a textbook for "introductory political science courses". Please use reliable secondary sources. Liberalism is an important but controversial topic, and it is both possible and expedient to use these types of sources.

TFD (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Textbooks are reliable sources. Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 32 "Hobbes can be called the founder of liberalism..." http://books.google.com/books?id=RraTbBJ0m_YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22An+Intellectual+History+of+Liberalism%22&hl=en&ei=6JCfTOmtK8OAlAflyLHsAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Again, if you take a course in college in liberalism Hobbes is the first person you learn about, so it's really strange that Hobbes is not mentioned at all in this article. Hobbes is indispensable to liberalism. Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no Hobbes is not the first person one learns about, it is more likely to be Machiavelli, as your linked source shows, and one can find precedents from antiquity. Your source does not say he is the founder of liberalism, and you should not data mine for sources. You left out the next part of the sentence beginning "because" which explains why someone might hold that point of view although most do not. TFD (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That source certainly does not say that most do not. Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No but you would know that if you read reliable sources about liberalism before coming to edit this page. It even says this in the book, "A liberal lineag3e that makes Machiavelli and Hobbes the framily's founders is bound to produce a different legacy than one that attributes paternity to Locke" (p. xiii). The implication is that they are arguing a minority view. TFD (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether he's the founder or not, is not my point here. I'm saying regardless he's a signficant contributor. Why else would a book like that on liberalism go into so much discussion about him? Obviously any encylcopedia article on liberalism has to include Hobbes. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 19: "Hobbes is the founder of liberalism precisely because he believes in the supremacy of the individual..." http://books.google.com/books?id=42ZqYSNcJYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Freedom+as+motion&hl=en&ei=UJifTIekHoLGlQejytnsAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 198 "In his individuals, in his emphasis on consent, and his priority of giving freedom over the good, Hobbes is the founder of liberalism." http://books.google.com/books?id=ZrssrlXE0WQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Blackwell+Companion+to+Christian+Ethics&hl=en&ei=3ZifTK7UDcSblgeup_2_Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 9: "It is in the seventeenth century that we find the first systematic expositions of the modern individalist outlook from which the liberal tradition springs. In England, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) gives voice to an intransigent individualism whose modernity markes a decisive breach with the social philosophy bequeathed by Plato and Aristotle to medieval Christendom." http://books.google.com/books?id=Sh7YGQQ4d7MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Liberalism+john+gray&hl=en&ei=qp2fTPv9IsOBlAfMjpW9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Leslie Feldman's book has received little notice. Felman's ideas on Hobbes apparently come from Leo Strauss and she has appeared on Fox News, wrote a book with Dick Morris and has written about Reagan and GW Bush. Of course you can find lots of minority views, including neoconservative ones, but neutrality requires us to present mainstream thinking. TFD (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) That Hobbes may be an influence is entirely likely. That he was a founder is quite implausible, due to his support for an absolute sovereign (his explicit support for suppression of freedom of the press and religious freedom, for example). So the quotes you provide from books above - Hobbes is the founder of liberalism precisely because he believes in the supremacy of the individual for example - are just weird. Hobbes most definitely does not believe in individual freedom. Indeed he explcitly denies it: because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord, therefore the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse; who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes he does believe in individual freedom. If you read the Leviathan, he says that in the natural state everyone has unlimited rights, then people VOLUNTARILY give up a degree of freedom in order to protect their lives. That's the key. This government be consent of the governed. The people CONSENT to a government limiting their freedom, for the sake of preserving their lives and some degree of liberty. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea of government by the consent of the governed comes from Hobbes, people. I can't believe you don't have Hobbes in this article. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hobbes believed that people had given their consent before history began but they cannot revoke that consent under any circumstances, which of course differs from Filmer's conservative divine right view of the sovereign but cannot really be considered liberal, classical or otherwise. TFD (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons he's not considered a liberal. I'm not claiming he's a liberal. I'm saying he was a major contributor to liberalism. Many sources attest to this. So he should be discussed in the article. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is, you could not revoke your consent and go back to anarchy. And by, the way he's not talking about "before history began," but any situation of anarchy. You would have unlimited rights in anarchy, but it would be a dangerous situation. So if you don't like anarchy, you may consent to a government. HIS preferred form of government is monarchy. But the underlying idea of government being set up by consent is his major contribution to liberalism. One doesn't have to be a liberal to be a contributor to liberalism. Liberalism is a mixture of ideas pulled together from various philosophers, some liberals and some not and some not so clear. Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, look what I found. The "Young" source used throughout this article says "For early liberals such as Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke, securing life, liberty, and property requires the establishment of a common supreme power." However, this Wikipedia article said "Early liberals, including John Locke and Baruch Spinoza, attempted to determine the purpose of government in a liberal society. To these liberals, securing the most essential amenities of life—liberty and private property among them..." and citing Young. You left out Hobbes and it was right there in the source! Unbelievable. We have to go by the sources. We can't pick and choose what we agree or disagree with. I put Hobbes in. Bullet Dropper (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained to you often, it is not a question of picking sources with a particular point of view, it is understanding the difference between major sources and minor sources. For one thing, a major source will usually be in print. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Liberalis is nom as well as gen

Liberalis is an adj, from liberalis, liberale. Therefore liberalis is the nom and gen, so no need to say "of freedom" in the definition at the top. Someone should change the definition to: free, dignified, open-handed, as per wiktionary

The definition is based on standard reference books. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

?

I decided, after hearing some terribly unflattering things at uni, to check out this wikipedia malarky. I searched the article on Liberalism (a very important concept in the current climate which should be as true and unbiased as possible) to find it had very little to do with liberalism at all. Liberalism, as about the only fact in the introduction, is derived from liberalis which is the root of freedom. Liberalism is a simple concept really - the freer a society from regulation the fairer it will be. This has taken on many forms over the centuries it has been present, but this is the underlining concept. Obviously there are flaws in that broad logic and much of the past 200 years of human history has been spent debating (and even fighting) over this concept. If you read the page you will see very little alluded to the concept of true economic freedom as aspired to by pure liberals in the introduction and instead a load of misunderstandings of a plethora of political concepts of the past 200 years. I edited the page to give a more factual, unbiased account of what Liberalism (not democracy, civil liberties or any of the other NON ECONOMIC ideas you have listed as aspects of liberalsim) is only for it to be almost imediately removed. I think whoever is responsible for the editing of this page should consult a published book from a respected scholar instead of internet sources of the past 10 years as you are leaving yourself open to a huge misunderstanding, which is quite apparent from reading the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairleg (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that some people think economic liberalism is the only true liberalism, but that is not the historical usage nor is it the way the word is used currently nor is it the definition given in standard reference works. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

None of the edits you made were sourced and were therefore removed.[4][5] TFD (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism was originally the concept of Laissez Faire, applied to the rise of merchants and companies (and thus huge private wealth not attached to land) in the early modern period. The idea that individuals could earn wealth depending on how effective their efforts were aknowledged by a free, and therefore supposedly fair, market was seen as a much fairer system than the mercantilist (or if you like protectionist) economies which had in effect been in process since the fall of Rome. This was as such systems were generally dictated by the whim of a monarch, and not the supply and demand of goods, nor necessarily the desire of the individual to earn. The shift in economics to a more individual approach caused by such changes at the end of the Mediaeval such as the Medici revolution or, as I say, the rise of the company, then filtered out into social politics through such channels as John Locke. But this was a consequence, not a cause as the article suggests. The concepts of equal rights and natural born liberty are consequences of liberalism (not what liberalism actually is as the opening sentence of the article states) and thus tend to come intertwined with a liberal economy, as social mobility leads to those at the bottom of society attaining positions where they can have influence in society. This is the fundamental point; liberalism is an economic concept. It can be applied to society or non-economic politics as a metaphor and very often is. This does not change what liberalism is. I think the article should at least mention, if not make clear, that liberalism began as an economic concept and, as I say, has filtered out. What really worries me though is the fact the introduction ignores the fact that pure economic liberalism was followed as if the gospel until, of course, the Great Depression. This lead to a huge shift in the concept of what liberalism is, as countries had to react to save the financial system. The article claims liberalism triumphed over Fascism and Communism??? Liberalism, or the western nations' perspective of their "liberal" economies, had to adapt vastly to survive Fascism and Communism. The section "conflict and renewal" covers the effect of the Depression on liberalism well, but not the effect of the War which saw the western nations revolutionise their economies further still to provide more production. The advancements of the post-war world are a product of that advancement. The state intervention in this period, causing the move towards mixed economies, obviously made western economics less liberal, less free. Not necessarily less fair. The introduction claims liberals believe in fair trade. This is the root misunderstanding; liberals believe in free trade. The introduction calls conservatism a challenge to liberalism. Since the 1930's/40's pure liberalism has become conservatism. I understand in American politics the word is a buzz word for everything left wing, but that does not mean wikipedia should pander to that ignorance. There is simply no mention of the neo-liberal revolution of the 70's/80's in the introduction. I think that this is scary considering the current situation. I believe this article and its accuracy are very important for people living in democratic nations who may research the concept using wikipedia in order to make more informed political choices. This mismatch of misunderstandings of the concept of liberlism in this article are quite frankly dangerous. If you want to talk about references then the reference for opening sentence is from a theologist who claims liberalism is the pursuit of equal rights??? Of course one of the great consequences of liberalism was the rise of atheism... Sorry to rant on but I believe this really should be addressed. Thanks for writing back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairleg (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not historically correct. The earliest liberals (the "Whigs") were owners of landed estates. The corporations they established, such as the London Company, did not operate on free market principals. Laissez-faire only became a central element of liberalism in the 19th century, and even then restrictions were placed on it. TFD (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith and other enlightenment thinkers were expressing disapproval over mercantilism in the 18th century (although I wouldn't equate enlightenment thought to liberalism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.143 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 10 February 2011