Talk:Liberalism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Concerning edits done on liberalism outside the western sphere

The concept of liberalism is heavily associated with the Era of Enlightenment, Christianity and Europe. I do not think that liberalism outside the context of Europe, and maybe the Western world, has much place on this article beyond text under a different subheading about its progressive spread across the world.

Any concepts of reform/liberalism that have been developed in other societies/cultures that were not derived from European liberalism should be written in a different article under the local terminology for such political movements; you would not write about Christianity under "liberalism" because it happened to be a reformist movement in ancient Israel.

I want to remove all references to Islam and the Middle East from the opening. Please feel free to add information on the spread of liberalism from Europe to other parts of the world in a separate subheading.

Homoeuropeeans (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Homoeuropeeans (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The nom de Wiki "Homoeuropeeans" is suggestive. The claim that liberalism does not really exist outside the context of Europe is unacceptable. The most well-known example is the Young Turks, but there are others. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Homoeuropeeans, this reformist movements in ancient Israel are influenced by, or related to liberalism or were liberals, all in a notable way? If you have reliable academic sources that state this, they totally could be added here. In fact I encourage it. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

To be sure, the historical Jesus supported a liberal morality (love your neighbor, tolerance, less severe punishments, repentance as an individually freely chosen path) but in other respects he was a theocratic monarchist and economically he tended to be a commie. He had nothing to do with liberal democracy, nor with free market economics: these ideas were totally foreign to his mind. Ancient Jews had indeed markets, but they did not have Adam Smith. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Young Turks were inspired by liberal philosophy in France Flameoguy (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018

Could the first lead sentence please include the non-American (rest of world) understanding of liberalism, whch is "commitment to limited government". This is substantiated in the article body as follows '... in Europe it [liberalism] is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies). Thank you.81.131.171.183 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that is an over-simplification. Certainly in some countries the term is popularly used to refer to certain types of liberalism, but the meaning of the term can change according to context. TFD (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Over time, the moderates displaced the progressives as the main guardians of continental European liberalism."

This line has no citation and seems out of place in the intro area. It shouldn't be there, I feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.182.85.53 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The citation precedes the sentence, I've moved it to follow the sentence. Here is the quote, from page 3 of Kirchner. "However, liberalism's continental version, deeply divided as it was between moderates and progressives, was -- finally -- almost completely taken over by the moderate group." Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2019

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberalism&oldid=865338187

under the guise of rewording did away with liberals belief in free markets. Belief in free market is an important pillar of liberal ideology.

Please restore! 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:5A (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 13:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

Could a link to Intergenerational equity be included in the introductory paragraph (and elsewhere as needed), either alongside gender and racial equality or beside (and as an important caveat to) liberal support for capitalism? --122.149.230.174 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Mithrae

Semi-protected addition suggested

Hi - I would like to suggest the addition of a new paragraph into its own section - "The evolution of Social Policy Terminology and Liberalism". I have added text into the criticisms section initially until this talk-page can discuss, edit, etc..

Candidly, we and Wikipedia, really have to stop teaching students these rapidly deprecating, clearly-meaningless terms. Scientists layer fact-on-fact carefully - so as to ensure that the "onion's" many layers retain their value progressively. This is true in maths, physics, chemistry, and every science. In Economics Faculties, however, the antiquated method of layering unsupportable theory-on-theory creates fiction reliably. Worse, we then proceed to promote these now-"credentialled" masters - of fiction, on to run our monetary systems, democratic systems, universities, and boardrooms - to our obvious global detriment today. Mature Capitalisms are expensive, dangerous, avoidable events - and yet all but twenty or so countries internationally, are not experiencing economic stalls and imbalance today. Dystopia is a very real danger of valuing consensus over science in our societies.

Also, just a polite FYI to explain why we should expect challenges whenever defending fiction over proven science (consensus fiction is fiction - angels, afterlife, ... - expect challenge) - even if the proven-science alternative is "new". The adoption of any new science can be a twenty-year process; Einstein's 1905 Relativity Theory sat until 1925 when scientists in the west acknowledged it. Plainly put, professors and senior officials need years to publish books and articles that make new proven science appear compatible with the rubbish they've been on about in their past researches and conclusions - and this can take a lot of time depending on how damaging the change could be to reputations both organizational and individual. Wikipedia's policy insists on "consensus (even if in fiction)", and "no new research" - its a flawed policy where it comes to Social and Economics discussions at present.

Here is the text that I would like to suggest ...

"As new scientific approaches emerge in Economics, traditional social theories are evolving - and terms change in new ways as well. Social, Economic and Business Policies which were previously categorized as Liberal or Conservative for example, are now preferring sustainable or unsustainable designations in Econometrics studies. Socialism - is disambiguated to its eight or ten mixed-meanings, and each meaning is proven or disproven individually. Transition Economics (TE) deprecates terms Liberal, Conservative, Socialism, and any term which cannot be proven to build a strong economy. Per Scientific Method's best-practice, TE's Proofs first, statistically prove that policies that improve economies, and then second, confirm that the statistically proven policy is also observed to support successful economies as well. A case study example is FDR's New Deals and Second Bill of Rights policies - which went on to build the American Dream and the greatest economy in history; these events were observed. The Marshall Plan rolled these Rights into the Constitutions of Japan, Italy, and Germany after World War II - and those nations remain the only G7s with advancing economies (positive trade balances) today. These nations have full healthcare, daycare, six weeks paid vacations, free university tuition (for many), and much lower taxes than America's tax + private insurance models. These countries lost the war, but FDR's Constitutional changes implemented by Truman won the peace - and this is also observable. FDR's nine policies were half-Liberal and half-Conservative, but they are ALL observed and proven to be Sustainable Policies. Using this approach, proven sustainable policies can be cataloged and can be used as building blocks which construct successful nations and economies reliably." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edtilley4 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Edtilley4 (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And what specifically is the source for your paragraph? Dimadick (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think your source is using the term liberal in a very narrow U.S. sense. What it calls conservative and transitional economics is all within the liberal framework. TFD (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an article about it from the Smithsonian. TFD (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

" Ridiculous Lexicon Of Liberalism As Conservatism "

The principles of libertarianism stipulate non aggression principles and negative wrights to establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government ) , however negative wrights do not establish non aggression principles or negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) , which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government by positive wrights .

EDITORIAL NOTE : The contemporary lexicon applies the term " liberalism " with a false equivalence that positive wrights to establish non aggression principles and negative liberties be extrapolated to include positive liberties , as positive liberties are entirely a conservative precept ( conservation of government ) that is logically disjunct from non aggression principles and negative liberties .

GeMiJa (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

None of those are WP:RS. Besides, US conservatism means classical liberalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Classic" American conservatism is a mildly left-of-center form of "Classical Liberalism". The Republican Party, which used to be the party of classic American conservatives, is no longer a "classical liberal" party, it is largely the party of right-wing populism and other extremeist forms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

My issue is that US liberalism and conservatism represent significant deviations from a consistent application of the terminology , and I therefore agree only in part with a technical assertion that us conservatism means classical liberalism ( see contradiction and doublespeak ). I understand the wikipedia establishes documentation and would not elaborate on such pet peeves without a reference compliant with its policies . My issue is that the inconsistencies represent a political science travesty which allows individuals and parties to feign one creed while acting completely contrary with it .

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism : "Before 1920, the main ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism then faced major ideological challenges from new opponents: fascism and communism." " " Consequently, in the United States the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought[25] and are key components of American conservatism." GeMiJa (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes-- Clinton Rossiter called it the "Great Train Robbery." Wikipedia's job is to tell what happened --Please use Facebook to complain about how history happened. Rjensen (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What changes do you think the article should make? TFD (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking TFD . In general , negative liberties are founded from principles of non aggression , whether those negative liberties arise from laws phrased as negative wrights or as positive wrights . The wiki article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights is emphatically false in its depiction of negative and positive wrights , which obtain meaning from the method of phraseology applied in a law , where the former phrase of law stipulates actions a government shall not take and the latter phrase of law stipulates actions a government shall take . Consequently , negative and positive liberties arise from applying laws phrased as negative or positive wrights . As such , negative wrights always establish negative liberties with respect to government but negative wrights do not necessarily establish negative liberties between individuals ( non government ) . Alternatively , positive wrights may establish negative liberties between individuals ; in addition , positive wrights may also establish positive liberties for individuals within a social system . Whether a negative liberty or a positive liberty arises from a law phrased as a positive wright , an authoritarian or positive action of government is remanded through the policy as law .

The reason the distinction between wrights and liberties is being stressed is because " equal wrights " has become an absurd premise , because negative liberties establish protections , while positive liberties establish endowments . Such is another reason why limiting the term " liberal " to negative liberties and founded upon non aggression principles is relevant , as while extolling that equal wrights denotes equal protections is valid , extolling that equal wrights denotes equal endowments is an obvious absurdity .

Reference from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights : Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, and freedom from slavery. Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, internet access, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations. GeMiJa (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Obviously, classical liberalism plays a role in modern conservatism in the US. But it is not a large roll. For example, conservative presidents tend to go deeply in debt, and classical liberals put up with it, presumably because conservatives lower taxes for the world's richest corporations. (I've seen estimates that about 17% of modern conservatives are classical liberals, but I do not consider that figure reliable enough to put in the article.) Much more important to modern conservatives everywhere is fear of foreigners and support for laws making certain religious beliefs compulsory, especially laws forbidding abortion. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The classical liberals who drafted the US Constitution believed in slavery and that women cannot vote. Things have changed a lot. It used to be a radical, revolutionary, left-wing stance, now classical liberalism is considered right-wing, since many political currents appeared to the left of classical liberalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

GeMiJa, your point was elegantly made in Herbert Spencer's The New Toryism, who argued that the Liberal Party was acting like Conservatives. However, that view has little acceptance outside libertarianism. The section social liberal theory explains how modern liberalism is based on traditional liberal concepts, rather than conservatism. We might add however the criticisms of neo-classical liberals that modern liberalism was not true liberalism.

I would point out too that the view that rights derive from government (the positive law theory) was actually not supported by all traditional liberals. John Locke and some of the U.S. founding fathers for example argued for natural law.

TFD (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 are the role models for conservatives. Other than that, what passes as conservatism on 4chan and such are radicals leaning towards theocracy. Conservatives/classical liberals hate radicals. Radicals believe that a powerful, activist, interventionist state is the solution, conservatives/classical liberals believe that too much state is the problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Liberal" means left wing in US, it means right wing in Australia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Liberal" in the U.S. is applied to a mildly left-of-center position. It is "left wing" only if that term is used for everything left of center. American liberalism is thus equivalent to "center-left" in Europe.

Do you have a citation for "liberal" meaning "right-wing" in Australia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There are several supporting Liberal Party of Australia#Ideology and factions. Take your pick. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the name of a party won't do it. Political things often get named for what impression they wish to make, as opposed to what they really are. For instance, the "Democratic Republic of Germany" (East Germany) was neither democratic nor a republic. In short, politicians lie. I have no doubt that the Liberal Party of Australia is conservative, but it doesn't support the notion that in Australia, "liberal" = "conservative". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

But the name of the party DOES do it. Look a little bit more at that article. The Liberal Party is one of the two major parties in Australia. Has been for all of my longish life. It's in government right now. The first and almost exclusive use of the word "liberal" that an Australian ever hears is in reference to that party and its policies. It's very difficult to use the word in conversation in Australia and have it understood to mean anything else but right wing politics. One has to go to considerable trouble to establish the context for a different meaning. As an analogy, in Australia, republicans are people who want the country to abolish the royal family and become a republic. That's the classical definition. But that's not what it means is the USA, is it? Asking me to provide a citation is liking asking for a citation that the sky is blue. HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it follows that because Australian liberals belong to the more right-wing of the two parties that therefore liberal means right-wing. Would they for example refer to Pauline Hanson's party as liberal? Incidentally, liberals formed the right-wing party at various times in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Quebec. TFD (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The United States is the only country where both major parties (in fact the only major parties) are liberal. But in the rest of the world, where there are left-wing parties, liberals are considered either centrist or right-wing. Often, such as in Australia, conservatives and liberals unite as an anti-Socialist coalition. TFD (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Colours

@Nashhinton: and @The Four Deuces: Re: [1] Could we please have some supporting citations that aren't about graphic design and marketing? Something related to geopolitics and world ideologies would be good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll look more later, but according to "The Liberal Democrats and the Green Cause: From Yellow to Green," yellow is "commonly associated with the political ideology of liberalism in Europe," which is why it was adopted by the UK Liberals and the Alliance (p. 106). TFD (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks to be an appropriate source, but if it appears that yellow is a color indicating liberalism only in Europe, the article should probably say that. As far as I am aware (being a pretty politically-educated guy) there's no such association in the US. I don't know about other places outside Europe & America. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The classical liberal party, Libertarian Party, uses the color yellow. Nashhinton (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So does the Liberal International. Beyond the Ken, I don't know of many liberal parties outside Europe. Perhaps we could add in Europe. TFD (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you could add "in Europe" (the Libertarian Party's use of yellow on their website is pretty minimal, so I don;t take them as a proven example for the US), and replace the graphics design and marketing sources with the one you found (and any other pertinent ones), that would be great - unless you prefer that I do it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be appreciative if you would add it. Agree that the Libertarian Party is too insignificant to include. I would leave out the U.S. since the parties don't have official colors. TFD (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm off to do that now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I made the change, but I do want to point out that the publishers of the book you cited "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" is not associated with Cambridge University, and apparently does not have a very good reputation [2]. One source called them "predatory". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned if I can find a better source, but I've seen enough from sources that for one reason or another aren't usable or aren't quite on point to believe that it's true, so I'm just going to let it sit. Our article Political colour uses the same two sources (i.e. graphics and Indian marketing) that were originally used here, and, besides, it doesn't seem like a very well-referenced article in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

--- Heartily agree, I've never ever heard of Liberalism having "colours" let alone "yellow". This passage seems wholly contrived and badly sourced, no authority deeper than that some publisher decided on a colour scheme. The idea that "yellow is the colour most associated", or that any colour is so associated, is highly subjective speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.139.239 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Cambridge Publishers is not a predatory publisher. It does not charge fees to authors and it pays royalties to them. The author is a lecturer at Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, and has written/presented papers on the LibDems.[3] The editors include an issue editor of the French journal of British studies[4] and a Maître de conférences at the University of Toulon[5] So even if the publisher does not provide adequate peer review, the book would still pass WP:SELFPUB. I would like to see a source though that explains how many liberal parties use yellow and why this is. I suspect that with the Left using red and conservatives using white and blue, they didn't have many colors available. Maybe the lack of coverage of the topic means it should be excluded. TFD (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My personal experience means next to nothing, and is very U.S.-centric, but the only color/political associations that resonates to me are red for Communism and Socialism (although Hitler did a good job of subverting that), and green for the Greens. I've also wondered about the (totally unnecessary) colored flags on various political sidebars here. Were it up to me, I would remove them.

Short but pertinent story: As an inveterate watcher of televised election results, I noted that for many years the Democrats were shown in red, and the Republican in blue, then, one year, it all changed and the colors wee reversed on every network. I don't know if they all decided that marking the Democrats as "Reds" was deceptive (because despite what some on the far-right would like to think, the US Democratic Party is barely liberal, and is not Communist or even Socialist), and that the Republicans were so obviously not "Reds" that they couldn't object to being red. I think, though if you look at Dave Leip's Election of U.S. Presidential Elections, he's still gtot it old style, with the Dems in red and the Republicans in blue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

In the U.S., the networks reversed the two colors red and blue every four years until 2000 when the Dems were blue and the Reps red. Coincidentally, this coincided with a situation where only three states (OH, FL, PA) were in contention. Whoever won at least two would win the election. Then the terms red state and blue state entered the language and the two colors are now set. TFD (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I really appreciate learning stuff like that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is a current trend in political economy

This sentence and the section it's in reflects straightforward Americentrism:

"This trend, called "neoliberalism" by its opponents, lasted through the 1980s and the 1990s."

The term "neoliberalism" and the phenomena it refers to is in wide circulation in literature and also in the wider society, with the exception of USA. Reinis^talk 12:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

Maddison in the one sub-article title should be changed to Madison. Cbinetti (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done DarthFlappy (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does a "semi-protected" article on a major topic have a typo in the second sentence?

Proper use of the English language is more important than incessant complaints about classical liberalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1706:a26b:1d23:e217:fc1d:95d9 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is it a gold flag?

I don't think the picture on the article should be a gold flag. I think that more properly belongs to capitalism. It's commonly known that the anarcho-capitalist flag is gold and black, and the black stands for anarchy. 67.98.187.69 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's actually yellow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it comes from the color used by the Liberal Party (UK), the Conservatives and Labour having taken blue and red respectively. It would be fitting if it is the color of capitalism since liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. TFD (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Classic liberalism, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

All liberalism, unless you think that anyone who is not an Ayn Rand or Hayek apostle is a socialist. TFD (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think it applies to American politics, where (generally speaking) conservatism is the ideology of big business, and big business controls capitalism. American liberalism is more about controlling the downsides of capitalism -- such as income inequality -- then it is about promoting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

From a global perspective, both U.S. parties are liberal. (See for example, Political Ideology Today, p. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been."[6] The U.S. adopted the terms ahistorically. Both major parties are close to big business with minor disagreements on the degree of either the redistributive or coercive powers of the state to use. But that doesn't mean they reject capitalism. TFD (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I wasn't claiming that American liberalism rejects capitalism. Even socialism doesn't reject capitalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, considering that the US is still the hegemon, albeit in decline, the ahistorical American use of "liberalism" still needs to be dealt with, even if it is contrary to global usage. Try telling most American conservatives that they're "liberal from a global perspective" and you'd best hope they're not prone to fisticuffs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

While most socialists may not reject capitalism, a key element of socialist ideology is that social problems are caused by capitalism. Americans by the way use the term in both senses. The U.S. for example is a liberal democracy. Free trade is referred to as liberalization. There is btw a separate article for Modern liberalism in the United States. TFD (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

"it declined in the late 1930s due the growth and opposition of Islamism" → "it declined in the late 1930s due to the growth and opposition of Islamism" 80.3.103.8 (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Done.[7] TFD (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Bleeding heart liberal" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bleeding heart liberal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Bleeding heart liberal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Free markets and Liberal International

One reference in the lead which outlines the manifesto of Liberal International was used to include free markets and free trade as the first core tenets of liberalism. This was the only reference which lists these as a core part of liberalism, I couldn't find the mention of them in the other 6/7 references. I see no reason why a single political international's concept of liberalism, which mainly is representative of modern European liberal parties, should be used here to represent the history and breadth of liberalism.

While market economies were indeed an important concept in liberalism throughout its history, nothing in the cited sources mentions pure self-regulation of markets as a facet of liberalism. I have added Britannica as an additional reference which also describes a "market economy" as a general characteristic of liberalism. I have also removed some other items in this list which failed verification or are redundant since this has ballooned into a rather large list. Please let me know if anyone finds problem with these changes. Soapwort (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

The unprecedented concentration of European thinkers who met there [change “were” to “was” ]to have a considerable influence on the development of nineteenth century liberalism Kate Robinson (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021 (2)

Add hyphen to modifiers of Benjamin Constant to aid the reader in grouping them.

“Among them was also one of the first thinkers to go by the name of "liberal", the Edinburgh University−educated Swiss Protestant, Benjamin Constant” Kate Robinson (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Liberalism is not an ideology

Someone reverted my edit. The thing is that liberalism is not an ideology, it is an umbrella adjective used to qualify a set of ideologies, or part of some of those. There no consistant definition of liberalism. The article itself gives examples that contradict between each another, as well as the introduction.

Also later the article calls it "a modern phenomeon"

"The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous qualifiers that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the very term "liberalism", including classical, egalitarian, economic, social, welfare state, ethical, humanist, deontological, perfectionist, democratic and institutional, to name a few"

Nobody can say just: "I am a liberal". It could mean much everything.

Also liberalism is not "based" on liberty. It is not at the core of the thing. Also the article is centered a lot at United States. And well what it is based on are the two other things given "consent of governed" and "equality before law". Anarchism would be based on liberty. So would be libertarianism.

--Joujyuze (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Not only is liberalism an ideology, it is the oldest modern ideology. It doesn't matter that there are disputes over its definition, because the same is true for other ideologies. Also, like other ideologies, liberals differ on which policies best serve their objective of liberty. But then so do adherents of competing ideologies. TFD (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Liberalism is most certainly an ideology, "a system of ideas and ideals". While specifics may vary from place to place, all liberals have core beliefs in common, and the differences between them are no more varied than the difference between instances of any other ideology.

As for your suggestions for the article, please return with citations from reliable sources which support your contentions and we'll consider changing the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Attempted deletion of material from lede

An editor has attempted to delete this material from the lede:

Liberals have advocated gender and racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights and a global civil rights movement in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals. Continental European liberalism is divided between moderates and progressives, with the moderates tending to elitism and the progressives supporting the universalisation of fundamental institutions, such as universal suffrage, universal education and the expansion of property rights. Over time, the moderates displaced the progressives as the main guardians of continental European liberalism.

on the grounds that it is sourced to an "outdated" book from 1988, and that it is unnecessary in the lede.

I disagree. Regardless of the year of publication of the source, the material is still current in its description of the historic gains made by liberalism, and since those gains are fundamental to the reasons people adhere to the ideology, calling them "unnecssary" int he lede seems rather a PoV statement then a stateent of fact.

This section has been created so that the editor can make an argument to justify their edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I assure you that I have no ill intent and am not trying to make a "PoV statement." My main concern is that the paragraph focuses on an extensive characterization of "continental European liberalism," which is not covered in the article body. And using a 32-year-old source to make sweeping statements such as "Over time, the moderates displaced the progressives as the main guardians of continental European liberalism" is problematic and does not adhere to the principle of verifiability.

WP:BRD is certainly a useful (though optional) principle that I generally follow. I was a bit frustrated with you not having provided a brief summary for your first revert. RedHotPear (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but lack of an edit summary doesn't justify ignoring BRD. I accept your statement that you didn't intend a PoV edit.

In my view, the paragraph is essentially still accurate. It may need some tweaking, which is fine, but 1988 is not all that long ago, at least to someone who's twice as old. 1988 is not the Dark Ages, after all, it's part of the same Enlightenment-created world we live in now (although we may well be living through the New Dark Ages at this very moment). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are assuming good faith. I will make another, different WP:BOLD edit toward a potential consensus. It will retain the first "civil rights" sentence, but it will trim the undue information on "continental European liberalism" that is poorly sourced and not reflective of the article body (MOS:LEAD). If you also disagree with this edit, feel free to revert, and we can continue to discuss. RedHotPear (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's fine as far as it goes. I added a statement about suffrage, education and health care which I believe is supported by the body of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence does not appear to be supported by the source. The distinction between English and European liberalism and the division between right and left liberalism are important information and should be explained in the body of the article. If that is done then it makes sense to summarize it in the lead. The left-right division goes back to the grandees and the levellers in England and the Girondins and Jacobins in France, and is the main cleavage in U.S. politics to this day. TFD (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: @The Four Deuces: @RedHotPear: Why was that removed, yet the first sentence which does not appear to be supported by the source was kept? I think the left–right and moderate–progressive divide should be re-added and perhaps discussed in more detail in the main body. Perhaps we may also discuss in the main body liberalism's evolution on topics such a democracy and race; not all liberals were progressive on those issues and the elitists supported democracy based on property rather than universal suffrage as was advocated by progressive and radical liberals.--Davide King (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly there is a distinction between classical liberals and modern/social liberals. The last paragraph, however, seems to be working in describing liberalism in the present (and near past) compared to early liberalism.

"Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights. Liberals have advocated gender and racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights, and a global civil rights movement in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals."

These two current sentences are not implying that "all liberals were progressive" on issues of democracy and race. They simply relate that liberalism in the 20th century was influenced by civil rights and that liberals helped push through civil rights reforms.

I am open to adding or clarifying to highlight the distinctions that you believe should be emphasized. But I do not think the previous version did a good job of what you are intending. RedHotPear (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RedHotPear, thanks for your reply! Apologies, it seems that I missed Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights when I first read it. How would you propose to add and structure that phrasing in a better way? In addition, what do you all (@Beyond My Ken: @The Four Deuces:) think of adding a section, or in the main body, that talks about such distinction and liberalism's evolution on views such as democracy and race? I do not know whether those are discussed in books about liberalism, or whether there are books that specifically discuss liberalism and democracy and/or race (I assume they are, but I may well be wrong, so please feel free to correct me on this), so I hope you can help me in doing this research (I would not really know how and from where to start) and whether it is worth adding a section, simply mentioning, or undue.--Davide King (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see a source. It seems that they are referring to a segment of liberalism. Reagan and Thatcher for example did not promote a global civil rights movement. TFD (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I still would like to see a source too. Davide King (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, unrelated to this edit but i dont see a discussion asking this question. Why was Capitalism removed from the list of views that liberals generally support in the first paragraph? Jackmmartin (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Jackmmartin asked about this on twitter; I'm not familiar with the history on this article so I suggested he raise the question here. Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It was removed by an editor because it was not sourced.[8] It could be that the sources don't mention it because it was not part of the original liberal ideology, as the concept did not come into use until the late 19th century. It's not mentioned in the British or U.S. Bill of Rights for example. I think it is important to mention but needs a source. TFD (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This article about Classic Liberals is highly misleading considering the modern political use of the word.

In the modern day self identifying "Liberals" have nothing to do with his article. "Liberals "are the ones censoring Twitter facebook and Wikipedia. They are completely against freedom of speech. "Liberals" are the ones advocating for vaccine mandates that ban others from freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom to work. "Liberals" are the ones running the mass media and propagating the same stories on every topic. They are against freedom of the press. "Liberals" In the UK were the ones trying to cancel the Brexit vote. They are against basic democracy.

The current Lede states: " but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,"

This is complete nonsense as modern "Liberals" oppose all these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.220.165 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Liberal democracies have always imposed what they consider reasonable restrictions on freedoms. What is reasonable has always been a matter of debate. There is more freedom today in liberal democracies than in authoritarian dictatorships. You will find for example that you have greater freedom in the the Netherlands than Saudi Arabia. TFD (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with all of this! This article is insane and not at all what modern liberals believe! 17Truthhurts76 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The article cites references that this is what modern liberals say and do. What they "really" believe is only known to conservative mindreaders. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

Change: Sehldon S. Wolin (2004). Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11977-9. Retrieved 31 December 2007. The most frequently cited rights included freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, property, and procedural rights

New: Sheldon S. Wolin (2004). Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11977-9. Retrieved 31 December 2007. The most frequently cited rights included freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, property, and procedural rights HSFootballAg24 (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong

Liberals only allow free speech when it aligns with their narrative. 160.2.177.35 (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for political debate. Please confine your posts to referenced facts. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Liberalism/communism

Says, "Before 1920 a component of liberalism was communism, conservativism, socialism."

Since when? Marx was always against capitalism... And American "conservatives" WERE the liberals at that time and before and contemporary (modern) conservatives (theoretically) aim to "conserve" the liberal conceptions that are the basis of our constitution. Liberalism literally invented the US Constitution. It's inappropriate to conflate the political descriptors of the concepts in question with the psychological labels which didn't even exist at the time, and which have (very) distinct implications.

I don't remember this being here a few months ago... Somebody set me straight...

Ps another discussion mentions "liberals are against free speech and support vaccine mandates." NEWSFLASH BRUH THOSE AREN'T LIBERALS 2603:8001:DC3F:12F8:1DD3:1AF1:AECC:F218 (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It actually says, "Before 1920, the main ideological opponents of liberalism were communism, conservatism and socialism." Can you tell me where you got this misinformation from? TFD (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S., the United States has the least restrictions on free speech of any country in the world and only 28% of voters support vaccine mandates, compared with 70% in Canada. Liberals more than any other ideology continue to support free speech and oppose vaccine mandates. TFD (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond directly in the original discussion but...

Omg... It does say "opponents," not "components." 🤦🏻‍♂️ I've never been so anonymously embarrassed before. 2603:8001:DC3F:12F8:1DD3:1AF1:AECC:F218 (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaniloHelber. Peer reviewers: DaniloHelber.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist theory

The figures cited were part of specific schools of thought (e.g., Manchesterism), which are clearly not anarcho-capitalism. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to promote historical revisionism.

An honest version should be: Manchesterism (or Manchester liberalism)

Voluntaryism (or Voluntaryist theory)

Optimistic School (or French Liberal School)

N.b. French Liberal School could be confused with radicalism (i.e., the classical liberal left)

--RVD3 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)RVD3

An additional note on this point: anarcho-capitalism is not a particularly notable ideology, let alone a strain of liberalism so dominant that it deserves its own subheading under "philosophy". I believe RVD3 is correct, and this section of the article should be significantly modified to avoid giving disproportionate weight to a fringe view. -Sensorfire (✎|‽) 03:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it lacks significance to liberalism overall. We might mention it in a sentence, but it should not have its own section. TFD (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

satoshi Kanazawa ref in first sentence

Surely it would be better not to reference someone so controversial, especially since the sentence already has two references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.24.20 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

History

Why we wanna a liberalism in a country?what are the advantages of libralism . Why this is considered as a necessary things for human being 103.240.235.112 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This page is about discussing changes to the article, not commentary on the topic. Reading the article should answer your questions. Liberals claimed that government should not have the power to deprive you of life, liberty or property without due process. Most people would consider that an advantage. TFD (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Consider closing this discussion? Tyrone (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Liberals replaced equality with equity.

President Biden announced, at the beginning of his term, that the federal agencies will focus on equity rather than equality. Populist2024 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, what changes do you want to make to this article? One man does not dictate the definitions of centuries old ideologies. If you have a source or a change, please respond here. Otherwise, we cannot change anything. Tyrone (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of liberal as a pejorative term in the US in "critiques" section

Hey Beyond My Ken and X-Editor, just wanted to start a discussion about the inclusion of the sentence about the use of "liberal" as a common pejorative term in the US. I obviously agree that this is true and sourced, but I still feel that this sentence was off-topic and out of character with the rest of the section. It doesn't convey any substantive critique of liberalism, which the section is otherwise devoted to. Furthermore, it's very dependent on US context to accurately understand, without which unfamiliar readers could easily be confused.

Liberal as a pejorative term in the US is deployed mainly in two extremely different ways, and if this merits inclusion I think those need to be mentioned. Criticism from the US left uses "liberal" in the same sense as the rest of the article and is well documented in this section already, while criticism from the US right uses "liberal" as a representation of US-specific political party dynamics. US Republicans deploying "liberal" as a pejorative generally are not intending to criticize the concept of liberalism described in the article (and if they are, well, we do have three sentences referencing fascist critique of liberalism already), but rather the political stances of the Democratic party. Given that both major US parties are liberal parties, this is potentially confusing to readers lacking that context, who may conclude that critique of liberalism (as explained by the article) is common in the US. While I wish that were true, I don't believe it is.

If we want to retain a reference to this concept, I think it needs to be better described and include more than simply one sentence stating that it exists. I'll leave Beyond My Ken's revert in place while we puzzle through this. Thatbox (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Because a thing needs -- in your opinion -- to be expanded is not a reason to delete it in its current state. Go ahead and expand it into its own section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the criticism section. It could probably be included in the "Etymology and definition" section, where it explains what the term liberal normally means in the U.S. TFD (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution to me. Thatbox (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of indentation; that was my first time commenting on the mobile site. Thatbox (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"but rather the political stances of the Democratic party" Why is the Democratic Party perceived as liberal? It has in recent decades promoted Third Way political ideas, and Bill Clinton's fiscal conservatism. Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Perception and reality can be two different things, especially in U.S. politics. When Bob Dole accused Clinton of being a liberal, he replied, "That dog won't hunt." But that's still the right-wing view. They even call them socialists. In fact, they called them that in the 1912 Republican platform, over 100 years ago. TFD (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Both US parties fall firmly into the bucket of liberal in the sense of "liberalism" as described in this article (free markets, individual rights, etc.), which is why I think more US context needs to be provided if we want to include the tidbit we're talking about here. It's important to remember that this article is talking about the broad, global, political science use of the term, and not the local US "liberal vs conservative" use of the term. Liberalism as described here is in contrast to, for example, communism. Thatbox (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Concurring with this. Third wayism as Dimadick points to is still liberalism. If we want to be specific we could maybe use the terms "progressive liberalism" and "conservative liberalism". KetchupSalt (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If there are no objections, tomorrow I can take a stab at porting this tidbit to the "Etymology and definition" section, per TFD's suggestion. Thatbox (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

In the first paragraphs (attached citations of 1-3), please change "before the law" to "in the eyes of the legal system", since "before the law" clearly seems to imply that liberals believe their values should come before the enforcement of national or state law.

However, a change to "in the eyes of the legal system" removes the ambiguity of meaning and intent and clarifies the true nature of what liberals wish to accomplish within any judiciary.

I work in defense litigation, and clarity of meaning is obviously vital--both in law AND in education.

The current wording is sloppy and practically invites the aforementioned misinterpretation. 2604:CA00:178:49EC:0:0:1267:DAAB (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done "Equality before the law" is a term of art and the title of the article being linked to. I have a difficult time believing that anyone would interpret it to mean that individual equality should preempt enforcement of the law. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This came up in discussions before. Liberals believe in equality. They believe that a commoner has the right to sue a lord because they are both equal. This confuses some editors. It does not mean that liberals believe in making people equal, they already are equal. I'll change the text back to equality. TFD (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Which means, specifically, political equality and equality before the law. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You should provide a source if you disagree with what the current sources say. Furthermore, equality is discussed throughout the article.

"As assistant to Oliver Cromwell, Milton also drafted a constitution of the independents (Agreement of the People; 1647) that strongly stressed the equality of all humans as a consequence of democratic tendencies."

"Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism and tolerance."

The concept of equality appears in the U.S. Declaration of Independence ("All men are created equal") and the French liberal declaration: Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. HiLo48 questioned whether the Liberal Party of Australia considered people to be equal. It claims in "Our Beliefs" to support "An equal opportunity for all Australians."

In ''Contemporary Political Ideologies'' (ed. Roger Eatwell), Richard Bellamy writes, "At the philosophical level, liberals have affirmed a commitment to the concepts of equality, liberty, individuality and rationality. They have been egalitarians in the sense of denying that anyone is naturally the subordinate of anyone else. This view does not entail regarding everyone as the same, merely that all human beings are of equal moral worth. Rather than seeking to guarantee an equality of outcome in the manner of some socialists, liberals desire that everyone should have an equal opportunity to deploy what talents they do possess on the same basis as everyone else."

Most if not all guides to liberalism mention their support of equality as a defining belief. TFD (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(1) I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your word choice, simply pointing out some pertinent information.

(2) It's generally not necessary to use a blunderbuss to kill a mosquito. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you agree then the text should read equality rather than equality before the law/ TFD (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Not really. As Equality (disambiguation) shows, "equality" can mean different things to different people, and can easily be misconstrued. In fact, it often is by those who oppose liberal values. I think it's better to specify what kind of equality liberals believe in, which is way I've changed it to "political equality and equality before the law". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that provide your interpretation of what liberals mean by the term equality? As I mentioned above, the liberal belief is that individuals have "equal moral worth." The belief that they should have equality before the law derives from that core belief. The statement incidentally that political equality is a core belief of liberalism is, at least historically, incorrect. Liberals long opposed universal suffrage based on gender, wealth, religion and other grounds. TFD (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism and support

The section contains a number of opinions. I believe that it should be divided into 'Criticm' and "Support'.

Illiberalism should be mentioned.

Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Liberty?

With big governments, taxes, cancel culture, forced vaccinations, mandates and more, I'm not entirely sure the word "Liberty"should be one of the first things mentioned for liberal ideology. 2600:100F:B12B:CCEC:A493:4CC6:D407:F2AD (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for political debate, but a place to discuss referenced changes to this article.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources that discuss this issue. TFD (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What you or any other editor are or are not entirely sure of has no relevance to Wikipedia. I recommend reading the article and its citations--there's a lot to learn there. Jibal (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Consider closing this discussion? Tyrone (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think changing course is the thing: Mentioning the unappealing goals of liberalism such as deregulation, laissez faire and reduction of governmental power in that first paragraph is important I think. Just ignore the people who have that wrong definition of liberalism. 94.217.107.125 (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see the header of this page -- this is not the place to air opinions about the subject matter. The content of the article must be based on and reflect reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)