Jump to content

Talk:Liberalism/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Suggestion: Free Markets section

Existing text contains the preposterous understatement: "Modern liberal movements often agree in principle with the idea of free trade, but maintain SOME skepticism, seeing unrestricted trade as leading to the growth of multi-national corporations and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few."

My sense is that most liberals (excluding, of course, neoliberals) would now say that free trade in the neoliberal sense should now be regarded as an outright failure. Too, the section "Liberalism After World War II" gives the impression that the "liberal pendulum swing" continues in the direction of laissez faire. Surely, nothing could be further from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.8.88 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Civil rights section

Can you please amend the intro sentence to include "... and in more contemporary cases, sexual orientation or gender identity"

Europe, South Africa, and many places in the United States considered to be 'liberal' have inducted equal protection for LGBT people under the law.

Also "advocate equal rights for women and homosexuals" is awkward. BrainMagMo (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

==This statement is false== They are the anti christs.

In the intro it states "It (contemporary liberalism) seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion". Contemporary liberalism or Modern liberalism distinctly calls for more government intervention - not less. This is just plain false. Doctors without suspenders 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think the "contemporary" part is a little bit weird in this context. That statement describes both liberalism now and liberalism a long time ago, so the distinction is not necessary. On the other hand, it does say "broadly speaking." Ideologically, modern liberalism still borrows heavily from the classical variety....the statement is not false; it just probably needs clarification and a realization that the situation is a tad complex.UberCryxic 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, we should mention that modern liberalism does not call for greater government intervention for the sake of government intervention. There were many stimulii that prompted liberals to call for greater state action, among them the rise of communist ideology, World War I, and the Great Depression. Simply because they started doing so under these conditions, however, does not mean that they apostatized their original intentions and beliefs. It simply means that those ideals had to be rethought and reworked in new contexts. In that sense the statement is fine.UberCryxic 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
UberCryxic, thanks for your input, and no offense, but I don't know what the heck you just said. Let's just look at this straight on. Either a statement evaluates true or it evaluates false. That statement simply evaluates false. It's not a judgement on more government intervention and there's no need to defend or attack it here. The statement is just not true. Doctors without suspenders 03:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The most appropriate thing to do would be to get feedback on how the term 'contemporary liberalism' is being used here. It could be that it does not square well with what you and I are thinking. I am not certain about that "either true or false" criteria (it seems quite ridiculous on account of not enough effort being devoted to defining the terms), but if we were to take that stance, then the statement would go to true under my evaluation. I explained why above. The conditions that forced liberals to examine the mechanisms of their societies does not mean that liberals lost track of some of the most fundamental aspects of their ideology. Limitations on the power of government is still a central liberal tenet, but it may exist under a different context in our world. This is what's probably causing the confusion. But there are still some aspects of classical and modern liberalism that match up quite nicely with regard to the limits of government power; one of them would be respect for constitutional states and societies. This is a defining feature of political liberalism and it has not changed in the modern world. In that sense, one can see how 'contemporary' liberalism holds that government should not have too much power: constitutions were, and are by definition, meant to regularize, standardize, and sometimes restrict what states can and cannot do in relation to the people that they govern. The statement is more than appropriate.UberCryxic 04:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all fine if you're into revising reality. Classical liberals called for as little government intervention as possible - modern liberals like lots of intervention. Sorry, it's a well-known fact. Doctors without suspenders 04:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's disparaging to say they "like lots of intervention." This confuses intent with expediency and circumstance. Socioeconomic and political situations in modern times have made it expedient for liberals to modify the roles they are willing to accord to government, that's the well known fact, but that does not mean that they like doing that, at least generally speaking.UberCryxic 04:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't understand what all that means. All I am interested in here is fact. It also contradicts the statement in the following paragraph: "Many modern liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market..." Doctors without suspenders 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if all you are interested in is fact, then Wikipedia is not the appropriate place. Wikipedia is supposed to document what reliable sources say; we take on stance on whether a given statement is true or not. That's just a general policy reminder. As regards to this article, then you are incorrect. So despite your interest in fact, you are actually saying things that are not factual. Either way, I've now changed that part and it simply says 'liberalism' instead of 'contemporary liberalism.' Finally, if you are having difficulty understanding what I am saying to you, then you should probably make an effort to rectify that. Making assumptions and strawmen arguments that serve to characterize your perceptions of what liberalism is does not help anyone and leads to futile confrontations.UberCryxic 19:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the contradict tag. One contradictory statement would not be enough to warrant the tag, and the statement is not even contradictory in the first place. It makes the distinction between modern and classic liberals rather clearly. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Today, that is in 2006, it is conservatives rather than liberals calling for greater power for the federal government. Historically, every administration, Republican and Democrat alike, has roughly doubled the spending of the federal government over the previous administration. Nobody comes right out and says, I like the idea of a powerful federal government, but the liberals were willing to accept a powerful federal government to end segragation and the conservatives are willing to accept a powerful federal government to fight terrorism. On the other hand, to say that liberals "like" a powerful federal government is equivalent to saying that liberals "like" corruption, just because some liberals have been corrupt. The ideal of liberalism is freedom. The idea that liberals want a federal government that micromannages people's lives is Republican political propaganda. Rick Norwood 12:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You say: "Historically, every administration, Republican and Democrat alike, has roughly doubled the spending of the federal government over the previous administration." Please remember that most administrations around the world are neither Republican nor Democrat. The USA is NOT the world! 132.185.240.124 (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Manormadman

I agree with Rick. I just want to add that this is not an article on American liberalism, so the fears of Doctors without Suspenders are no valid. Electionworld Talk? 17:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't get my information from Republican propaganda. I personally don't care what the Republicans say. Second, I know that the Republicans and the Democrats both advocate a bigger federal government. It's completely irrelevant here because this article is on liberalism - not the Republicans or the Democrats. It's false to say that contemporary liberals advocate little government involvement (in America, at least), no matter what the conservatives want. It's true I don't know much about European, or other, liberalism, other than American liberalism. There should be some clarification on all this in the article, though. Otherwise it is completely confusing. I don't find it clear at all. And the article is still contradictory no matter what arguments are given here. Doctors without suspenders 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It might be wise to read the whole article. It makes clear distinctions between various forms of liberalism. Electionworld Talk? 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
To argue that the entire article must be read to understand the contradictions in the introduction is absurd. The introduction does contradict itself. I mentioned this when I was a lowly IP, I called it, "flowerbox liberalism". WP:OWN, whatever.--Scribner 01:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The introduction does not contradict itself, now or before.UberCryxic 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Please learn to format your comments on the talk page UberCryxic, thanks. The introduction is too long and misleading. I'll edit.--Scribner 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I feel it's easier if I start completely on the left if someone before has indented. I really hate it when the comments just keep piling up on the right....looks like a damn stairway or something.UberCryxic 03:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually the lead is not long at all, especially considering the subject at hand. Nor is it misleading. Nonetheless, I would like to hear what specific complaints you have. What exactly is misleading?UberCryxic 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The "lede", pronounced "lead" but spelled, "lede" is too long compared to other political articles and yes it is not factual nor npov, with regard to less government and more taxes. Oxymoron to me. Have to run for now, just consider the changes, thanks take care.--Scribner 03:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Lede" is not a word in the English dictionary. I have no idea where you came up with that one. To convince yourself that I am referring to the right thing, just check out WP:LEAD, which starts off:
The lead section (lead paragraph or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first headline.
Anyway, that aside, classical liberalism did advocate, stringently I might add, for as little government intervention as possible. This is a strain that continues to prevail in and influence modern liberal thought, though obviously in different contexts and in different ways. Modern liberalism is different from classical liberalism, and that distinction is drawn in the article, but when speaking about liberalism "broadly," as the lead does, the statements are more than appropriate.UberCryxic 03:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Common misspellings for lede=lead, Uber-minor, I agree. Sorry, really have to run--Jasper23, comment before reverting.--Scribner 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I did comment in my edit summary before you made your fourth unilateral revert. Please be civil in our future exchanges. There is no need to try and "call me out" All that does is build bad blood. Thanks. Jasper23 05:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In all likelihood it is a neologism or an inside word amongst journalists. I can't find that word in dictionary.com or in Webster. So....something's gotta give here.UberCryxic 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed that statement again so it had something to do with reality. Let's not try and change reality. Okay? Doctors without suspenders 22:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to change reality, so I think you won't have any worries there. The laws of physics are beyond human intervention (hopefully). You probably meant perceptions of reality, which is a whole other area for discussion. Anyway, a few days ago I removed the word "contemporary" to make the statement appropriate. There is nothing wrong with what it says now. Liberalism, at large, really does seek a lesser role for government; that is, in fact, an essential aspect of the spirit of liberalism.UberCryxic 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Lede" is a journalists' term—quite a time-honored one, I might add—and refers only to the very opening lines of an article, basically intended to suck the reader in. "Lead section" is also a perfectly valid term, referring to a larger portion of the start of an article, usually down to the first section header or other similar break. - Jmabel | Talk 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You should understand that I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just that none of these dictionaries are picking it up. Seems like a ghost word.UberCryxic 23:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lede BryanBessette 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think the talk page for liberalism is supposed to be used to discuss spellingHungaryboy1 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Generous?

In Studies in Words, C. S. Lewis described the root meaning as "free, not a slave" and the term as acquiring the meaning "generous" from the use of it to indicate behavior appropriate to the free. Wiktionary agrees with him about the root. (Check under lower-case "liberal".) Are there references to substantiate the "generous" origin? Goldfritha 02:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the OED backs C. S. Lewis all the way. The first sense of the word, chronologically, is ‘worthy of a free man’, as opposed to servile or mechanical. The second sense, arising out of it and documented from 1387, is "free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, open-hearted", as in "In fighting he was strong, in giving liberal" (1387). The political meaning, defined by OED as "favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy" isn't documented until 1801. Bishonen | talk 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Are we ready to improve this article towards featured status? __earth (Talk) 09:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, the article needs many more citations and a light copyedit.UberCryxic 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it alright if I nominate this article for CotW? __earth (Talk) 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but I'd recommend nominating it for good article status first. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
How about this: we try to win the Collaboration of the Week first. Once won, we'll try good article. Once we've gotten that, we'll shoot for FA. Deal? __earth (Talk) 02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the articlefor COTW/AID. Please support to improve the article by casting your vote there. __earth (Talk) 03:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Some equivocation permeates the article in the use of "natural law." For the British and most Americans, the natural law was the dictates of reason confirmed by evidence. Outside this narrow group, "Natural Law Theory" (NLT) is the moral reasoning of the Roman Catholic Church, based on Thomas Aquinas' misunderstandings of Aristotle. The former has its roots in Stoicism, was imported into Christianity by Augustine of Hippo, and the latter was a novation of the Stoic tradition with Aristotle's tradition. In neither case is "natural law = laws of nature." Moreover, Natural Law Theory is seriously defective, confusing Aristotle's teleology of nature (physis) with instrumental or practical reasoning of ethics (ethics). Robert George and John Finnis, both Roman Catholics, are the only apologist for this conflated theory, despite it also breaching the FACT/VALUE divide, and making IS - OUGHT (Hume).

`````dshsfca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshsfca (talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User User:Jackbirdsong has deleted the following, due to opposition to the existence of criticism section:

Though I agree the criticism section is unnecessary, I do think the section has good points and we should try to spead out the point throughout the article without having a section specially created for criticism against liberalism. __earth (Talk) 03:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the deletion of this section, despite being an ardent liberal. I have reverted his edits. Large-scale changes such as these should be discussed here first, and they should be discussed ad nauseum at that. There is criticism of liberalism and that section gets some of them well; just because it lacks citations does not give us reason to delete it entirely.UberCryxic 05:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with UberCryxic here. I too am quite liberal and believe that a criticism section definitely has a place here. I do find it odd, though, that Conservatism has no criticism section...that should probably be corrected. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea! Hungaryboy1 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.----Comment by Jimbo Wales
  • Hello Cielomobile talk / contribs. Assuming you read the above statement and understand what is means, what are you saying? One more time:
... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.----Comment by Jimbo Wales--Scribner 06:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A little bit of history. Criticism sections appear in many articles. There was one in the article on conservatism, but it was deleted so often that the material there was incorporated throughout the article. That might be a good idea here, as well, but not wholesale deletion. Rick Norwood 13:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

All-right then Scribner, how about we change that section to a coherent set of criticisms, rather than random ones?UberCryxic 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion was ridiculous, criticism is appropriate. Moreover, the section was wholly "coherant"; each point has been associated with an established view, and as far as I can tell, each view is not internally contradictory. If we want to follow Jimbo's will to the letter, then fine, spread the material across the sections. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of someone with a hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail. There was nothing wrong with this section. It was a reasonable statement of the critiques of liberalism from various other points on the political spectrum. There is no evidence that it was functioning as a "troll magnet". I think it was fine the way it was. - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The current criticism section is actually a woeful representation of state of the art critiques of liberalism. It reads like an overly simplistic "straw man." It contains no references whatsoever. If the willingness to allow critics of liberalism a voice is sincere, there are several thoughtful critiques to draw from- notably, "What the Matter With Liberalism?" by Ronald Beiner, "After Liberalism" by Immanuel Wallerstein, "Enlightenment's Wake" by John Gray, "If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?" by G.A. Cohen and "The Liberal Virus" by Samir Amin, among many others.BernardL (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want to point out that we are presumably discussing a rather different state of the section, since the previous discussion was from over a year ago. You might want to compare the current state of it to back then; I wouldn't be surprised if it was better then (though probably still under-cited). But I'm not plunging in myself, because this article is a battleground, and I'm largely trying to avoid those these days. - Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What did this say before??

"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.

Broadly speaking, liberalism is stupid and emphasizes stupidity. It seeks a society characterized by much stupidity by individuals, limitations on what is boogers, especially of government and farts, the rule of idiocy, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected"

This is right at the begining of the article and seems to be obvious vandalism. I'm not sure what the wording was before to change it back. Rachelfk 21:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Rachel

The problem has now been fixed, but fyi: To revert obvious vandalism such as this 1) click on the "history" tab. Then click on the last post before the vandalism. Then click on "edit this page". Type "rv v" (revert vandalism) in the Edit Summary. Finally click on "Save page". Rick Norwood 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Earth's edit

Good edit, Earth! I would almost say, good, down to Earth, edit. Rick Norwood 14:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rick. I wanted to do more edit but I unfortunately am a little busy right now. =( Anyway, Liberalism needs one more vote to survive Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive for another week. Please vote for it =). __earth (Talk) 12:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Forza Italia Liberal?

I am no expert and have been reading this page in a quest to better understand the difference between Liberal and Libertarian. On the basis of what I understand so far, I was suprised to see Forza Italia listed as a Liberal party (I live in Italy and know the party well), I would have said they were Libertarian.

Forza Italia's constitution states they are liberal, but it actually states a multitude of positions. Forza Italia(FI) have never run the country on thier own, they have led what is considered to be a right wing coalition. The other parties in the coalition are generally opposed to Libertarian concepts, and I suspect that in many cases they have watered down Libertarian proposals into liberal laws. Here are some actions which suggest to me that FI is a Libertarian party:

1)FI proposed, and obtained, a complete abolition of inherentence tax and tax on donations.

2)Tax evasion was declassified from a criminal offence to a civil offence.

3)FI proposed to sell off public land such as beaches and mountain areas (as well as public monuments) on a Freehold basis. This was watered down to leasehold agreements by allies.

4)FI has been behind some deregulation of commercial and economic activity.

On the other hand some of FI's activities seem to fly in the face of Libertarianism (or liberalism for that matter):

1)FI do not have a very good record on free speech, during the period 2001-2006 when FI led the governing coalition, Italy slipped down to the bottom of press liberty ratings (for example Freedom House). FI's leader suprised everbody when he was hackled (non obscenely) by a reporter at the exit of a court proceeding; he orderd the police to take the person's details.

2) The coalition of which FI is a part has a very conservative standpoint on issues such as gay relationships and immigration. Undoubtly this is in part due to the very conservative stance of other parties in the coalition, but FI never appears to oppose htese conservative viewpoints.

So just how should one classify a party such as Forza Italia? Allthougth I live in Italy I am an English citizen, and I am also well familier with the UK liberal democrat party. These two parties appear to me as different as chalk and cheese, are they really both liberal?

Well, FI is a party with many factions, but they are generally liberal-conservative, that is, they support some free trade and deregulation but also hold more conservative views on social and religious issues (and no, it's not just because of "allies", it's mainly because a large part of the old Christian Democrats are now in Foza Italia, forming the core of its conservative faction). The LibDems, on the other hand, are social-liberal, that is, they are liberal on social issues but not so much on the economy. Indeed, liberal-conservatism and social-liberalism do not go well together. In fact, the American visceral fight between "conservatives" and "liberals" is a dispute between liberal-conservatism and social-liberalism (in European terms). And although there are some factions within Forza Italia that are both socially AND economically liberal, they certainly don't go so far (on both aspects) as to be called "libertarians".Justice III 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians are primarily interested in preserving private property, and in favor of low taxes and little government regulation. Most people want the government to step in to give them what they want, and so a libertarian party is always a minority party. Libertarians split with the liberals and joined the conservatives when the liberals began to favor a progressive income tax. But it is a marriage of convenience.
I know nothing about Forza, but from what you say, they are a libertarian party run by people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. For people in power, power is often the only thing that matters. Thus, many American libertarians are willing to vote for constitutional ammendments against gay marriage or flag burning, certainly anti-libertarian laws, in exchange for low taxes, which is the big issue for them.
In any case, you need to classify a political party by its platform, not by what the clowns in office actually do. In that case, Forza is a libertarian party. But like most libertarian parties, in practice they are willing to trade freedom for money.
American politics at the highest level is almost entirely about money, though there are still a few politicians who actually care about the country. In most cases, the slogans are for the rubes. Rick Norwood 14:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

All the liberal thinkers of this planet should join hands

It's high time that all the liberal thinking persons of this world join hands to fight extremism, neo-cons, terrorists and other narrow-minded ideologies. The world is in danger because the neo-cons are getting stronger in the west, while the huge majority of Islamic world is under the direct threat of mullahs or Islamic extremists. Realton 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Many neocons are also liberals, if by "neocon" is meant "interventionist". In any case, this isn't the right venue for pamphleteering. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A little bit idealistic Realton, but amen nonetheless. The French Revolution did, after all, promise liberal values to everyone around the world, not just the privileged few. In that sense, however, you'll note that George W. Bush has been quite the little (or big) liberal, at least in the rhetoric that relates to the Middle East.UberCryxic 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I partly agree with lucidish that yup this page is not for pamphleteering but my intention was just to share my views with others. Anywayz Can Bush be considered liberal coz he has not liberated the middle east n we all know what he has done to that region. Also sometimes I feel confused as what are the limits of liberalism and human rights approach. I mean the people who believe in peace and granting of human rights and and equality are real liberal or just everyone believing in a certain ideololgy but his/her deeds are contrary to it, like the neo-cons???? Realton 16:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be sort of complicated, since there are a lot of distinctions that float around out there. So your confusion is both understandable (and shared).
Human rights are a rigid part of the modern liberal approach, that's for sure; all modern liberals believe in human rights. But it's conceivable that a person could endorse human rights and not be a modern liberal. For example, a libertarian might support some (though not all) human rights. (To use an analogy: all cats are animals, but not all animals are cats.)
The Washington defence guys may or may not be neocons, depending on what their plans are / were. I take "neocon" to mean "someone who believes that we should invade other countries on the basis of some moral reasons". If we assume that the Washington bunch really did want Hussein out of power because he was a dictator, then we could call them neocons. But if we say that they just did it for Halliburton (say), then they wouldn't even seem to deserve the name of "neocon". They might instead be called "neoliberal".
(I don't make up these names, but I know how silly they sound.) { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No soapboxing. But all liberal thinkers of the world should try to improve this article to FA status! =p __earth (Talk) 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, silly me. I thought there could be an adult discussion of the issues vs. liberal and conservative. The gunshots interspaced with full-automatic; more heat than light; rude and disrespectful comments; and out and out invectives; it's all too much; all be it, I'm just a truck driver and could not be expected to understand such issues.

Vandalism

When I typed Liberalism in the search box, I got a page that said "liberals are a bunch of shit eaters, we should kill them all." Does anybody else think this should be changed? Well, they are a bunch of pointy-headed idiots who want the rag-heads to take over the country, just like they have taken over Europe.--Jml4000 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Such vandalism is usually reverted within 15 minutes. Rick Norwood 13:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

When I first read this article it was fine, then five minutes later some idiot vandalized the entire article with gay bashing. I thought I would take the time to fix it, but less than five minutes later the same nonsense was inserted back in. Is there a way to find out who is responsible. Someone with more time may need to fix the entire article. Too bad.Herra-08 00:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)herra-08

  • We finds 'em, and we warns 'em. If the same IP address keeps on hurling feces, we block them. If it's a named account, we do the same. Such is the nature of cooperative editing, I'm afraid. The better question is whether the page should be protected against anonymous editing. It needs to be more solid and better before that would even be imaginable. Geogre 14:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So you finds 'em and warns 'em, then shuts 'em down. How typical of a "liberal" to assume the superior overarching stance. Rather than debate, you hurl invecives. Rather than enlightment, you prefer censership. Rather than diversity of opinion no matter how obnoxious, you prefer forced uninimity. Sounds like Stalin to me, but then I'm just a truck driver.

The people who vandalize this page with "Liberals are idiots" comments obviously don't understand liberalism (the political/ideological theory) at all. If they did, they would be able to see that the term actually refers to something much more complex and different than a centre-left leaning american. These people should try going to school. 198.96.33.38 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Going to school or reading the article

Inconsistencies

At the beginning of the text appears the rather surprising (and revisionist) affirmation:

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes the communist agenda. It seeks a society characterized by government rule over individuals..."

However, later towards the end appears the more correct statement: "Collectivist opponents of liberalism reject its emphasis on individual rights..."

Mws06 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism. __earth (Talk) 01:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But it is true, so why delete? This article is not very neutral, many points are not completely true, or are omissive to the point of error. Get your stuff together, watch and see what liberals in the world are doing, not what they say... then read this article again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.12.38 (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the political philosophy of liberalism, not about the actions of individuals nor about current events.Rick Norwood (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be locked?

It gets tiring removing the same crap / vandalism virtually every day. JMLofficier 09:40, 24 December 2006

I'll semi-protect, let's see how that goes. - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like a liberal---silencing any discussion that you don't agree with! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.213.194 (talk)

Non-idiots sometimes forget to sign, too. Rick Norwood 19:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism is not discussion. I'm not quite sure, but I think that's about rule 101 about Wikipedia. HunterBlackLuna 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just like a conservative---the best of the best.

Jesus H. Christ. Is this page always this much of a playground for the children? I think semi-protection is very called for here, and hopefully it'll keep the idiot vandals away. Hopefully somebody reliable with some free time on their hands has this one their watch list. I should say somebodies; this looks like it'll take the efforts of several. --Molon Labe 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch People's Party of Freedom and Democracy is plain liberal

I see that the Dutch VVD (People's Party of Freedom and Democracy) is included as a convervative liberal party. I beleive this is not correct, the VVD is a very strong proponent of euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage and same rights of men and women. On such personal freedoms it shares the views of the social-liberal party D66.

It is a strong proponent of both personal freedom and economic freedom and has ruled in governments with both the christian-democrats and the social-democrats. It is liberal, not social-liberal and not conservative liberal.

It is also a member of the Liberal International and the Liberal fraction in the EU parliament.

Hi Marcel4x4, I tend to disagree, academic sources like Andeweg and Irwin's standard work classify the VVD as "conservative liberal" (see Andeweg & Irwin Politics and Governance in the Netherlands p.49). There has been quite some debate on the talk:People's Party for Freedom and Democracy on this subject. Where consensus has been reached on the VVD's characterization as conservative liberal with some qualifications. Please take a look at Conservative liberalism what is exactly meant by this characterization, as it concerns foreign, economic and migration policy and not the medical-ethical and social issues you are refering to.
I also guess, welcome to wikipedia, please take your time to look at wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Furthermore you can sign your posts on talk pages, like these with four tildes (like this ~~~~), so we know who said what. Happy editing! C mon 21:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Green liberalism

I Think it's important to sign also Green liberalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.135.203 (talk)

I'm not really sure what you mean here; could you elaborate? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Green liberals are fanatics who want air to breathe and food to eat. Rick Norwood 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, green liberals are fanatics who want people living in the west to start living like peasants in Africa and want Africans to stop trying to improve their condition(thereby "destroying" the planet). --71.223.253.198 00:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Full moon out tonight fellas? 121.44.237.180 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Liberal newspapers and Category:Liberal weblogs

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Result of the debate was delete. -Tobogganoggin talk 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

66.37.246.250 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Today's liberals are far from believing in individual liberty and individual rights. Campaign finance laws, which ignore the 1st Amendment are applauded by liberals. Gun ownership, which is protected by the 2nd Amendment, is constantly under assault by liberals. High taxes and big government, which are supported by liberals, are in direct conflict with freedom. Individual liberty and freedom is more in line with the Libertarian and Conservative philosophy.

Ok, and conservatives believe in protecting the fourth Amendment with their Patriot Act. Give me a break. (Sorry this sarcastic remark was written by me. I'm not registered here at Wiki. I obviously didn't write the anti-liberal garbage at the top.)

That modern liberals do not believe in individual liberty and individual rights is a lie repeated by Republicans for political gain. "Campaign finance laws" as you call them, are not laws to restrict liberty but to limit bribery, which is endemic in our current political system. Reasonable people have never extended their belief in liberty to include crimes such as theft and bribery. Gun ownership is a subject that divides liberals -- some favor it, some oppose it. Republicans like to pretend that all liberals oppose gun ownership, even liberals who have always favored gun ownership. But, again, it is not instantly obvious that your freedom to own a gun does not conflict with my freedom to live without getting shot. (Personally, it is risk I'm willing to take. I'm a liberal, and favor private ownership of guns, though I do think people convicted of committing a crime with a gun should forfit their right to own a gun.) The US has the lowest taxes (and the biggest debt) in the developed world. Liberals are not in favor of high taxes per se, but in favor of taxes high enough to balance the budget, at least when the economy is booming. As for big government, George Bush has spent more money than all of the Democratic presidents in the history of this country put together. He has asserted that the president is above the law. He has asserted that the federal government has rights formerly given to the states. He has asserted that the federal government has a right to tap your phone, inspect you bank account, arrest and hold you without charge, torture you, and if necessary kill you, all in the name of "homeland security". This is the kind of big government liberals oppose. One of my favorite quotes is by Gerald Ford, "Any government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you've got." Rick Norwood 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

DID you just claim the Patriot Act protected the 4th amendment? HOW?

1) Sign your posts with four tildes.
2) Turn on your sarcasm detector.
Rick Norwood 12:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"That modern liberals do not believe in individual liberty and individual rights is a lie repeated by Republicans for political gain." Liberals believe in some rights.
""Campaign finance laws" as you call them, are not laws to restrict liberty but to limit bribery," Perhaps some people support them out of concern about bribery, but everyone who supports them is, at the very least, egregiously indifferent to liberty. And whatever the intent, the effect is to restrict liberty, not bribery. CFR just makes more hoops to jump through. The rich can afford lawyers to work their way around the laws. Ordinary people just get shut out. CFR is an outrageous violation of basic rights. No one should have to get a license to engage in political speech.
"The US has the lowest taxes (and the biggest debt) in the developed world." That's a dishonest claim. Yes, we have the largest dollar amount, but that's because we have the largest economy. As percentage of GDP, our debt is less than 70%, while Japan's is more than 170%.
"As for big government, George Bush has spent more money than all of the Democratic presidents in the history of this country put together." First of all, the president doesn't spend money, Congress does. Now that Democrats are in control, they're increasing spending even more: http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_releases/2007pressreleases/32207budget.htm . Secondly, according to this site, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3521 , the median federal outlay in terms of GDP under Democracts was 18.6 (and that's starting in 1962, so I'd expect it to be even more including FDR's terms), while in 2001, under Bush, it was 18.4. I suspect that, as before, you are engaging in dishonesty by looking at nominal dollars rather than adjusting for inflation.
"He has asserted that the president is above the law." Just a flat-out lie.
Heqwm (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

GA in zh.wikipedia

Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion

"Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property."

A lot of that is true, but not the part about "established religion." So liberals reject established religion, but many other consider themselves religious. They have rejected, however, the concept that organized religion is infallible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifan999 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Not all liberals reject religion. In fact, most liberals, like most human beings, believe in some religion. The key word here is "established", that is, the belief that the state should establish a religion and require all citizens to believe in that religion and only that religion. This is a belief that liberalism historically rejected. Rick Norwood 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said. Oh wait, that is supposed to say "some" not so. (69.140.166.42 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

New Template: Lib

I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

neoliberalism

The neoliberalism section is poor in quality. Stiglitz is listed as a neo-liberal here, and as an opponent of neoliberalism at neoliberal. The article is almost all criticism of neoliberalism and doesn't even state clearly what neoliberalism is. Pinochet was not a neoliberal, he deferred his economic policy to the Chicago boys who enacted neoliberal policies autonomously. The statement "using government power to enforce opening of foreign markets" is loaded, and "move from a bureaucratic welfare-based society toward a meritocracy acting in the interests of business" is biased or POV. "In actuality, these governments cut funding for education and taxed income more heavily than wealth, which increased the influence of big business and the upper class." is an sweeping generalized empirical claim and needs a citation.

If this article was not locked I would have tagged it POV and Citation Needed. But really it should be rewritten to fix the errors, the bias, the citation, and made to look more like an encyclopedia article than a critical assessment by an opponent of neoliberalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.93.17.138 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

"The Chicago boys took a lot of heat for agreeing to work for Pinochet. Like most generals who seize power, he initially ran the economy as a centrally directed, military-type system. Only after this approach failed did he, in desperation, turn to the free market policies advocated by the Chicagoans. In retrospect, their willingness to work for a cruel dictator and start a different economic approach was one of the best things that happened to Chile." -- <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3550422.html">LATIN AMERICA: What Latin America Owes to the "Chicago Boys" By Gary S. Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist.</a>

Now for POV: If you are going to call Pinochet "neoliberal," then make sure that you call Hitler a socialist and be truthful about the fact that Fascism was always a left wing ideology, not a right wing one. Nazis were National Socialists. And before you start barking about government and business conspiring with each other as being Fascism, please examine the role that the French government plays in its own corporations such as "Total." Hitler was nothing more than a Nationalist Socialist Dictator. Leftism has caused more pain and suffering and wars in the world over the past 100 years than any other ideology. It amazes me that hippies to this day drive around in cute Hitler-mobiles and praise Che.76.215.47.190 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

More sources tag

The More sources template was recently added to this article. I worry that it was an attempt to discredit this article for POV reasons. The article has comparably many sources (27 books listed, and 19 citations), the conservatism article, has 11 books and 9 citations, and no "More sources" tag. This shouldn't be a reason per se to remove the tag, but in relation to most wikipedia articles, this one is doing comparatively fine I'd say. Debivort 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has an opinion on this? Guess I'll be removing the tag soon. Debivort 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Polish section

The first two authors in the Polish section are just works written in English (by Milton Friedman and David Boaz) and translated to Polish, which aren't relevant in the English wikipedia. The last don't appear in any way to be authorities on these topics. As such I'm just removing the whole section. Scott.wheeler 21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Should rude talk be deleted?

The question seems to have arisen whether rude talk should be deleted. Note that we are not talking about common vandalism, e.g. "My teacher sucks," which obviously should be deleted, but rather a rude expression of an unpopular point of view, "All liberals are liars."

My inclination is not to delete, because the line between deleting rudeness and censorship is hard to draw. I would rather err on the side of giving even rude people their say than risk censorship of unpopular views.

I am not going to restore the section again, because now two people disagree with me. Certainly, I think the section is worthless, and I am bending over backwards in the "defend your right to say it" direction.

Comments on deleting talk? Rick Norwood 14:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the question isn't resolved at the policy level - I have mixed feelings but lean toward not cutting it out since it doesn't target any editor specifically. Debivort 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It is just wikipedia:vandalism which can be easily deleted. The fact that liberalism is contested subject makes it more difficult, but the principle remains: vandalism can and must be deleted. C mon 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of a vandal is to destroy. The purpose of the deleted section was to express an opinion. The opinion was expressed rudely, but it seems to me it comes under the rules for rudeness rather than under the rules for vandalism. Rick Norwood 13:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Liberalism vs Totalitarianism

This section's first line needs to be edited. I can't tell, from reading it (I had to click around a bit to figure it out), what term G---- (an Italian whose actual name escapes me) invented: liberalism, totalitarianism, or facism (it looked like the section had been edited sloppily, so this was a possibility, in spite not not appearing nearby). And since I'm not a well-established member (what happened to "anyone can edit," up at the top of the page, by the way?), I can't do it myself.

The explained definition of new liberals is false outside America

You indicate that you have been across the many various kinds of liberalism across the world, and how liberalism is being understanded elsewhere than the U.S. Yet this article suggests that new liberals advocate to welfare, taxation and intervention in the market. But this understanding is exclusive for America. New liberals as well, are interpreted otherwise on the other side of the Atlantic, as a more moderate degree of classic liberalism, just as well as socialism too has been modernized from it's original form in the newer times we've passed into.

Go ahead and change the article per your understanding then. Debivort 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Modern" Liberalism?

Where did this description come from? Modern seems a very POV description to me. It implies that the others are somewhat old and outdated. And what about the neo-liberlas that came after, should we call them the "modern moderns" and as opposed to the old ones? Social Liberalism is a much better term and the one retained on the relevant wikipage. 193.132.242.1 10:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, modern liberalism is not appropriated. The correct term is "social liberalism", since classical liberalism (neoliberalism) is also "modern". Ithaka84 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nikodemos edit

Nikodemos has made a large number of changes to the article without discussing them here first. Some of the changes seem improvements to me, some not, but all are unilateral and unreferenced. In his explanation for the changes, Nikodemos writes "(what separates liberalism from other ideologies is not that it advocates liberty, but that is places liberty above everything else)". This is clearly false. If liberals placed liberty above everything else, they would favor opening the prisons, but few if any liberals would advocate this.

I would like some other opinions on Nikodemos' edit. Should it be kept, modified, or reverted? Rick Norwood 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that particular edit by Nikodemos about liberty as the highest political end is true, though it does require some qualification. Nevertheless, the pre-Nikodemos edit offers a more general definition of liberalism, which I myself prefer. But otherwise, his edit is pretty okay, except, maybe about liberalism having only two major thoughts. __earth (Talk) 14:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that liberty is the highest political end. That doesn't imply that liberals are against prisons or other forms of punishments. Liberty is defined later in the article and cannot be equated to absolute liberty. Ones liberty is limited by the liberty of the other. Electionworld Talk? 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If liberty were really the highest political end, then liberalism would be anarchy, under which everyone is free to do exactly as they please. As soon as we allow for a government that limits the freedom of some citizens, even if it is in the interest of preserving the freedom of other citizens, then we acknowledge that even liberals accept that certain values, such as public safety, outweigh freedom. No freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is an oft cited example. Rick Norwood 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your example doesn't contradict that liberty is the highest political end of liberalism. Absolute liberty is not the highest political end of liberalism, but liberty is. That doesn't imply that there are no limits to liberty, since the liberty for others is a justification for limits to liberalism. Electionworld Talk? 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What Electionworld says, basically sounds correct to me. But Rick Norwood is right in pointing out that the present wording can easily be misinterpreted. Couldn't we follow John Rawls in stating:
...the most important political goal, only to be limited for the sake of liberty itself.
Anarchists would consider any imposed limit as incompatible with liberty, other non liberals would see more grounds to limit personal liberty. And the many currents of liberalism of course differ in what they consider part of personal liberty, so it seems NPOV to me without getting too verbose.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 11:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bloated bibliography

Am I the only one who thinks almost all of the bibliography section should go? No only is it excessively long, much of it is also exceedingly irrelevant. (I mean, come on -- who comes to an encyclopedia article to find a list of books in Dutch on the topic ... or a random sampling of the no doubt thousands of articles or dissertations on the subject.) I'd just assume remove the whole section. Relevant references should be included in the citations. Scott.wheeler 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine a reader in Amsterdam might be interested in books in Dutch on the topic. Wikipedia is international. I'm not clear about what you think would be gained by deleting the bibliography. Rick Norwood 14:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
A list for further reading seems quite useful to me. This does not depend on the works listed being referenced in the article. I very much doubt whether the present sample is random, but it arguably could be improved. Deletion however seems no improvement to me.
Of course, Wikipedia is international. For this reason there are Wikipedia projects in different languages. Each of these projects is international too. Dutch speaking people are not just found in the vicinity of Amsterdam. If each language version does only list the books in the same language, you would have to use the link to nl:wikipedia to see Dutch language books. The advantage would be that the average reader does not end up with an enormous bibliography, mostly in languages he doesn't command. The effort to keep all these seperate bibliographies up to date would be considerable. As a reader you know which languages you command and you can take your pick of the links presented. So I would propose transferring the non English bibliographies to the corresponding Wikipedias (adding links if they did not already exist). In this spirit I have added the Dutch books to the article in nl.wikipedia. If my proposal would be accepted, they could be deleted from the article.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would list an English book on liberalism in a Dutch wikipedia article. Books in German, French , Dutch or any other language can be an important reference, so I think there is no reason to exclude books in other languages than English. It even might be good for anglophones to read relevant works in other languages and use them contributing to entries in Wikipedia. Furthermore, if deletion of literature in other languages should become a wikipolicy, it should be discussed elsewhere.
Another question is the amount of literature mentioned. I am neutral on that question. Electionworld Talk? 12:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Some clarification on my part may be in order.
  1. I am not proposing a wikipolicy, I was only answering the question raised above. Whether my arguments are valid for other pages or projects too, I don't know.
  2. Using books in other languages as a source for references is not the subject I was discussing.
  3. I would agree that reading works in other languages is valuable. My point is: how can we help readers best in this respect.
  4. There are works on liberalism in dozens of different languages. The number of people able to read all languages in which at least one book on liberalism has been written might be very close to zero. So it may be nearly impossible to make the comparisons needed to find out which books are most valuable to this article. My concern is the lack of a reasonable way to manage the amount of literature in languages the majority of the editors do not to understand.
If my proposal constitutes a violation of guidelines, please let me know. That was definitely not my intention.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some more clarification from my side:
  • I'm not against listing definitive works on a topic that are in other languages, but general reading material seems out of place.
  • This isn't ethnocentricism; I'm multilingual and don't live in an English speaking country.0
  • I don't know of any specfic guideline on languages for additional (print) reading, but the guideline on external links (which are similar in spirit) in non-English languages is here.
My primary objection is that the further reading is not even really a bibliography or a list of authoritative works (which would be fine), but just a collection of writings on a topic which has a derth of material available. The current list is probably of less relevance than a Google or Amazon search on the topic. There's for instance nothing listed from Locke, but the PhD dissertation of an unknown U. Pitt student from three years ago is there. The writings in, for instance, Dutch, are not definitive works on liberalism; they're recent publications.
Scott.wheeler 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Something happened recently with the bibliography list, may of the existing books were removed, a lot of others were added. I think we should limit the list to some books giving a descriptive overview of liberalism. These books can be in other languages, but must have an added value. For each book a short explanation why the book is listes should be added. I have to think about the present books in other languages, but I know one of them has certainly an added value. This book would be listed by me as follows:

  • Gall, Lothar (1985). Liberalismus (3rd ed. ed.). Königstein im Taunus: Athenäum. ISBN 3-7610-7255-4. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) (German) This book gives an overview of the development of liberal thought in various countries around the world.

Most of the present books in the list should be deleted. Electionworld Talk? 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all I was the one who personally added the bibliography section to this article... I do not coincide with the suggestion(expressed above) that the list is capricious or arbitrary. It is not. The criteria that I took into account in deciding which books to take into account include: (1) recently published (after 2000); (2) books that are collections of essays; the reason for this is that they provide a wider range of views on (this highly contentious) subject. (3) I decided to include books by both legal scholars and philosophers to provide two different approaches to the subject of liberalism. (4) the PHD dissertations are from up-and-coming promising young scholars from eminent universities. PS.. I deleted the foreign language list of books. I believe they belong in the liberalism article of their respective language. Rubbersoul20 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that those are appropriate criterion for inclusion. If they were used as source material for the article they would be fine as references, but I feel for these books much like I would for a collection of links. See for instance, "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". En lieu of an appropriate guideline, I'll point out that I've not stumbled across any other article with this style of additional reading material.
At the least I feel like it's fair to say that this specific type of material (i.e. non-classical texts) are not relevant in foreign languages. If there are no additional objections in the next couple of days I'll go ahead and re-remove those.
Scott.wheeler 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you take the time and look up each of the books on the list before you lay judgement upon them. If you believe any one of them is innapropriate go ahead and point it out. I have personally read many of the books on the list and I doubt that you will find a more thorough list of secondary literature on the subject of this size anywhere else. A should add that I used the WorldCat search engine, which as you might know searches the library catalogs of many of the worlds libraries. Again, the criteria for inclusion to the 'collection of essays' section were: (1) recently published (after 2000); (2) collections of essays; (3) books that are available in over 50 libraries around the world. As for the 'prominent law scholars' section, I personally searched out all the books written by law scholars from the most eminent universities in the english-speaking world: (yale, harvard, nyu, uc berkeley, stanford, u chicago, columbia, oxford, cambridge): and then chose those books having to do with liberalism. The same goes for the philosophy section. :: The PHD dissertations and the articles were not as deliberately chosen as the above mentioned lists. I am disposed to having them removed, if only for the sake of conciseness. --Rubbersoul20 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not limit to books published after 2000 and do not limit to scholars from the english-speaking world. A good book from another language can be as relevant for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, before it becomes a bibliography sec (which WIkipedia isn't, might be an interesting new project), there should be a justification for each of the books to be included, so please add with each of the books listed the reason why it is relevant for this entry. Electionworld Talk? 06:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


I limited the list to books published after 2000 only for the collection of essays section. Scholarship tends to be cumulative and much of this "recent" work integrates, revises and builds upon work that was written previously. If I had included books published before 2000 the list would have been 20 times greater. I obviously agree with you that not only english books on the subject matter. The list does include foreign-language books and essays that have been translated into english; the inclusion of these might not be as large as that of english-langauge books and essays but then again that is because this is after all an english-language article on liberalism. I think the burden of proof rests with you. Why don't you search out each one of the books listed and point out if there is any material that is sub-par, inappropriate, or irrelevant.--Rubbersoul20 13:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Recently published (after 2000)? I wholeheartedly disagree. The meaning of the term shifted very much, so this will inevitably bring a systemic bias. A more sensible criterion could be the existence of the page about the book in Wikipedia. If it exists, the book is clearly notable per WP:N. Colchicum 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If you had but read the list of books instead of conjecturing as to the contents you would think differently.--Rubbersoul20 15:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I really think the burden of proof is with the editor adding books, since he thinks it is worthwile to add the book. I cannot say anything about a book i didn't read. Electionworld Talk? 20:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You said it yourself: "I cannot say anything about a book I didn't read." So instead of questioning the integrity of the books listed why don't you read them? ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat (The burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.)--Rubbersoul20 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful Latin, but this is not a legal procedure. The one who adds information to Wikipedia is the one who has to proof. That's is you at the moment. BTW, visit Wikipedia:Notability (books) for the criteria. Electionworld Talk? 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The question at issue is not whether to add more books but rather whether to remove the ones that are already there. --Rubbersoul20 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Those books were addes just recentyly during the holiday period. Compare the present version with the version of 19 july. BTW, with the addition of these books many other books which were for a long time in the list were deleted. So the burden of proof remains with the person who added these books.
Generally I would say that all books on the list (old and new ones) should be accompanied with a justification, see my example before on the book of Lothar Gall. Electionworld Talk? 06:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I believe your comments are motivated by resentment at the fact that up until now you were completely unaware that such a rich secondary literature existed on the subject of liberalism. Search the books up on amazon.com and read the book descriptions; that, short of actually reading the books for yourself, should give you an idea of the contents. I do not have the time nor the motivation to explicate the value and relevance of the literature in question.--Rubbersoul20 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remain friendly and assume good faith. I am aware that there is much other literature available, but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to give huge lists of books. BTW, could you please explain me why you deleted the following books:

Some of them were books I added in the past (Ackerman, Bobbio, Hall). Electionworld Talk? 09:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Either because they were not (1) published recently; (2) collection of essays; (3) written by either a prominent legal scholar or philosopher (from a selection of 20 or so institutions).... incidentally, bruce ackerman's book is still up there.--Rubbersoul20 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But these criteria were made up by you and not discussed before. It is not a general policy to exclude elder books. Furthermore, who added the elder French books? Sorry, I saw the deletion of Bruce Ackerman's book but missed that it was re-added. Yes I do not know all the books, but could you explain which of these books fit in the theme of the article. Are not some of these books concentrated on Liberalism in the USA? I still do not know why these books are relevant for the article. You added them soy you should explain. Electionworld Talk? 21:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the selections need to be (individually) justified. This section on the whole is non-standard for a WP article and it's obvious that there are differences of opinion on its content. I feel like on the whole you've reasonably answered that these books fit the criteria that you find important; you've not answered why that is important to the article. In that a section of this length, and moreso with this sort of content, is not common in WP I feel like asking for such justification is well within reason.
I still don't understand why collections of literature in other languages which are not pivotal to the development of liberalism should be included here. Any takers on that one? Scott.wheeler 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You may re-add the older books if you wish. The reason I excluded them is for reasons of space. Many of the collection of essays books include a wide range of essays by international scholars. Also, many of the essays included in these collections date back to the early part of the 20th century, although, it is true, a majority of them were written after the 1970s.--Rubbersoul20 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please anwer the first question of Scott.wheeler. The selection need to be individually justified. BTW, I do not see objections to the last two books you added, since the titles suggest what the justification is. Electionworld Talk? 07:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Visit these links to read a short description of the books on the list.

  • http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-New-Century-E-J-Dionne/dp/0520250710
  • http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Old-Social-Philosophy-Policy/dp/0521703050
  • http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Liberty-Classical-Liberalism-Today/dp/1598130021
  • http://www.amazon.com/Society-Liberalism-Political-Development-American/dp/1558494936
  • http://www.amazon.com/Autonomy-Challenges-Liberalism-New-Essays/dp/0521839513
  • http://www.amazon.com/Neoliberalism-Critical-Reader-Alfredo-Saad-Filho/dp/0745322980
  • http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Classical-Ludwig-Von-Mises/dp/0865975868/ref=sr_1_2/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754683&sr=1-2
  • http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Feminist-Liberalism-Constructions/dp/0742512037/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754718&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Political-Liberalism-Variations-Shaun-Young/dp/0791461750/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754741&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Belonging-Nationalism-Liberalism-Pluralism/dp/0739108263/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754764&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Achievement-American-Liberalism-Deal-Legacies/dp/0231112130/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754792&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Racial-Liberalism-Politics-Urban-America/dp/0870136690/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754813&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Searching-New-Liberalism-Perspectives-Prospects/dp/0889627975/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754833&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Liberalism-Millennium-Elvind-Hovden/dp/0333724755/ref=sr_1_2/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754852&sr=1-2
  • http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Critical-Concepts-Political-Science/dp/0415223571/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754871&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/New-Liberalism-Reconciling-Liberty-Community/dp/0521790832/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754892&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Liberalism-War-Rethinking-Democratic/dp/1555879551/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187754914&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Neoliberalism-Institutional-Analysis/dp/0691070873/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187755002&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Edinburgh-Companion-Contemporary-Liberalism/dp/1579583393
  • http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Political-Liberalism-Studies-Philosophy/dp/0847687937/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187755080&sr=1-1
  • http://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Liberalism-East-West/dp/9639116548/ref=sr_1_1/103-1513708-2463032?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187755104&sr=1-1
  • http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=9780754610533
  • http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780281053612&itm=1
  • http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780792366409&itm=1--Rubbersoul20 14:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

SO you want us to do your work. It is easy, you add, so you justify. Electionworld Talk? 20:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to search out good reviews/brief descriptions for each of the books. I'll post them up whenever they're available. --Rubbersoul20 22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any liberal encyclopedias or wikis out there?

I only know of one encyclowiki with a political slant, and it's the conservative Conservapedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're talking in one ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.247.173 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia isn't conservative, it's Christianist. There's a difference.Heqwm (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Can the lead-in text be improved?

The current lead-in text reads as so:

This article discusses liberalism as a worldwide political ideology, its roots and development, and some of its many modern-day variations, including American, European, classical, and modern traditions. The local meaning of the term "liberalism" may differ greatly between countries; see the entries listed in Liberalism worldwide. For other uses, see Liberal (disambiguation).

The first sentence is rather long-winded, while lead-in text on other pages is almost always quite concise. The second sentence links, but the primary meaning of the word for the primary userbase (the United States) is modern American liberalism, which is even omitted from the lead-in text to "Liberalism worldwide", with the real article squirreled away in corners of userboxes and buried at the ends of longwided paragraphs. Even if you arrive at Liberalism in the United States, there's still another link to go before you arrive at the article Modern liberalism in the United States.

I realise that Wikipedia policy requires a worldwide viewpoint, but I imagine countless people looking up "liberal" after hearing the term in the media and being confused or rebuffed by this maze of links. Can't a better lead-in text be written? --Jonathan Drain 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This was a text developped in a long time. One could make an effort, but I doubt it will help. BTW, since when is there a primary userbase. This is not an American encyclopedia, it is not an British encyclopedia, it is a worldwide English-language encyclopedia in a world where English is the mian lingua franca. Electionworld Talk? 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Right to Life a Neo-Con View

... there are some rights that all liberals support, including rights to life, liberty, and property.

What about abortion?? I think that's a universal lib view. The right to life ideas are held by fascist conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.247.173 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So the right to life is a liberal idea until it's held by conservatives, then it's a fascist one?rasqual 12:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The usage in the classic quotation is different from the usage in the modern slogan. Rick Norwood 14:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of propagating misinformation, if you do your homework you will learn that Fascism was actually a left wing ideology. Hitler was a socialist, and hated Communism partly because it was created by a Jew, Karl Marx. He disliked the fact that all the socialists at the time were turning Communist. What do you think Nazi means? All that Fascism is is socialism mixed with nationalism and dictatorship. As for "Right to Life," this is in our Declaration of Independence. What constitutes life, when it starts, etc., is something that the society should decide, not 12 unelected people on a bench. This is what conservatives believe, and what our whole nation believed at one time.76.215.47.190 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Would you add Azerbaijani link to this article? http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalizm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydyol (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

governmental neutrality

This section is about how liberal governments aren't supposed to tell people how to live a good life. It's said that the US declaration of independence conforms to such neutrality by allowing the pursuit of happiness. However, this is not a neutral stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.112.162 (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about liberalism as a philosophy and a political theory. Naturally, when that philosophy is applied in the real world in various countries and at various times, it will be applied in different ways. There is also the problem that not everyone who claims to be liberal really is. Rick Norwood 13:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography, Revisited (moving to a separate article)

Just starting this in a new header since it's been a while and I didn't want this to go unnoticed. At this point, with the continued additions, the bibliography is not just huge, but it would actually be quite long for a separate article. Unless there are major objections I'll be moving the content to Additional reading on Liberalism. (For what it's worth, the most recent additions are more in line with what I would have expected to see there in the first place.)

Scott.wheeler 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


I agree with what you have said. For that reason I have created the Additional reading on Liberalism article you suggested. I have however been recently notified that such an article is un-encyclopedic and that it does not conform to the standards of wikipedia. I therefore find myself in a rut. Any suggestions? --Rubbersoul20 (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The objections there are similar to my own on it being part of the liberalism article, but because of discussion here I'm going to remove the prod tag and suggest that if the person that put the prod there wants to follow through on deletion that this go to AfD (where a link to the previous discussion could be given for context).
To be honest though, I still feel like the current list in this article is way, way too long. It's still longer than a lot of full-fledged articles and I feel like just having the foreign language content at the new article is more likely to get it deleted. If this does go to AfD at least as a side effect it will generate some discussion from those not involved with this article. Scott.wheeler (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a separate article could work if done right. Liberalism as political ideology is defined by the texts that originally advocated or described it. As such, some texts are important and encyclopedic because they define liberalism. Instead of Additional reading on Liberalism, maybe you could have Defining Liberalist literature worldwide. Carewolf (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alan.  :-) Yep, we've been through that. My original objection to the list was based on these not being defining texts. I later found Contributions to liberal theory which is pretty close to what you're suggesting. Scott.wheeler (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"Liberalism as political ideology is defined by the texts that originally advocated or described it." (Alan) I would have to disagree with the aforementioned. 'Liberalism' is not something that was set in stone once and for all in the distant past. Rather, it is something that is constantly being reshaped by the ongoing discourses surrounding it. It seems to me that when it comes to liberalism it is treacherous waters to seek to establish a canon: liberalism being not an agreed-upon set of pre-established doctrines but a climate of opinion and practices. --Rubbersoul20 (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How about moving Liberalism/Additional reading on Liberalism‎ to List of books about liberalism? AecisBrievenbus 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Latvian under languages

Please add this under languages lv:Liberālisms, thanks. 91.142.9.194 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional reading on Liberalism

Following the AFD of Additional reading on liberalism, the list of sources has been moved to a subpage of this article - Liberalism/Additional reading. This should allow it to continue to be useful as a tool to improve this article while keeping it out of the standard "article space". Neıl ☎ 13:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah - I won't add it to the article myself, but there's no rules about not linking to it somewhere in a "see also" section or something similar. I leave it up to you guys as to whether that's appropriate. Neıl ☎ 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

economic coercion and general welfare

Economic coertion is not the same as exonomic constraints. Everyone is subject to economic constraints -- in the long run, we can't spend more than we earn. Economic coertion exists when the rich give the poor the choice "obey or starve". Less severe examples are bosses who require their workers to vote for a certain candidate or who fire whistle blowers.

The pharse "general welfare" appears in the preamble to the US consitution, and refers to the duty of the government to promote the welfare of all people (the general) rather than only the welfare of well-connected people.

Rick Norwood (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When a boss does as you said, coercion exists. And, importantly, one can identify a tangible coercer. In what you describe as "obey or starve" the same is true, assuming there is a tangible coercer who would impose starvation (say, withhold food from a prisoner, or imprison someone for the purpose of starving them because they refused to obey). Nothing like this exists in the subject at hand.

A person can be coerced by starvation, or alternatively, a person may starve due to their inability to obtain food while essentially free (like the videos we have all seen from Africa from time to time). This difference is huge. It is the difference between starvation (tragic) and murder by starvation (tragic and criminal). And the difference is easily identifiable: there is a tangible coercer or there is not. To say the "rich" give the "poor" this choice and that it amounts to coercion assumes that the "poor" have no possible way of obtaining food other than as a gift from the rich. It implicitly assumes that the food supply is fixed and that the poor producing his own food is not possible. I think what you are outlining amounts to "not sharing."

If you want to replace "coercion" with something like "the failure of the rich to share" then I think we could agree nicely. The word coercion is just way too strong, and anything but politically neutral.

As for general welfare:

I am familiar with the preamble. Its meaning has been widely debated. But here we debate the definition of Liberalism, not the meaning of the Constitution.

The meaning of the word general, I agree, does refer to all the people. And you yourself have said, the "well-connected" should not be singled out by a government for special benefits. It should be trivial for you to agree that if the "poorly-connected" are singled out for special benefits, it also should not be called "general" welfare. In the article, the phrase we debate is followed by a litany of references to current government programs that single out the poor for special benefits.

We are not debating whether these programs ought to exist or not. That would be a political debate. Here we should discuss the meaning of the word "general."

The word general means general. To invoke the Constitution at this point in the article invites a whole other debate, and probably should occur elsewhere in the encyclopedia. It smacks of "slipping something in" that doesn't necessarily belong here, which is a big part of why I changed it.

Rogimoto (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The way libertarians use words is not the way most people use words, and larding articles with libertarian usages only obscures the point for non-libertarian readers.
At the present time, in the United States, the Liberals and the Socialists have formed an alliance, as have the Conservatives and the Libertarians. But this article is not about the situation in the United States today, but rather about what "liberalism" means in the larger, historical context.
The solution to most of the points on which we disagree is to delete the disputed sentence entirely. None of them say anything that is not elsewhere in the article. In fact, reading through the article from beginning to end, what strikes me most is that it makes the same points over and over, with each side trying to get in the last word. I've cut considerable repetition. Both sides have their views represented. There is no need to beat the reader over the head. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to make the article more neutral. I don't have any major disagreement at this time

Your accusation of "larding" is a bit over the top, given that we only discussed 2 words. And it implies that your preferred wording is just fine, but mine is larding. That's neither intellectually fair, nor accurate.

You are one smart feller, but even idiots like me know stuff, like words mean what they mean.

Rogimoto (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Words mean what they mean." I totally agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about libertarians, but in this discussion, I have advocated for the literal, dictionary use of words. If one wants to discuss the way "most" people use words, where shall we look; the dictionary or the ivory tower? Rogimoto (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The implication of your "ivory tower" comment is that educated people use words one way, while ordinary people use words another way. This is certainly true, but the educated use is apt to be much closer to the dictionary use than the usage of ordinary people. Webster's Dictionary tried to publish a non-prescriptive dictionary, which reported (correctly) that ordinary people use "imply" as a synonym for "infer". The trouble with this is that it makes it harder for people to understand one another. Better, I think, to stick to the usage in, say, Merriam-Webster. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The "implication" that you took didn't exist. Ivory tower is a straight-forward reference to a disconnected perspective. But I guess what you really wanted to say is how educated you think you are. God, I hope you got it out of your system. It was awkward reading as you embarrassed yourself so badly.

Thanks for your little dictionary anecdote. It didn't apply to our discourse, of course, but it brought back memories of junior high school. You probably could have looked up "ivory tower" in either of your 2 dictionaries and significantly improved your understanding. While you're at it, look up the spelling of coercion, my educated friend. (I NEVER mention people's online spelling, but I just couldn't help myself, you being so educated and all. I'm sure you'll forgive me this one transgression.)

Now that I've had to help you understand my reference to the "ivory tower," it is easy to see what allowed you to think you could state how "most" people use words without a hint of evidence or knowledge (that's what educated people use, isn't it?). You were willing to abuse the language and then hide behind a truly mindless "most people" excuse.

You might want to look up "humility" in Merriam-Webster OR Webster's. Either one will be very helpful to you.

Rogimoto (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my spelling. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I will always be here for you. Rogimoto (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberalism/Archive_7&oldid=1136905025"