Talk:Social liberalism/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Social liberalism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Implimentation - Europe

I have started a section on the implimentation of social liberalism in Europe beginning with Germany. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Mcduarte2000 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks for adding the picture. I added a final paragraph to the section. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Improving the Article

The article was considered to be B class by 3 reviewers. Any suggestions on how to improve it to a higher status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcduarte2000 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The implementation section needs a subsection for North American and the UK subsection needs a paragraph on reforms made after 1945. (I can add this in.) There should also be sections about social liberalism within modern liberal parties, modern social liberal thinkers (e.g., Dewey and Rawls) and how neoliberalism has rolled back many of the social liberal reforms.

The "Comparisons with other political philosophies" section should be deleted. This all belongs in the other sections. The comparison with classical liberalism for example is properly addressed in Origins and Implimentation sections. Material in the Europe and United States sections (near the end) should also be placed in other sections.

It is also important to keep sections brief with lots of links because most of the topics discussed are detailed at length in other articles.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect to those involved, the first (and thus most visible) reference is historic-revisionism (Richardson/Reinner), for the two reasons noted below, and possibly has other flaws. For the reasons in the book reviews that immediately follow, Richardson/Reinner's book is most obviously also a POV-pushing, activist book with an incentive to MISREPRESENT the forms of liberalism that the authors are "assaulting," e.g. they try to assault neoliberalism:

As proudly described on one of the author's own websites [1]:

This book is a useful introduction (and antidote) to the depressing power and prestige of neoliberal ideology, its origins, sources, power bases and outcomes. Richardson provides a stinging, forceful and convincing assault on the bastions of this modern orthodoxy.... enlightening reading."——Duncan S. A. Bell, Millennium

"An accessible, important, and consistently thought-provoking book on contemporary liberalism in international relations. Professor Richardson's devastating critique of global neoliberalism identifies the powerful forces in the current international order — and argues that a radical alternative for social justice and inclusiveness can be found within a wider understanding of liberalism."—David Long

Thus, see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion I'm merely changing from an encyclopedic tone (inappropriate for one prof who makes his bias clear), to noting that it's only Richardson's opinion.

It would be fine like that, especially as people add sources of all varying biases to this article, but the ref to Richardson should eventually be removed entirely due to the issues below: i.e. he's not only a biased source, he's a factually-incorrect source...

Something specific that Richardson/Rienner certainly ARE misrepresenting, whether these misrepresentations are a conscious attempt by the authors or not (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws#Check_multiple_sources see also "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" on the same page):

negative freedom says: "The concept of negative liberty refers to freedom from interference by other people". positive freedom says: "Inherent to positive liberty is the idea that liberty is the ability of citizens to participate in their government". Combine those concepts with this quote in the Social Liberalism article, which paraphrases Richardson as claiming that Classical Liberals only recognize Negative Freedom, and it is stated with 100% absolutism: "Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper"; I changed it to communicate a less absolutist position (see the History page), because: It's folly to say that Classical Liberals don't believe the government has any "positive rights," i.e. that would mean Classical Liberals don't believe in "ability of citizens to participate" in government or vote, and that Classical Liberals believe only in the right to non-"interference"... but it's not like Classical Liberals didn't/don't expect more than that, such as wanting the government to provide _some_ basic services like road-building or defensive military. Thus, Richardson is engaging in a false_dichotomy#Black_and_white_thinking type of logical fallacy. For Classical Liberals to not desire "positive freedom," as Social Liberals do (just _less_ than Social Liberals do), would mean that they are essentially anarchists, but Classical Liberals mostly believed in minarchy (particularly in Anglo-America, which is the region that Richardson/Reinner are speaking of on pp. 36-7. English philosophers like JS Mill influencing the Revolutionaries in America.), not anarchy (e.g. See the first few paragraphs of classical liberalism, but who among us doesn't know that with the influence of Locke etc, America's founders didn't attempt anarchy once their revolt as successful, they established a federalist, minarchist Republic, where _governments_ built roads, etc, and government-funded roads is a positive freedom, not negative).

Many Classical Liberals even openly advocated the "positive freedom" of social welfare; I'll use Bastiat as an example here (but of course I'd agree, they only advocate Social Welfare in lesser amounts than Social Liberals, and often only for able-bodied adults etc): "If socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the state should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better." So, things just aint so black-and-white as the first paragraph of this wikipedia page contended...Classical and Social Liberals are often a difference of degrees, not of types.

So I'd suggest that instead of taking the word of Richardson (biased source), compare his claims to, ah, historical realities. These historic realities are fairly common knowledge (and/or which have cited sources which meet WP:RS, on many many Wikipedia pages). 216.188.254.2 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to your questions below. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

POV edits

Introman, what do you mean by saying "removing unsourced" in your edit to the lead. The lead was clearly sourced to Contending liberalisms in world politics and your edits distort the meaning expressed in the original text. If you want to edit this article then you should discuss major changes, bearing in mind that other editors have agreed to the phrasing in the lead. Incidentally, you added in (also called modern liberalism and new liberalism) but the lead already states Social liberalism is also called new liberalism(as it was originally termed), modern liberalism, and left-liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "a reformulation of classical liberalism, rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom," which had no source attached. 'Contending liberalisms in world politics was sourcing the next sentence. Where are you saying the sentence I deleted is sourced? Synonyms should be placed at the top of the article, because NPOV requires that we don't show preference to one synonym over the other. It's POV to relegate synonyms to later in the intro, unless they're very rare synonyms. Introman (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way this article should be called "Modern liberalism," as that's the more common term than "social liberalism" or any of the other synonyms. Introman (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean it is unsourced? The source is stated as Contending Liberalisms in World Politics, James L. Richardson; Lynne Rienner (2001), (pp. 36-37). It sources both sentences. And no it is not normally called Modern liberalism which is why the article is called Social liberalism. It was agreed that the synonyms should be placed later in the article because they are not commonly used, and are also used to refer to different concepts. BTW what are your sources? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Which page is it sourced on? I don't see it. Can you give a quote? And of course it is normally called Modern liberalism. Just do a Google search. That's easily verified. Just because the article is called "social liberalism" instead of "modern liberalism" doesn't mean that whoever named it that did their homework. They didn't. Just as you haven't. Introman (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's on pages 36-37. If you wait, I will see if I can find the exact quote. Yes I did my homework. The term modern liberalism is rarely used because the theories were developed in the 19th century. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A summary of what it said which is discussed in Archive 1 is ...this did not mean an abandonment of liberalism but its reformulation....the insistence on the minimal state...no longer promoted liberal values but became obstacles to their realization...dehumanizing tendencies of unrestrained capitalism...the ideal of true freedom. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So you claim that it's supported by the source, yet you haven't seen the source. Gotcha. Introman (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

These two pages do not appear in Google Books, but you can find them on Questia. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No you didn't do you homework. Or simply you don't know how to use Google search. Would you like an explanation on how to do this? Introman (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) You seem to misunderstand what I said. I read the source from Contending Liberalisms in World Politics, which is available on Questia in its entirety. The book is also available on Google Books but pp. 36-37 is not included. So you have now altered the text of the article so that it no longer agrees with the source, and of course you have not read the pages in the source.

Social liberalism is the most commonly used definition for this subject and the other terms are not synonyms although they overlap. Modern liberalism for example may include Modern liberalism in the United States which incorporated some aspects of social liberalism but is not synonymous. New liberalism was the term originally used a hundred years ago but is rarely used today. Left-liberalism opposed the welfare state that was supported by right-liberalism, although some left-liberals advocated a welfare state based on liberal principals as opposed to the welfare state supported by right-liberals that was based on conservative principles. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Social liberalism and modern liberalism are two terms for exactly the same thing. The U.S. version of modern liberalism is a regional form of modern liberalism, in other words, a regional form of social liberalism. Your statement "Modern liberalism MAY include Modern liberalism in the United States..." makes no sense (i.e. "may"). OF COURSE it's it includes modern liberalism in the United States. There is no "may" about it. Modern liberalism is modern liberalism. About your source, what page # in the Questia source and can you give a quote? I don't see it ASSERTING anywhere that it is a reformulation of classical liberalism. Introman (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now told you three times in this section (which I will now highlight) that the source is pp. 36-37. If you go to page 36 you will find a section called "Social liberalism" where it says this did not mean an abandonment of liberalism but rather its reformulation. Then turn to page 38 where the section "The American Exception" explains why social liberalism was never adopted in the United States. Again if you wish to change the article you should provide sources and not change text so that it does not reflect the original text. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you leaving out the first part of the sentence? You conveniently start quoting later in the sentence. I'm not going to allow you to misrepresent the source. It doesn't assert what you are saying it's asserting. You're making it look that way by leaving words out in the sentence. I hope it's not intentional and that you just don't have access to the source. Be honest. Introman (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Alright, I've now typed out the full paragraph and I see how you may have found the sentence ambiguous.

Social Liberalism

The reaction against laissez-faire prompted a new direction in liberal thought in Britain and Germany in the later nineteenth century and, to a much lesser extent, in France and the United States. This amounted to a major rethinking of liberalism in the light of the conservative and socialist critiques of laissez-faire. Accepting part of the critique, the social liberals (the English "new liberals") maintained that this did not mean an abandonment of liberalism but rather its reformulation. Under the conditions of industrial society the insistence on the minimal state and the view that trade unions obstructed economic progress no longer promoted liberal values but became obstacles to their realization.

If you find any ambiguity with the statement about reformulation, it is made clear on page 45: The first major reformulation of liberalism since that of Hobhouse, John Rawl's "A Theory of Justice" (1971) does not directly engage with the issues between classical and social liberalism.[2]

If you have any reliable source that says social liberalism was not a reformulation of liberalism then please provide it. And also no PA. You are the one who said you had access to the page and could find no reference to social liberalism being a reformulation.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There you go. The source does NOT assert that modern liberalism is reformulation of classical liberalism. It says the modern liberals THEMSELVES maintained that was a reformulation of classic liberalism. Obviously he's saying it's a point of contention. So you can't use that as a source for saying it is a reformulation of classical liberalism, but as a source that modern or social liberals say that it is. Introman (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No you are not comprehending the reading properly. It does not mean that the modern liberals THEMSELVES maintained that was a reformulation of classic liberalism Rather it means that the social liberals maintained that liberalism should be reformulated rather than abandoned. There is no question that they reformulated liberalism and this is born out by the author's reference to social liberalism as a reformulation of liberalism on p. 45: The first major reformulation of liberalism since that of Hobhouse, John Rawl's "A Theory of Justice" (1971) does not directly engage with the issues between classical and social liberalism.[3] BTW do you have any reliable sources that state that social liberalism was not a reformulation of liberalism? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how you want to interpret it, it wasn't backing up the assertion in the first line of this article that I deleted that asserted that it was a reformulation of "classical liberalism." It's an new version of "liberalism." Everybody knows that. But not a new version of classical liberalism. Introman (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It says it is a reformulation on page 45: The first major reformulation of liberalism since that of Hobhouse, John Rawl's "A Theory of Justice" (1971) does not directly engage with the issues between classical and social liberalism.[4] And it does not matter what everybody knows. It matters what academic thinking is. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A reformulation of liberalism, not a reformulation of classical liberalism. Introman (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to changing that. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I do have objections to that. Social Liberalism is still liberalism, so is not a reformulation of "Liberalism". Social Liberalism was a reaction to Liberalism of the XIX century "Classical Liberalism", and as such, is a reformulation of "Classical Liberalism". If you describe is as a reformulation of Liberalism then you should say "a reformulation of XIX century Liberalism". Mcduarte2000 (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The source just says liberalism but it is clear from the context that they are referring to XIX liberalism as reflected by policies of the Liberal Party of the United Kingdom. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I see "reformulation" is meaning a "new version." It doesn't make logical sense to say that modern liberalism is a new version of classical liberalism or of XIX liberalism. Classical liberalism is classical liberalism. Modern liberalism is modern liberalism. They're both versions of liberalism. Introman (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Social liberalism was developed by classical liberals in the 19th century who reformulated their thinking. You should really read something about the subject before making edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how it developed, it's still not true that modern liberalism is a version of classical liberalism. That is, it doesn't make logical sense to say. If it was version of classical liberalism, then it would be called classical liberalism. All versions of classical liberalism are classical liberalism. Introman (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally the social liberals did not go right back to Locke - they kept many elements of liberalism developed in the 19th century: universal suffrage, regulation of industry, public health, liberal economics, and opposition to slavery and bonded service. In fact John Stuart Mill was a major influence on them. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the title fo the article, where is the source that "modern liberalism" is more widely used? We can find books and books refering to this type of liberalism and "social liberalism" and some books, less, refering it as "modern liberalism" and by many other names (do you want to make a statistical counting?). Actually, there is a simpler test. Do you know any political party called "modern liberalism party" or "party of the modern liberalism"? ;) You will however find many parties by the name "social liberal party". Mcduarte2000 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

The reason why the synonyms were not placed in the first sentence is that there are countless synonyms and at one time there were nine. None of the are exact and need explanation. Some are more common that others. Some are more common in some countries than in others. Some early synonyms like neoliberalism and social conservatism have changed meaning over time. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

When the title of an article has synonyms, the synonyms ought to be listed on the first line in boldface rather than later in the intro, or worse yet only in the body. This is because it is POV to highlight only one term as being "the" proper term to use when there are synonyms. That is, it shows editor preference for one term over the other. Wikipedia shouldn't push any particular synonym. It's bad enough that the article title has to choose one. The exception to this guideline is when listing synonyms that are only found in a few sources, in which case they of course should not be given equal weight with the common synonyms and therefore ought to be listed further down. Note that if a synonym is extremely rare, found only in one or two sources, then by default it's probably not notable enough to list anyway. Notability is the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Introman (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually in doing Google searches, "modern liberalism" is the more used term to refer to this new version of liberalism than "social liberalism." So this article should probably be renamed to "modern liberalism" instead in order to be as NPOV as possible. Introman (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That is original research. Please see WP:OR. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not considered original research. It's the norm on Wikipedia to decide what to name an article by doing searches to try to find the common term for what's being discussed. Introman (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That is more original research. Please see WP:OR. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. You just want to play games. Very funny then. Introman (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you do original research for "social liberalism" and "modern liberalism", its true you will find more "modern liberalism" references than "social liberalism", but, the problem is "modern liberalism" is also a generic term for "present day liberalism" and doesn't necessarily equals "social liberalism" (it depends of the authors). I however don't have anything against the present first paragraph. Mcduarte2000 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are several sources that explicitly use the terms "modern liberalism" and "social liberalism" to mean the same thing and even explicitly point out that they mean the same thing. I don't think you're right about "modern liberalism" being a generic term for "present day liberalism." Because there is classical liberalism that exists in this present day. That's present day liberalism as well. As is what some call "neoliberalism." Modern liberalism specifically refers to a NEW PHILOSOPHY. It's a synonym another word for "new liberalism." The new liberalism is a social liberalism. By the way it's not considered a violation of "original research" to name an article based on Google searches, as doing that very thing is advocated in the policy for naming articles. Introman (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

New edits

174.124.163.224, when you make changes to articles, it is important that the text agrees with the articles cited. In your recent changes, the text no longer accurately reflects the articles cited. If you wish to make changes, you should provide proper citations. Please see WP:RS. Furthermore it would be helpful if you discussed changes on the talk pages and obtained consensus for them. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The source used to cite positive liberty is still valid. Putting it in the lead sentence does make it not match anymore, given that the sentence is almost word for word the some as before. 174.124.163.224 (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

new lead

It changed the lead to this

Social liberalism (also called modern liberalism^[1]^[2]^[3] and new liberalism^[4]), a reformulation of 18th and 19th century liberalism, is a political philosophy that emphasises positive liberty and believes that public assistance in health, education and welfare would allow individuals to prosper.^[5] Social liberals believe that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom and advocate government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and protection of human rights.

Support for positive liberty is what defines social liberalism and should be in the lead sentence not an afterthought. Plus it makes sense that the part about unrestrained capitalism be in the some sentence as government intervention. 174.124.163.224 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit comes across as NPOV. Social liberalism was a reaction to unrestrained capitalism which they thought was contrary to core liberal values. In the nineteenth century there was widespread child labor, poverty and serious public health issues. Liberalism came under attack from both left and right. The left wanted to establish socialism while the right wanted to place severe restrictions on commerce. In addition the existence of poverty in London and other cities threatened the health of the general public, and the lack of a healthy working class became a national defense issue as up to 90% of volunteers for the army were turned away as unfit.

By shifting the emphasis in the sentence it now implies that social liberalism was ideologically driven and hostile to capitalism and that it was a reformulation of 18th century liberalism. In fact there is nothing in social liberalism that was in conflict with 18th century liberalism.

BTW modern liberalism and new liberalism are not synonyms for social liberalism but are or were sometimes synonyms.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I did put that there. But anyway I don't know how defining social liberalism as supporting positive liberity means saying it's hostile to capitalism. 174.124.163.224 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Implimentation

i added a subsection about the US. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

synonym POV pushing

I've put up synonym POV tag for the intro. Four Deuces keeps reverting the synonyms out of the opening line down to later in the intro where they get less attention. [5] Whether POV pushing is his intent or not, that's the effect. The synonyms are sufficiently sourced to be synonyms. When the title of an article has synonyms, the synonyms ought to be listed on the first line in boldface rather than later in the intro, or worse yet only in the body. This is because it is POV to highlight only one term as being "the" proper term to use when there are synonyms. That is, it shows editor preference for one term over the other. Wikipedia shouldn't push any particular synonym. It's bad enough that the article title has to choose one. The exception to this guideline is when listing synonyms that are only found in a few sources, in which case they of course should not be given equal weight with the common synonyms and therefore ought to be listed further down. Note that if a synonym is extremely rare, found only in one or two sources, then by default it's probably not notable enough to list anyway. Notability is the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Some may argue that listing the synonyms on the first line is not that pleasing to the eye, but NPOV is more important than looks. Introman (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you do a Google search, "Modern liberalism" is actually used MORE than "social liberalism" to refer to this type of liberalism. The best thing to do would be to change the name of the article, but if that's not going to happen then "modern liberalism" ought to be listed right up there next to "social liberalism." Introman (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern liberalism is not a synonym for social liberalism but is sometimes used as a synonym, one of over a dozen terms sometimes used as a synonym beginning with "new liberalism" (c. 1900). Modern liberalism refers to liberalism today, which in many cases is social liberalism but also includes other liberalisms such as modern American liberalism, which is not usually considered to be social liberalism. (E.g., see Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power (2001), James L. Richardson, pp. 38-41.[6]) While it is true that "modern liberalism" returns more hits on Google than "social liberalism" (147,000 v. 71,000) a quick glance shows most of the hits for "modern liberalism" do not use it as a synonym for "social liberalism" at all. Usually it is used as a synonym for a tolerant or permissive society (depending on the political orientation of the person using it). Also, there are no parties called "Modern Liberals" although there are "Social Liberals".

It is important to note that social liberal policies were implimented by Social and Christian Democratic Parties after the war, not by liberal parties and that many liberal parties were in fact opposed to social liberalism. In that context, the term "modern liberalism" is ambiguous.

BTW whether synonyms are listed in the first sentence or later on has nothing to do with WP:Neutral.

The Four Deuces (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You say "A quick glance shows most of the hits for "modern liberalism" do not use it as a synonym for "social liberalism" at all." Well maybe you need to do more than a quick glance, because you're wrong. Look up the definition of "modern liberalism" and you'll see over and over again that it is defined the same way as social liberalism. Besides that there are many sources that even say explicitly that they're using the term interchangeably. For example:

"Mills ideas continaed the germ of that concept of society labelled 'modern' liberalism or 'social' liberalism which seeks the solution..." Lund, Erik. A History of European Ideas. University of Michigan. C. Hurst, 1971. p. 231

"And there there is modern liberalism or social liberalism. This is geared more to the so-called welfare state and inequalities of economic power, and is not as worried about the state interfering with individual rights." Foner, Eric. Common Origns, Different Paths. Liberalism and the Left. Cambridge University Press, 1999 p. 6

"Modern liberalism is therefore also sometimes called 'social liberalism'" Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics. Nelson Thornes, 2003 p. 108

"...modern libearlism [that is, social liberalism] has a positive, constructive program." Mises, Ludwig Von. A Critique of Interventionism. Arlington House, 1977. p. 82

"Modern libearlism (somtimes portraye as social or welfare liberalism) exhihibits a more sympathetic attitude..." Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. p. 61

"...the new or modern liberalism, here termed socialism liberalism, of Green and Hobhouse..." Richardson, James L. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001 p. 52

"This liberalism - what I would call modern or social liberalism - tries to bring together a traditional liberal concern for personal rights and liberties with a belief that the very government long regarded as suspect must now actively reign in the excesses of industrial capitalism." Zwich, Edward. Literature and Liberalism. New Republic Book Co., 1976 (Oringally from University of Michigan). p. xx

Introman (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
"

If necessary I'll even create an article called "Modern liberalism," which you should have no objection to because you say it's not the same thing, and upon which it will become obvious that the sources are talking about the same philosophy. Introman (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman, I think that these may be weak sources or out of context, and it is very time-consuming to go over them all. But I will discuss your reference from Contending liberalisms because it is a major source for this article. Your quote was "...the new or modern liberalism, here termed socialism (sic) liberalism, of Green and Hobhouse..." This quote is taken from a footnote, which is normally a poor source, especially when it is not a footnote for the section on social liberalism. Nonetheless I will discuss how the quote should be read.

The footnote was made to add detail to the following sentence:

"Classical liberalism does not constitute the whole of the [liberal] tradition but refers to a particular phase." Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power, "3: Contending liberalisms", Embedded liberalism (p. 42)[7]

Here is part of the footnote with additional detail:

17. The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier nineteenth-century liberalism from the new or modern liberalism, here termed social liberalism, of Green and Hobhouse. It is taken here to include the political economists' laissez-faire within a broader political philosophy whose central value was the securing of individual freedom against arbitrary state power. Classical liberals were divided over democracy: Americans were mainly democratic, Europeans mainly elitist....It is these Enlightenment attitudes, not Ryan's caution and scepticism, that characterize American political culture, whcih may reasonably be termed classical liberal....[8] (my emphasis)

Clearly he is using the term new or modern to distinguish social liberalism from the earlier nineteenth-century liberalism, not as a synonym. Also he then terms the American political culture "classical liberal", meaning that he does not use the term "social liberalism" to refer to American liberalism, including Modern American liberalism. In fact in the section "The American exception", he explicitly states that social liberalism never entered the U.S. political mainstream.[9]

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree he's not saying it's a synonym. Of course he's, as you say, "using the term new or modern to distinguish social liberalism from the earlier nineteenth-century liberalism." That's using it to mean the same thing! And I dont understand why you say "He does not use the term "social liberalism" to refer to American liberalism, including Modern American liberalism." This article is not about American liberalism nor modern American liberalism. It's about modern liberalism. And if that's the only source you dispute, then the others are not in dispute. I'm fine to leave out than one source from the article to justify the synonym if you don't think it's explicit as the others. Introman (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

He is no more saying modern liberalism is a synonym for social liberalism than he is saying that "earlier liberalism" is a synonym for classical liberalism. By modern he meant c. 1900.

By the way I do not understand your comment "This article is not about American liberalism nor (sic) modern American liberalism. It's about modern liberalism." The article specifically discusses social liberal thinkers in the US and mentions the influence of social liberal theory on American liberalism. You said earlier: "Social liberalism and modern liberalism are two terms for exactly the same thing. The U.S. version of modern liberalism is a regional form of modern liberalism, in other words, a regional form of social liberalism. Your statement "Modern liberalism MAY include Modern liberalism in the United States..." makes no sense (i.e. "may"). OF COURSE it's it includes modern liberalism in the United States. There is no "may" about it. Modern liberalism is modern liberalism." ( Introman (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2009) Either modern liberalism includes modern American liberalism or it does not. If it does it is not a synonym for social liberalism.

I mentioned that it is time-consuming to go over the sources you provide. In contrast it's easy to data mine for quotes. Do you have any particular source that actually confirms your view that "modern liberalism" is a synonym for "social liberalism"?

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is time consuming to go over the rest of the sources, fine. You don't have to. Yes I do have sources that confirm my view that modern liberalism is a synonym for social liberalism. I listed them above. When I said this article is not about American liberalism nor modern American liberalism, I was saying that modern liberalism is broader than just the type of modern liberalism found in America. Modern liberalism includes the American form of modern liberalism. Why are you saying that that would mean modern liberalism is not a synonym for social liberalism? Introman (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference from A history of European ideas is safe to dismiss. The quote is taken from a "Snippet view" from a search of Google Books.[10] It is wrong to source information to pieces of text when you are not able to read the entire sentence let alone determine the context. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is enough context there to see that he's simply mentioning that he's using the term "modern liberalism" and "social liberalism" to mean the same thing. He says: "Mills ideas contained the germ of that concept of society labelled 'modern' liberalism or 'social' liberalism..." It's obvious. [User:Introman|Introman]] (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Foner's article from the Radical History Review[11] is not very helpful either. He mentions social liberalism just once, and modern liberalism twice. He also says, "I don't want to get into a definitional, semantic debate except to say one of the reasons this discussion will probably go on forever is that people are talking about different things when they are discussing liberalism". The article is not even about social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

He's very explicit "And then there is modern liberalism or social liberalism. This is geared to the so-called weflare state and inequalities of economic power and is not as worried about the state interefering with individual rights." It's obvious he's equating the terms. You can deny what it says, but there it is. Introman (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Moyra Grant wrote "Modern liberalism is therefore also sometimes called 'social liberalism'"[12] No one disagrees that they are sometimes used as synonyms. However it should be noted that Grant wrote "Modern liberalism, alternatively, was founded in the UK by John Stuart Mill, who wrote On Liberty (1859).[13] However the Google books snippet that Introman introduced from C. Hurst states ""Mills (sic) ideas continaed (sic) the germ of that concept of society labelled 'modern' liberalism or 'social' liberalism which seeks the solution..." Her definition of modern liberalism therefore differs from Grant's. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You're saying there's some kind of contradiction? I don't see it. Grant says modern liberalism was founded by Mill, and Hurst says the germs of modern liberalism were from Mill. They're the saying them same thing. And both of them point out that they're using "modern liberalism" and "social liberalism" interchangeably. What are you saying? Introman (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises should not be used a source for terminology because he belonged to a school that developed its own terminology which is sometimes inconsistent with standard academic use. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Mises is using the term in a standard way, he is not a good source. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Introman (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources above show that he's not using non-standard terminology. Introman (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Zwick is also a Snippet view and, while at least we can read the complete sentence, it's context is not clear.[http://books.google.com/books?id=BNkdAAAAMAAJ&dq=Literature+and+Liberalism&q=industrial+capitalism Also, he specifically states "what I would call". If we were to use this source we would have to clearly state in the text that we were citing how Edward Zwick defined a term. But there is no reason to report his opinion and note that the book is called Literature and liberalism. It is not a book about social liberalism or even liberalism in general. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Zwick says: "This liberalism - what I would call modern or social liberalism - tries to bring together..." If he's saying he would call it either modern or social liberalism, then he's saying he would call it either modern or social liberalism. He's saying he takes the terms to refer to the same thing. You objections over these sources are bizarre. I don't understand it. You deny what's right there for everyone to see. Introman (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Zwick's statement of his opinions are a good source for his opinions but not for statements of fact. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a really strange objection. He's not stating an opinion. He's saying he uses the term "modern liberalism" and "social liberalism" interchangeably. So that's another source for the terms being used as synonyms. Introman (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

He says what I would call modern or social liberalism. That is stating an opinion. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No he's not stating an opinion. He's saying that he calls the philosophy both modern and social liberalism. You're saying he's stating an opinion about what terms he uses? That doesn't make sense. Introman (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Edward Zwick is a film producer with a master's degree in fine arts. His comments on how he uses words should not be used as a reliable source for the meanings of words. See WP:RS: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Notice that he is not used as a source for the Samurai article, although he directed The Last Samurai. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't been involved in this dispute, I'm going to stick my nose in to point out something: there are redirect articles for Modern liberalism, New liberalism and Left-liberal that all come to this article (and have for years based on previous consensus to use the title "Social liberalism" in place of each of these phrases). So regardless of exactly where these terms appear in the lead, the standard Wikipedia convention would be for their first appearance to be in bold (see MOS:BOLDTITLE). I don't know that this mitigates the concern about whether they should also appear in the first paragraph, which is a common practice for such synonyms (see MOS:BEGIN), but the bolding should be done regardless of where their first appearance is in the article. I don't want to tread into an edit war, but unless someone has a cogent reason why the bolding guidelines shouldn't be followed in this instance, I'm going to add the bold (in their current positions so as not to upset the ongoing discussion of placement). --RL0919 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. The reasons for not including these terms in the first sentence was that they are not exact synonyms, often used with differing meanings and that there were nine synonyms in the first line (most of which have been deleted) that made the first sentence difficult to follow. Even having a subject name and three other terms makes the sentence hard to read, as shown:

Social liberalism, also called Modern liberalism, New liberalism or Left-liberalism... (then imagine adding another five terms)

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This article also redirects from Welfare liberalism, Radical liberalism, Progressive liberalism and Contemporary liberalism. Other terms that have their own articles but are sometimes synonyms are ordoliberalism, neoliberalism and liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"EXACT synonyms" are rare, if they exist at all. If "modern liberalism" is often used to refer to what "social liberalism" refers to, that's good enough reason to list it. The assertion is not "Social liberalism (always referred to as modern liberalism), but "Social liberalism (sometimes referred to as modern liberalism)." I used the term "also called" in the article, but by that I didn't mean anything more than it's often, or sometimes, referred to as. I haven't claimed that everyone in the world is referring to the same philosophy when they use either term, or that they're exact synonyms. Introman (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that in Classical liberalism there are no synonyms in the first paragraph, although it later says In this latter sense, classical liberalism is sometimes called laissez-faire liberalism. It links in from Market liberal, Traditional liberalism, Laissez-faire liberalism and True liberalism. It is also called 19th century liberalism, Manchester liberalism, right-liberalism or liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because you your buddy, Rick Norwood, took them OUT. You and he do the same basic things. That's why there's a POV dispute over too. Introman (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

An editor has changed the lead so that it now begins "Social liberalism, (also called new liberalism (as it was originally termed), modern liberalism, and left-liberalism)" Because these other terms are only sometimes synonyms for social liberalism, they should not be included in the opening sentence. The term "new liberalism" is generally used to describe the original social liberalism (c. 1900), "modern liberalism" includes other types of liberalism including modern American liberalism and left liberalism was merely the left wing of German liberalism which ironically rejected the welfare state that right-liberals supported. Unless there are reliable sources stating otherwise, these semi-synonyms should not appear in the lead. I will therefore remove them and request that these issues be discussed before they are re-inserted. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me what you're saying. For example, you say "modern liberalism includes other types of liberalism including modern American liberalism," as if that would mean that modern American is not social liberalism. Is your claim that modern American liberalism is not social liberalism? And you also say "Unless there are reliable sources stating otherwise, these semi-synonyms should not appear in the lead." But you've already been shown reliable sources stating that they're synonyms. Introman (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have explained this several times already and the issue is addresses in the text of the article. The source that you provided Contending liberalisms in world politics clearly explains on p. 36 ("The American Exception"} that American liberals did not adopt social liberalism. It should be very clear to anyone familiar with the United States that they never implimented a cradle to grave welfare state, never had a planned economy, the government never provided housing to middle class people, never owned the major corporations in transportation, communications, mining and oil and gas, never tried to achieve full employment, never formed partnerships with unions and corporations. It would be helpful if you would read the article and the sources that you are citing in order to gain an understanding of this subject before editing the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't even understand what you talk about. What you say just seems so incoherent. What do you mean by "American liberals did not adopt social liberalism."? Of course all American liberals did not adopt it. Classical liberals didn't adopt it but others did. Those are the modern/social liberals. Modern liberalism IS social liberalism. And what is the point of bringing up "It should be very clear to anyone familiar with the United States that they never implemented a cradle to grave welfare state, never had a planned economy..." What's your point there? What are you saying? Introman (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And what do you mean the U.S. "never tried to achieve full employment"? Don't you know that the mandate of the Federal Reserve is to maintain full employment? And what do you mean the U.S. "never owned the major corporations in transportation"? Ever heard of Amtrack? What are you saying and why are you bringing these topics up? Introman (talk)

(out) You might understand what I talk about if you took the time to read the sources that you cited above. In Contending liberalisms it says under the section "The American Exception": American political discourse resisted this social turn in European liberalism....[14] Please take the time to read this short section. If you click on the link you will be able to read it.

Btw the fact that the US government has at a very limited involvement in commercial enterprise is irrelevant as Richardson's book says. The US government never owned all the railroads, all the airlines, all the oil companies, all the television stations. And while the fed supposedly aims at full employment it never actually pursued that goal, partly because they have other conflicting mandates. (Note that the US has experienced many periods of high unemployment.)

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You said above that the source said that, quoting you, "American liberals did not adopt social liberalism.." That's not what it says. It says that they didn't adopt SOCIALISM. Do you have a quote from the source saying what you're saying it says? Are you confusing "social liberalism" and "socialism"? And yes, the U.S. has had many periods of high unemployment. But you claimed above that the U.S. has never "TRIED to achieve full employment." That's wrong. As you admit, the Fed aims at full employment. This is part of modern/social liberalism philosophy, that the government ought to try to manage the economy to try to maintain full employment instead of the classical liberalism philosophy of leaving it to the free market. But I still don't know why you even brought this up. What's your point? Introman (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an incorrect reading. Yes, America rejected SOCIALISM. It also rejected Social liberalism. "The marginalizing of social liberalism in the late-nineteenth-century America is part of a larger story of the marginalizing of socialism...." (NB that this section is called The American Exception" and it is within a larger section on social liberalism.) The next section ("The Great Depression") explains that during the New Deal "there was no revision of liberal theory". As you may remember, social liberalism is a revision of classical liberal theory.

I brought up the Fed because full employment is one of several aspects of social liberalism. Social liberal governments in fact used their central banks as part of a successful policy of full employment. The Fed never did this. Even if they had, it is only one aspect of social liberal policy. You seem to think that the US government followed the same policies that Britain and Europe did.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As expected, you couldn't come up with a quote from the source to back up your claim. And, to your latter point, no, social liberal governments have not used their central banks as part of a "SUCCESSFUL policy of full employment." The economies they govern have all gone through recessions. Why are you speaking of governmental policy anyway? This about the PHILOSOPHY of social liberalism. There is no pure "social liberal" government anywhere. All governments have influence from diverse philosophies held by the people that make up the government. Introman (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You commented: "As expected, you couldn't come up with a quote from the source to back up your claim." My claim is that American liberalism never adopted social liberalism. My source is Contending liberalisms in world politics, in particular the the section "The American exception" that explains why American liberals never adopted social liberalism. Your comment "no, social liberal governments have not used their central banks as part of a "SUCCESSFUL policy of full employment."" is actually at variance with the truth. I have asked you many times where you derive your opinions. Why do you believe this? Maybe if you told me about the web-postings you read I could become a believer too. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't provide a quote to support your claim of what it says. Don't just make stuff up. Introman (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My source is Contending liberalisms in world politics, in particular the the section "The American exception" that explains why American liberals never adopted social liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that, and the reason you can't quote any part of it saying that is because it doesn't say that. Introman (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman, could you please read the sources that you quote and understand them and that way we can avoid the types of edits that you have made that misrepresent the sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I have restored the lead to a mainstream description that avoids an unconventional POV interpretation. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The terms "social liberalism" and "modern liberalism" refer to the same thing. This is so obvious from the sources. Introman (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be obvious to you, but that is only because you have a total lack of understanding of the subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman, your recent edit to the article is a total distortion of the source. You have added "Emerging in Britain, France, and the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" and added it to "instead of advocating the negative freedom of classical liberalism, it offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare". Your source does not support this view.[15] There is no reason to distort sources. If you are worried about persuading people about whether or not to be "American conservatives" you have been successful in my case. But please do not distort sources to support some alternative view of the world. People who read these articles want to know mainstream views not extremist ones. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, I didn't add the latter part to it. That was already there. I attached it to the sentence I added, that is. It's not a claim that *I* was making or a claim that the source is making. And apparently someone sourced it, so what's the problem? By the way, it's funny seeing you trying to figure out my personal POV or what POV you think I may be trying to push. Good luck with that! Introman (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the term "left-liberalism" is not really a synonym for social liberalism. The source given refers to middle class liberals in the Weimer Republic some of whom were social liberals. What put these liberals on the left was their opposition to monopolism which was supported by the National Liberal Party (Germany). Although they were Austrian, Mises and Hayek were colleagues of theirs' and could also be considered "left-liberals" but were not social liberals. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Since there has been no recent discussion on synonyms for social liberalism, I will remove the template from the lede. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)