Talk:Liberalism/Archive 9

Proposed merger from History of the term "liberal"
The arguably misnamed article History of the term "liberal" is a content fork of Liberalism and should be merged in. While the title suggests this is a philological study of the word liberal, the article's actual content is more in line with history of liberalism, with the etymological content only recently added. In any case, it should be merged into Liberalism. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted my comments on that article's discussion page. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

American bias in the definition of the article's subject
I added the new template at the top because I am quite certain that at least the first sentence of the article is a summary of american liberalism and not liberalism in general. Perhaps we can find a better way to put things in perspective. Basically, the issue is that the definition of liberalism outside America, mostly, is the same as "classical liberalism". So, there can be a huge deal of confusion regarding the reference to the defense of egalitarianism. Maybe we should straight that out in the first paragraph. Maziotis (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fans of what they call "classical liberalism" are ardent in its defense, but need to read more history. The philosophy of liberalism focused on a broad definition of freedom, not simply on free trade, though that was a part of it.  Liberal parties throughout the world typically support the interests of the working class, even when those interests go against free trade.  In the United Kingdom, to give just one example, the more liberal party is called the Labour party, and the smaller Liberal Democratic party supports social liberalism, environmentalism, and regulation of corporations.  Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, I don't see how in the rest of Europe that defense can be attributed to the ideology of "liberalism". I think that the reference you made to "social liberalism" is better known in other countries, with other political cultures, as "social democracy". So, the issue to me is not so much how we define the borders of a specific ideology known as "liberalism", but exactly which ideology the word is referring to, in different countries. Maziotis (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The first sentence ot the article reads: Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.  I do not see how that definition is particularly American, and the source is an Australian philosopher.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the template since there was no reason for placing it there. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I see little American bias in this article, although American liberalism has been very influential worldwide, not just in America. I would also take umbrage with the claim that liberalism outside of the United States is "mostly" understood as classical liberalism. It depends on the continent, it depends on the region, and it very often depends on the particular country. In North America, liberalism is traditionally understood to be social, progressive, secular, feminist, and leftist, at least in the popular imagination. The variations begin in Europe, where it gets really complicated, often because a single nation has multiple liberal parties that represent different sides of liberalism. Take Moldova, which has three significant liberal parties, as an example. Two of the parties support classical liberalism and the other one supports social liberalism. The Netherlands is another famous case with influential liberal parties, one (D66) supporting social liberalism and the other (VVD) supporting classical liberalism. In Britain, liberalism is understood to belong to the center-left political tradition. In France, it has often been center-right since the late nineteenth century. As I said, Europe is tricky. Liberalism has been rather amorphous there. In recent times, it's been used as a progressive force by right-wing movements opposed to the expansion of Islam in Europe. There are also variations in Latin America, largely caused by neoliberalism. Before the rise of these neoliberal economic movements, liberalism in Latin America had much the same meaning as it did (and does) in North America: a social and progressive ideology that attempted to change and to modernize the world. This meaning has been turned on its head in some Latin American countries, although not in all. Witness the likes of Honduras, Columbia, and Paraguay, all nations with very powerful modern liberal parties. In Africa, liberalism is relatively new, and because the continent is generally conservative, liberalism is virtually exclusively viewed as a progressive ideology and movement. We also see major variations in Asia, which has large liberal parties on both sides of the liberal ideological spectrum. In short, liberalism is understood differently in different parts of the world....BUT (very important but) Rick is also generally right in emphasizing the common themes and ideals that bond all liberals together, modernists and classicists. Those ideals -- support for constitutions, support for free and fair elections, support for democratic governments, support for free trade and free markets, support for human rights and civil rights, and support for environmental protection -- transcend any boundaries within the liberal sphere.UberCryxic (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservatism?
Isn't neoconservativism a form of positive liberty? Historically many neoconservatives are former socialists or social liberals that now advocate active and aggressive promotion of liberalism in foreign policy. I am talking of neoconservatism its true sense, not the buzz-word neo-con being thrown around. Should it be added to the See Other section?--Exander (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what to make of your comments. What is neoconservatism in its "true sense," according to you?UberCryxic (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be a disambiguation page?
I'm thinking this article should actually just be a disambiguation page. It looks like various kinds of liberalism are being conflated and it's very confusing. The disambiguation would be between political liberalism, social liberalism, classical liberalism, economic liberalism, etc. All Male Action 04:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article follows the pattern of other portal articles in Wikipedia, such as History and Mathematics. It gives an overview, with references to various more specialized topics.  Disambiguation pages are for phrases that have several entirely different meanings, and especially names shared by more than one famous person. Rick Norwood 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are indeed terms with "entirely different meanings." You never know what type of liberalism that a person is referring to when he uses the term "liberalism" unless you study the context. All Male Action 08:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In trying to read this article, I think "All Male Action" is entirely correct; it is a very conflated article, which appears to be a lot of wishful thinking and ideals of what liberalism ought to be, rather than the realities and careful attestations as to what liberalisms in various contexts actually are; contemporary American "liberalism" (identified politically as "the left" in America) has almost no continuity with classical liberalism, which is explicitly for minimized government, vs. large government, decentralization rather than centralization; in Latin America Prez. Bush is considered a "liberal" (economically); context is key, and "liberalism" is a term used in various contexts for separate things; then there's all the empty rhetoric of people claiming to be this/that to be considered, seeming accidental developments in use of the term variously, so that it's descriptive of many different things in different places. tooMuchData 10:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)


 * Since you sign yourself "TheResearchPersona" you need to do a little research. First, you will find a tradition in Wikipedia that new comments should be posted at the bottom of the page.  Second, you will find that your use of "liberal" and "conservative" do not correspond with the dictionary definitions of those terms. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the idea that the various forms of liberalism have "entirely different meanings" is a pose. All liberals, for example, favor freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, representative democracy, trial by jury, and so on. Their differences usually have to do with the conflicting roles of the federal government -- when the government acts to increase the freedom of some, it may be forced to act to decrease the freedom of others. For example, when slaves were given freedom, the slave owners were deprived of their property. But even the most extreme liberals in any variety of liberalism still are in favor of freedom, as contrasted to the original enemies of liberalism, who favored the existing class structure, the absolute authority of the church, and the devine right of kings. Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Rick Norwood 13:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that all liberals "favor freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to asssemble,...trial by jury, and so on," but not that they all favor representative democracy. Many classical liberals opposed democracy. In fact there have been several countries that were politically liberal without any democracy at all, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where liberty is protected by an enlightened despot. But, what you're talking about, with the exception of the requirement for representative democracy, is called "political liberalism." And yes, all liberals favor political liberalism. But, that's where it ends. Beyond that there are different kinds of liberalism that have other beliefs besides political liberalism. When someone refers to "liberalism" one never knows whether they're referring to political liberalism, classical liberalism, economic liberalism, social liberalism, etc. I think it should be a disambiguation page. All Male Action 07:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In the US, "Liberals" are the "Left". In Latin America, "Liberals" are on the "Right". In Europe, "Liberals" are "Centrist". The key question is - What accounts for this diversity: different strands of what is caled "Liberalism" or simply vagaries in the history and national politics of these countries?Giorgioz 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we must be very careful here. While it is true that liberalism across the world today encompasses a wide spectrum of sociopolitical and philosophical thought, there are some basic, fundamental tenets of liberalism that are not questionable. That is, if you disavow these, you are not a liberal.


 * In Maurice Cranston's famous words, "a liberal is one who believes in liberty." This definition, at its core and spirit, has never changed and never will change. Liberty/freedom is the key concept that underlies the whole liberal structure. The very word liberal comes from the Latin liber, which means "free." Originally, this term could mean something to the effect of an irresponsible person or even a vagabond, but eventually it acquired a definition meaning something along the lines of tolerant. The Spanish were the first to use the term in a political context in 1812 when a faction during the Peninsular War against France called themselves "Liberales." Their Spanish of Constitution of 1812 was also very liberal in nature, and in my opinion it is a document in the liberal pantheon equivalent to the Declaration of Independence or the Declaration of the Rights of Man. So that's a quick background into the early history of liberalism. What are the tenets of liberalism?


 * Philosophically, liberalism is rooted in the Fundamental Principle of Liberalism (I'll call it FPL), which states that liberty is the normal human condition and so the burden to prove this false or take it away, either intellectually or in some other way, requires explanation. Basically, the onus is on those who want to eliminate liberty to show why. It is very important to understand that the FPL is in importance right up there with what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is to calculus. If you know the latter, then you know it's very important to calculus; as in, calculus would not mean anything without it. Liberalism is the same with FPL. The FPL has its roots with the arguments of John Locke (often called the 'Father of Liberalism'), who maintained that early human societies were gentle and untainted by the hustle-and-bustle lifestyle of civilizations.


 * Now that we're past the FPL, there are some basic tenets that you can "strangle" out of it. Among these are the fact that all humans are fundamentally good (you can't pick and choose), rational, and capable of change. Then we'd make some more elaborate but still basic assertions (or so I think; if you find them controversial I'd love to know why): liberalism implies equality, religious toleration, and constitutional government, among other things.


 * So there you go: in its most basic forms, liberalism is what I've described above. It deserves its own article in every way. "Right" and "left" are horrible terms; they do not capture the underlying sociopolitical and philosophical complexities that characterize the beliefs of people throughout the world. For example, the "Right" in America believes in free markets and small government, but these are both very liberal concepts, mostly belonging to classical liberalism, but liberal nonetheless.UberCryxic 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those who think it should be just a disambig page. What people in different parts of the world usually refer to as "Liberalism" have wildly different meanings. I also don't think there is such a common bond of "freedom". So-called-Liberals Social-Democrats from North America emphasize positive freedom and, consequently, a great degree of state-tutelage, whereas most "Liberal" Liberals from around the world staying true to the tradition of Classical Liberalism emphasize negative freedom and absolute opposition to all forms of coercion, including from the state. It's naïve to think that American "Liberals", just because they came to be called as such for historical reasons, are still in the fold. Most have adopted a light version of Social-Democracy a long time ago. Just think of an experiment where American "Liberals" were transported to Europe and tried to join Liberal parties there: they would immediately be shunned by most as excessively interventionist and instead be advised to join one of the various Social-Democratic Parties. The only "Liberals" inside the American left who would be considered "Liberal" in most of the world outside the US are the "Moderates" / New Democrats. Apart from that, the two groups are now irreconcilable, in world terms. Justice III 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As a European liberal, I don't agree. I think most European liberals would consider most American politicians being to the right of themselves, even many Democrats. At the end, the whole American political spectrum is in my humble opinion much more right-wing than the European political spectrum. (see the state of social security, health insurance, the lack of arms control and the support of capital punishment in the US). Electionworld Talk?  14:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is entirely true. While the US system does sit farther to the right compared to most of Europe, US Democrats could sit pretty comfortably with European social democrats. The system and politicians do not necessarily reflect each other. The system itself is dependent on the interaction of various fractions and it depends on who has the upper hand at the moment as well as historical events. For instance, consider Roosevelt and Johnson. I find it hard to put them too far to the right compared to many European social democrat. __earth (Talk) 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't present it as a fact, but it is my observation. A lot of European social democrats lost their ideological roots and came near liberalism. I wouldn't think Roosevelt and Johnson have ideological social democratic roots. BTW, at the moment some European social democrats come closer to communautharian values. Electionworld Talk?  08:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rick and others; this should not be a disambiguation page. It traces the development of liberalism in general and contains a lot of information that the other articles could just not very easily incorporate. Likewise, there are some foundations of liberalism which are not questionable, as UberCryxic already mentioned. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Justice III's phrase "worthy of the name" shows a strong POV. Rick Norwood 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I used the phrase with the meaning "fit to be called as such in world terms". No offense or POV intended, sorry if it made you upset. Let it be known that I have ammended the comment. Now PLEASE let us stay on topic. You responded to 4 words, not to the arguments...Justice III 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your whole comment is nothing more than a bash on American liberalism. The difference between modern liberalism in the US and that in Europe is all the more reason to have a central article to explain these differences. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Having simply one central article suggests that differences are minor and can be explained with a few notes, when in fact they are not, and a detailed explanation of each concept can be given in their respective articles. When a word has diverging socio-historical meanings the best way to deal with it is to have a disambiguation page. You can still talk succintly about the differences in the text that follows the links, and there will be no more illusions about a unitary definition of "liberalism". Just see the following examples that this article should follow: Radicalism, Revisionism, Anti-Stalinist left. Justice III 11:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The current page should stay as it is. Besides, in a way, it is a disambiguity page. Unlike typical disambiguity however, it goes further to explain why there are many branches of liberalism. The reason why branches of liberalism have different meanings is the evolution of liberal thinking. This article describes that evolution. Regardless, any liberalism, like has been mentioned earlier, has a central, ultimate theme. All branches of liberalism have the same end but different means of achieving that end. __earth (Talk) 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Justice, your arguments are based on a very restricted, very narrow and very POV view of freedom (and yes I do realise I just said "Point of View view".) Part of this view is that the involvement of the state and freedom are two fundamentally opposed things, this is NOT what Classical Liberals thought (as much as you can classify "Classical Liberals" as having said one thing.) Most Classical Liberals were utilitarians who argued for the involvement of the state in areas that private interests are unable to provide. The difference is that Modern Liberals see more areas where private interests are deficient. Slizor 11:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that, coupled with recent developments in in European social-democracy, is precisely what makes American Liberalism another name for American Social-Democracy.Justice III 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the controversy here is due to the fact that Justice III is contrasting the various forms of modern liberalism and focusing on the differences. This article, on the other hand, is on the rise of liberalism, and contrasts it with the prevaling theories of government in the 18th century: a belief in the divine right of kings, in the supremacy of the church, and in the natural superiority of the male over the female and the white race over all other races.  I doubt, Justice III, that you have ever met a person who believes in the divine right of kings, and yet it was in conflict with that widely held belief that liberalism arose.  The differences between the various schools of modern liberalism, which are covered in their own articles, are minor in comparison. Rick Norwood 14:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, by your reasoning, the differences between Socialism and Libertarianism should also be "minor"(!), as their claimed heritage comes from the same background as the one you mentioned. The problem is that you are reading too much into a name. FDR associates chose the name "Liberalism" for post-1929 policies because it suited their purposes and avoided linking them to Communism, not because Liberalism has to do with pork-barrel spending. If we must define ideologies based on the names people in specific countries gave them, we should even include the Colombian Liberal Party, which is a full member of Socialist International, as "Liberal"! The choice of the name in America was arbitrary. Why do you think Classical Liberals had to regroup as "Libertarians" in the US? Because they knew that their name had been hijacked by Cryptosocialists and that the two groups didn't have anything in common. Contrary to your claim, there is no continuity between the Old Liberalism in 19th c. America and modern crytosocialist "liberalism". Only a bunch of registered Democrats Wikipedia editors could argue so. Have you ever read the same definition in encyclopedia Britannica, or any such non-wiki encyclopedic definition of liberalism? There's even mention there of this illusion of continuity as the great "myth" of American "liberalism". So, get real, it is just a word. There is no continuity of thought, and the only views shared by American cryptosocialists and "outside world" liberalism are those espoused by most political groups today (liberty, democracy, equality of opportunity, etc., etc. It's very easy to find any two groups with these views in common and claim they must be linked.) Besides, it is a completely Americocentrist view to reduce the picture of modern liberalism to certain American stereotypes of "liberals" who are in fact (crypto)socialists. The two (unrelated) groups must be clearly distinguished if you want info on Liberalism in Wikipedia to be taken seriously. Justice III 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Justice III is far too unfamiliar with liberal history for me to even attempt a cogent response, but needless to say the foundational principles outlined above are what give liberalism its unique status and provide a compelling reason to give liberalism its own article. Just for a brief word, however: per Rick, there is continuity in liberal thought and ideology. This "cryptosocialist" talk erroneously presumes that liberalim was transformed into socialism or communism simply because it was influenced by them.UberCryxic 01:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Justice III, it doesn't seem that you are listening to what has been said here. I'll try once more.  This article is about Liberalism, a movement founded by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson in the 18th century.  It then goes on, briefly, to provide pointers to the various movements that call themselves liberalism today.  For Modern liberalism in the United States, there is already a separate article.  This really isn't the place to complain about That man in the White House. Rick Norwood 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well...mostly by Locke, and in the 17th century. There were several others who laid the groundwork before Locke, but he identified and coalesced the main features of liberal ideology. Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily from Locke, but that in no way constitutes "founding" liberalism.UberCryxic 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Locke founded liberalism as a philosophy, Jefferson was one of the founders of the first state based on liberal principles. Rick Norwood 13:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I can agree with that somewhat. The United States is, in many ways, the first liberal democracy. I just question how that means Thomas Jefferson "founded" liberalism. Wouldn't it make more sense to say he was one of the first to apply liberal principles in forming a nation-state?UberCryxic 17:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jefferson was one of the founders of liberalism as a political movement, as contrasted with an abstract philosophical movement. Rick Norwood 13:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your initial statement, but not with your interpretations and conclusions. Preferrably, we should be able to derive virtually all liberal principles, including those of political liberalism, from the foundations of liberalism as a whole. In that sense, all Jefferson did was to, again, apply the principles that had been worked out before him. In terms of political movements, those of the French Revolution were far more significant than what Jefferson did in the US. It was the French Revolution that essentially led to the explosion of liberalism as a sociopolitically viable alternative.UberCryxic 14:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But the American Revolution came first. Rick Norwood 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter what came first in light of the earlier statements in my last paragraph. All liberal principles should be derived from a core set of tenets. "Founding" liberalism can only happen once, and it happened with Locke (mostly; again, I emphasize that other people also had a "foundational" influence upon liberalism even though we can't say that they "founded" it). In terms of political movements, the French Revolution made liberalism prominent, even though the American Revolution came first. Furthermore, the American Revolution was liberal in the sense that it was about (mainly) liberty, but the French Revolution widened the scope of what liberalism meant, making it universal (ie. that it belonged to everyone, among other things).UberCryxic 20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

but the French Revolution widened the scope of what liberalism meant, making it universal

What? Talking about all persons having unalianable rights is not universal enough?--Flix2000 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he may be talking about the fact that the American constitution only counted a slave as a fraction of a person. Rick Norwood 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not turn this article into a mere disambiguation page leading to multiple, seperate varieties of liberalism. Liberalism may be a varied phenomenon, but it is a single historical phenomenon in the sense that the later branchings do have their root in the original spread of liberalism. For liberalism to be studied as a proper historical concept it must be studied as a whole phenomenon, starting with the historical roots, before branching out to study more specific flavors. The same holds true for conservatism, communism, authoritarianism, anarchism and any other "-ism" you can think of. --Molon Labe 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation. Aside from the etymology of the word, classical liberalism has almost nothing to do with the meaning that the word carries within the United States and more to the point, to the context in which pages usually link to this one. I went through and cleaned up many dozens of links recently, switching them to modern American liberalism and didn't even make it a significant portion of the way through the full list. The fact is that liberalism has become a euphamism for left leaning or often simply Democrat in US English. I remember it being explained to me as a synonym for progressive when young. The fact that the present usage slowly evolved from a reference to classical liberalism is interesting, but mostly as a historical note. Naturally that isn't true for the rest of the English speaking world (or in Germany where I live  --- where the Liberalen are the furthest right of the mainstream parties and closer to classical liberalism). However, it's that sort of ambiguity that disambiguation pages are for.

The bits above about things that all liberals have in common has little relevance to modern usage. As a political ideology, those ideals are things that every significant political body pays (at a minimum) lip service to in the western world. As such no one would use the expression (in the modern west) "I am a liberal." in reference to those qualities; they would almost certainly be establishing themselves as being aligned with the European right or the American left. Scott.wheeler 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It Seems to me most of the confusion in this term comes from Americans who are constantly told the Democrats are Liberals, when infact by the rest of the worlds standards it is a Social Democratic party, not a Liberal party? 121.44.35.80 (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Psychology ???
As a non-partisan Independent, I was struck by the fact that "Conservatism" has an elaborate section called "Psychology" which implied that one could only be a conservative if you were descended from Neanderthals and abused in childhood. Yes, that is an exaggeration of the content, but that "Psychology" section is a clear "plant" by movement liberals to discredit conservative concepts as being due to emotional reactions, rather than rational and academic thought. In actuality, I have seen much more emphasis in political literature on the "psychology of liberals", with the idea of "liberal guilt" being used to explain the preponderance of liberalism amongst wealthy celebrities who have been the beneficiaries of lucky breaks. I am not proposing that any of the above concepts - of either side - are accurate, just that the Wikipedia presentation seems surprisingly slanted, especially given that the "criticism" section of Liberalism is astonishingly short, consisting of one obscure and difficult reference, which seems to be present simply so that someone can claim that "yes there is a criticism section". This is quite amazing, considering that biographies of minor pop stars or sports stars, whose lives have no impact on society other than entertaining people, have big Wikipedia stamps " THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO BE SLANTED ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.239.113 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are confusing liberalism with modern American liberalism. This article is about liberal as in liberal democracy.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

An example of how educated people use the word "liberal".
"Cyrus was busy too with a blatant propaganda campaign throughout the Babylonian Empire, winning support for what were presented as his liberal policies. The Greek historians tell us that he treated Croesus with kindness and respect and certainly his generosity in his treatment of local priests in Asia Minor won him a reputation for clemency and religious tolerance." Joan Oats, Babylon, 1986.


 * Unless it's what "liberalism" refers to in America, which is doing kindness with other people's money. Bluestema (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Liberals are often accused of spending more than conservatives, but the federal budget is a matter of record. Every president spends more than the one before, liberal and conservative alike. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're just playing semantics. If someone is spending a lot of other people's money, setting up social welfare programs and redistributing wealth, then they're obviously not conservatives. That would be a misnomer on your part as well as on the part of those who might dishonestly tell people they're conservatives. A true conservative doesn't partake in such activities. Bluestema (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course, provided you get to pick and choose who qualifies as a "true conservative". But an awful lot of people who self-identify as conservative, starting with George W. Bush, have in fact spent a great deal of other people's money. As for redistributing the wealth, the greatest redistribution of the wealth in history took place during Bush's administration, see Income inequality in the United States. Liberals are not trying to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. They're just trying to slow the rate at which the wealth is redistributed from the poor to the rich. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know of anyone in politics or in the media who considers George W. Bush a conservative. That myth is long gone. There may be some who think he is, but they're few and far between. Anyway you can't say that Bush has used government to redistribute more wealth than Obama has. Obama is Bush on steroids. The same reasons true conservatives dislike Bush, they hate Obama. I suspect that the inequality gap is going to rise much more by the time the Obama administration is over. Bluestema (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

From George W. Bush's official biography at www.whitehouse.gov

"...he earned a reputation for his bipartisan governing approach and his compassionate conservative philosophy, which was based on limited government, personal responsibility, strong families, and local control."

One big problem in trying to make Wikipedia articles informative is that liberals try to turn this article into "everything I personally like about liberalism and nothing I dislike", while conservatives try to turn it into "everything I personally hate about liberalism and nothing good." Neither approach is appropriate.

Similarly with the meaning of "conservative". One meaning is "to conserve the class structure". And the word conservative has never meant "to decrease the size of government". But Bush, while he in fact worked to increase the wealth and power of the upper class, paid lip service to "limited government". And Carl Rove used Orwellian techniques to try to change the language, and replace ideas with slogans. Thus my occasional posts on how words are used by people who know what they're talking about. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Neoliberalism
I tagged the "Neoliberalism" section as POV. The sources for the section are a Die Welt editorial and the Fraser Institute. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I exchanged the source Die Welt for another source. It only states that Alexander Rüstow coined the term at the Colloque Walter Lippmann, something you can read in many sources. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Academic papers are much better sources than editorials.  My real concern however was with the Fraser Institute, which promotes neoliberalism.  It should be balanced by an alternative view because there is dispute whether they are following their stated goals and whether their policies have had a positive or negative effect.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of egalitarianism
Only one subset of liberalism - social liberalism - considers egalitarianism an important political goal. Classical liberalism, neoliberalism and others emphatically do NOT. Therefore, including egalitarianism in the broad definition of liberalism is patently wrong. Only those political goals on which ALL strains of liberalism agree - individual rights and liberties and equality under the law - are to be included in the broad definition of liberalism.

Egalitarianism needs to be mentioned as important to social liberalism later on in the article.

Do not automatically revert edits and then invite others to the talk page. This is against the wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.21.45 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Egalitarianism is a broad concept. See e.g., the WP article:  Egalitarianism...is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.  Classical liberals etc. accepted these values.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Democracy" and "Liberalism" are not synonyms.
"(thats just untrue and not at all generally accepted. Britain was a democracy long before the US (what with the entire reason for the revolution being British democratic rights not extending to the col)"

Britain was (and is) a monarchy. The United States is not a democracy, but a republic. (...and to the republic for which it stands...) Representative government and liberalism usually go hand in hand, but they are not synonyms.

Most political scientists consider America to be the first modern liberal state because it explicitly rejected the class system still common at the time in most European states. A case can be made for Switzerland as the first modern liberal state. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see Spylab has altered the text, saying that the source does not support the statement that the US was the "first modern liberal state". I have always had trouble with that expression because it has no clear definition and it could be argued that the UK became a modern liberal state in 1688.  I think it would be more accurate to say that the US became the first modern state to be founded on a liberal constitution.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of References

 * What totally floored me in reading this article was the conspicuous lack of references for literally hundreds of claims throughout the article. This especially surprised me because liberalism is about as mainstream as a political concept can be- but still such a striking poverty of reference. BernardL (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article currently has 49 footnotes and almost a hundred suggestions for further reading. You'll need to be more specific about which claims you would like to see referenced. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately "suggestions for further reading" cannot substantiate specific claims. Yes, the article has 49 footnotes. This is not much. In comparison to subjects in a similar vein and with a similar scope it is conspicuously on the low-end. Libertarianism has 3 times as many footnotes, capitalism, neoliberalism and libertarian socialism all roughly twice as many. Consider the following example of a paragraph explicating the ideas of Adam Smith:

"The Scotsman Adam Smith (1723–1790) expounded the theory that individuals could structure both moral and economic life without direction from the state, and that nations would be strongest when their citizens were free to follow their own initiative. He advocated an end to feudal and mercantile regulations, to state-granted monopolies and patents, and he promulgated 'laissez-faire' government. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759, he developed a theory of motivation that tried to reconcile human self-interest and an unregulated social order. In The Wealth of Nations, 1776, he argued that the market, under certain conditions, would naturally regulate itself and would produce more than the heavily restricted markets that were the norm at the time. He assigned to government the role of taking on tasks which could not be entrusted to the profit motive, such as preventing individuals from using force or fraud to disrupt competition, trade, or production. His theory of taxation was that governments should levy taxes only in ways which did not harm the economy, and that 'The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.' He agreed with Hume that capital, not gold, is the wealth of a nation."

I count about 11 explicit claims in the paragraph about what Smith is supposed to have believed - yet! -there is not even one footnote, not even one reference substantiated by the work of Smith himself. Many of these claims being made about Smith views are far from being uncontroversial. Consider the views expressed in the introduction of this article and in the above paragraph that Smith can considered an advocate of laissez-faire. A modern day liberal and Smithian like Amartya Sen does not think as much..."Smith viewed markets and capital as doing good work within their own sphere, but first, they required support from other institutions—including public services such as schools—and values other than pure profit seeking, and second, they needed restraint and correction by still other institutions—e.g., well-devised financial regulations and state assistance to the poor—for preventing instability, inequity, and injustice. If we were to look for a new approach to the organization of economic activity that included a pragmatic choice of a variety of public services and well-considered regulations, we would be following rather than departing from the agenda of reform that Smith outlined as he both defended and criticized capitalism." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22490. A recently well-received intellectual biography of Smith by James Buchan argues that "A close reading of The Wealth of Nations and other good evidence shows that Adam Smith was no doctrinaire free trader...He believed that government should be involved not only in educating but in entertaining the public. The words laisser faire or laissez faire appear nowhere in his work. Though he deplored British commercial policy in Ireland, the Americas and India, he thought the solution was not independence for those countries, but federation with the mother country." (Buchan, James. The Authentic Adam Smith : His Life and Ideas, W.W.Norton, 2006, p3). In "Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century" the influential historical sociologist Giovanni Arrighi writes, "As Donald Winch has authoritatively argued, Smith's description of political economy as a "branch of the science of a statesman or legislator" and of his own contribution as a "theory" or set of "general principles," concerning law and government is an accurate characterization of his intentions and achievements. Far from theorizing a self-regulating market that would work best with a minimalist state or no state at all, The Wealth of Nations, no less than the Theory of Moral Sentiments and the unpublished Lectures on Jurisprudence, presupposed the existence of a strong state that would create and reproduce the conditions for the existence of the market; that would use the market as an effective instrument of government; that would regulate its operation; and that would actively intervene to correct or counter its socially or politically undesirable outcomes." (Arrighi, Giovanni. Adam Smith in Beijing. Verso Press. 2007. p.44). If only this case of a cavalier and disinforming portrayal of Adam Smith was just an isolated example...unfortunately, in my opinion, it is not. BernardL (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your good example. Since you've already done a good bit of research on the subject, would you be willing to add footnotes to those parts of the paragraph that are supported and delete those that are not? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section on Adam Smith is poorly sourced and distorts his views. It was probably cut and pasted from another website.  Feel free to re-write it, which would improve the article.  However it is important to remember that the significance of Adam Smith to the article is how his ideas were understood not what they really were.  Also, reliance should be made on secondary sources, rather than direct references to his text.  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think that the best reference for a statement that "Adam Smith expounded..." would be the writing of Adam Smith. Of course, the best reference for "Followers of Adam Smith believe..." would be a secondary source. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with using Smith as a direct source is that it requires the editor to make a judgement about what Smith actually meant. It is much better to use a textbook a source for what academics generally accept to be his opinions.  Please see WP:RS:


 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.


 * Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Begin work to improve article.
There are any number of serious problems with the lede. It is wordy. It jumps to American politics too quickly. It argues with itself. I am going to try to improve it, using major standard references and books by respected academic authors. Help is always welcome. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on the first subsection, mainly adding references. The next section, "Variations", seems to be almost entirely about political squabbles in America today, and as so has no place here. That subject is covered in Modern American Liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The next section, "Comparative influences" is very badly written, and the information there really belongs in the next section on the development of liberal ideas. I'm not at all sure that "Development of thought" is a good title for that section. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro is very bad
Rick Norwood, what you're doing to the intro is definitely not an improvement. You deleted all mention about the changes in liberalism from the laissez-faire ideas represented in the early liberalism to the interventionist ideas of later liberalism, as if it has been one constant set of ideas. I see you even changed the header of the article saying it discussed the "development" of liberalism with your edit summary "change section title from the awkward "development of thought" to a more descriptive title" just so you could give the impression that there was no development of change in the ideas over liberalism's long history. Also, you've put an exclamation from Martin Luther King say "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last" as if that represents liberalism in such as a way that it should top the article? Talk about POV! Good luck keeping that there, even without my help in deleting it. You've destroyed what was a much better intro. Introman (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on Liberalism is about liberalism as a philosophy and as a political movement worldwide. To insert into the article squabbles about modern American politics is inappropriate.  Your revisionist history of liberalism is not supported by any mainstream source.  The article still has much to say about changes in liberalism over time, but it reflects mainstream views on that subject, not your personal views.  Your claim that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a major influence on liberalism is as absurd as your claim elsewhere that President George W. Bush was not a conservative.  You, like Humpty Dumpty, try to redefine words to mean anything you want them to mean. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia Britannica is not a mainstream source? All mainstream sources on liberalism point out how broad it is, and includes the laissez-faire school of liberalism (classical liberalism) and the interventionist school of liberalism (modern or social liberalism) and how it's evolved over time. Apparently you just don't want that information revealed. Introman (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Encyclopedia Britannica presents its article as an historical narrative, with the various schools described as they emerged. It does not have a Variations section. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What does it matter what Encyclopedia Britannica does? What's your point? Introman (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman wrote, Encyclopedia Britannica is not a mainstream source? All mainstream sources on liberalism point out how broad it is, and includes the laissez-faire school of liberalism (classical liberalism) and the interventionist school of liberalism (modern or social liberalism) and how it's evolved over time....What does it matter what Encyclopedia Britannica does? Exactly.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the information in it, not how it's organized. You're talking about how it's organized. I'm asking what does that matter? Introman (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in lead
User:Introman has added the following tag to the lead

with the notation ''POV intro tag. See discussion''. I assume he is referring to your statement  about the changes in liberalism from the laissez-faire ideas represented in the early liberalism to the interventionist ideas of later liberalism. So here we have a concept that allowed modern science, democracy, the rule of law and world trade, among other things, to develop and you think that the lead should point out that there is a significant division between liberals who for example thought that federal meat inspection was a good thing and those who were opposed?

Alright, how do you think it should be phrased?

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rick Norwood, I don't know what you're talking about "meat inspection." I'm not aware of any difference between classical liberals and modern liberals on safety inspections. What differentiates the classical and modern liberals is mainly in economics in that classical liberalism is for an economy where quantity of supply and demand, and price of goods and services, and the distribution thereof, is not regulated by the government but by the market. The philosophy of freedom from government control, laissez-faire, that liberalism is most known for (except in the United States use of the term "liberal"), which you seem intent to obscure. Introman (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume your comments are meant for me because I mentioned meat inspection. I misunderstood what you meant by regulation.  Modern American liberals support an economy where quantity of supply and demand, and price of goods and services, and the distribution thereof, is not regulated by the government but by the market.  So by your definition there is no distinction between the supposed two types of liberals in the US.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you could say that. That's bizarre. Modern liberals are in favor of government regulating a price floor for wages, many of them are in favor of laws putting a price ceiling on pay as well for CEO's for example, they're in favor of laws to break up what they believe are monopolies instead of letting the market regulate competition, they're in favor of government controlling monetary policy instead of leaving money supply and interest rates to the free market, they're in favor of government-mandated wealth redistribution by through various regulations, and support distribution of wealth through a welfare state instead of leaving distribution of these resources only to market mechanism and charity, they support government controlled energy policy (including subsidies and specialized tariffs to that end) instead of leaving energy to the free market (as well as telling automakers what kind of fuel efficiency the cars they produce have to have), they support government-mandated distribution of health care instead of leaving it to the free market, and so on. They don't trust the free market to distribute resources equitably, is what it comes down to. Classical liberals don't support any of that. They believe the market, unhindered, is what most equitably distributes resources. Introman (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This version of the intro was much better: Introman (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are putting together a group of policies that some or most modern liberals support, and most of these policies are supported by those you consider modern classical liberals as well. Only five US states for example have no minimum wage laws and these are subject to federal minimum wage laws.  Welfare and state medical care for certain classes of the public exist throughout the US, and every state licences vehicles, restricting the types of vehicles people may drive.


 * Louis Hartz claimed that because the US did not have conservatives or socialists, or even social liberals, just classical liberals, that minor differences became greatly exaggerated with one side seeing the other as "reactionary" and themselves were seen as "radical" or even "socialist". Some American conservatives believe that American liberals have a hidden agenda and secret belief system.  But that view is not considered mainstream.  And it is questionable whether economic policy is the main dividing issue between American liberals and conservatives.  There are major divisions over social policy as well.


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about who I "consider modern classical liberals." I don't use that term. So what if only 5 states have minimum wage laws? What's that have to do with anaything? And yes welfare exists. What does that have to do with anything? I don't even know how to respond to your second paragraph. It's just bizarre. Introman (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is there are lots of sources that say liberalism includes both classical and modern versions and that they differ in important ways, which is why the term exist. It was well sourced in the previous version of the intro. Liberalism is not a monolothic philosophy with no divergent schools of throught within it, and not a static philosophy. Not to mention, what "liberalism" refers to in the rest of the world is NOT what "liberalism" refers to in the U.S. Introman (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Although you may find the second paragraph "bizarre" it reflects mainstream thought on modern American ideology. Your conversation would be more helpful if you were familiar with the subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with this article. This article is not about libertarian versus conservatism. It's not about conservatism at all. Introman (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You will note that I have not used the term "libertarian" at all and although I used the term "conservative" I said "the US did not have conservatives". So when you say This article is not about libertarian versus conservatism I agree, but ask what that has to do with what I have said.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was a typo. I meant "liberal." Introman (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

the part of this article on the subject of modern liberalism
I've read and added references to the article up to the section titled "Modern liberalism". The part of the article from "Modern liberalism" on is more than twice as long as the first part, which seems disproportionate. My goal now is to shorten that part, remove repetition, and provide organization and unity. Help is, as always, greatly appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to pause after just three sentences in the "modern liberalism" section. I'm not comfortable doing this alone. Maybe The Four Deuces would be able to help? The rest of the article is a jumble, jumping back and forth between 1776 and 2009. After the rise of communism, it seems to me, should come the section on the Great Depression, but in the article as it stands that comes much later, after some theoretical sections on American politics. It seems to me we need to bring "modern liberalism" up to the present day, while avoiding both the Scylla of too much American politics and the Chyribdis of ignoring America entirely. Discussions of various forms of liberalism should follow, in a section of their own. Comments? Suggestions? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The section on "Modern liberalism" probably should be re-written. I think Contending liberalisms in world politics might be helpful (the full book is available on Questia).  The section is too long and contains too much detail, but lacks sufficient information about early liberal conflict between elitist and democratic strands.  The Four Deuces (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to take a shot at writing it? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've slowly worked through the section on the Great Depression, moving most of the arguements for or against various economic theories to later in the article, since they effectively brought the story of the history of liberalism to a grinding halt. The next two sections, beginning with Totalitarianism, have no references at all! I'm willing to tackle them, because I think somebody needs to read the entire article, from beginning to end, and add references. But help is, as always, welcome. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Islamism
"The political history of the 20th Century can be seen as a cold war between liberal democracy and communism, though other enemies of liberalism, fascism and more recently Islamism, have also struggled for dominance." - I don't think it's correct to say that all Islamism is an enemy of liberalism, but I'm not sure how to change the sentence. Conservative Islamism? Islamofacism? Some of Islamism? Most of Islamism? It's too complex to put in a couple of words, as it includes fascists (bin Laden), theocrats, and royalists (caliphists?). Any suggestions? DrStockmann (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I withdraw the question. Islamism is almost defined as anti-liberal, fundamentalist Islam, even though it's logical meaning for me would be a lot wider. But that discussion must go elsewhere. DrStockmann (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

two ledes

 * There are currently two different ledes under consideration.


 * Lede A:

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.[1]

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for political liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3][4][5] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[6]

According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, "Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality."[7] In Europe, the term "liberalism" is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives. According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook".[8] In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. A philosophy holding a position in accordance with Scottish pioneer of political economy Adam Smith, that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or an invisible hand that benefits the society, is referred to as "classical liberalism."[9], of which US-style libertarianism may be considered an extreme example.

Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.[10][11][12] Instead, it founds itself on the assumption of the equal dignity and worth of individuals. Modern liberal thought originated in and influenced the politics of The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France. The first modern liberal state was the United States of America,[13] founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[14], that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[15]


 * Lede B:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, suitable for a free man) is the creed that holds that individuals should be free. This belief echoes throughout history, from the revolt of the Roman slave Spartacus to the famous words quoted by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last".[neutrality disputed]

The beginning of modern liberal thought is usually credited to John Locke, who wrote, in 1690, "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1]. During the Age of Enlightenment philosophers and political leaders alike began to reject many of the foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary aristocracy, established religion, and economic protectionism. [2][3][4] In their place came a belief in the dignity and worth of individuals.[5][6][7][8][9]

Liberalism holds that the only legitimate form of government is one that respects the liberty of its citizens, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[10]

Governments influenced by the Enlightenment include those of The Netherlands, Switzerland, England, Poland, and France. The first nation to be founded on liberal principles, without a monarch or an aristocracy, was the United States. The American Declaration of Independence includes the famous phrase (based on Locke) "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[11][12]

Today liberalism is the dominant ideology of the Western World, where mainstream political debate is held largely within the realm of accepted liberal principles such as freedom of speech and government by consent, principles accepted and prized by parties across the political spectrum.[13]


 * Please comment if you have an opinion on which of the two the article should use.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The first one of course. Because it makes it clear that liberalism is not a monolithic school of thought, but has different strains and evolutions, unlike the second version. The first version is also not U.S. centric as the second version is. What "liberal" means in the U.S. is unusual, compared to a large part of the world, and that what it refers to now is not what it referred to before in the U.S. even. And heading off the article with a Martin Luther King "free at last" quote is one of the silliest things I've ever seen. It wasn't sourced as being an example of a statement encapsulating liberalism, but completely the editor's original research. Introman (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the second version is better although I have trouble with both. Ideally the lead should briefly describe the subject, and not get into excessive detail.  The views of individuals should not normally be presented and sources should be appropriate to the subject.  For example the first version contains a quote from Peter Vallentyne in an article about libertarianism about two types of liberalism.  But other writers also see two types of liberalism, viz., elitist and radical.  An article or book about liberalism would be a better source.  Here's a link to Richardson's book that gives an overview of liberalism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And now lede A includes this paragraph, by Introman:

However, liberals do not agree on other things, such as on the legitimacy of the welfare state, the virtues of democracy, the boundaries of toleration, or even the nature of the liberty they think liberals ought to seek, whether negative liberty or positive liberty.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should reflect a mainstream view. I am therefore removing this latest edit and request that editors discuss their changes here.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverse of how Wikipedia is supposed to work
User The Four Deuces has put in an unsourced or wrongly sourced statement while deleting a properly sourced statement. That's the reverse of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I deleted the statement "All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law" which was sourced to the 1947 "Oxford Manifesto". The reason I deleted it is because, first of all it's not true that all liberals are in favor of democracy, not sure if they all would support "liberal democracy," but also because you can't source a claim about "all liberals" by a primary source like that of one group of people describing themselves. However, The Four Deuces has put the line back in. I think he's unjustified in doing this, for the reason I just stated. I also added the line "However, liberals do not agree on other things, such as on the legitimacy of the welfare state, the virtues of democracy, the boundaries of toleration, or even the nature of the liberty they think liberals ought to seek, whether negative liberty or positive liberty, which I sourced by Ryan, Alan. Liberalism. A Companion To Contemporary Political Philosophy. Eds. Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit. Blackwell Publishing, 1995. pp. 291-293. Rick Norwood deleted that. So, Norwood is putting back in the wrongly sourced and deleting the properly sourced. Introman (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, why do you not think that the Oxford Manifesto is a poor source? Yes it is liberals describing themselves, but why does that matter?  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the claim was that it sourced a statement about "all liberals." It's like if you picked a view from one liberal, say Adam Smith, and say that that view represents all liberals. You would need a secondary source saying that that particular view is representative of all liberals. Introman (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any claim of opinion like that MUST be directly attributed to the author making the claim. That is the only method by which opinion is allowed into articles.  Claims involving absolutes (such as "all liberals believe" or "all x are y) are troublesome as they are very often not true, tend to be opinions rather than statements of fact, and without impeccable sourcing and direct attribution (who makes this claim, why do they do so, and why is their opinion valued over others?) really have no place in an encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the statement that all liberals believe in democracy is like the statement that all triangles have three sides. However, I understand L0b0t's point -- politics is not mathematics, and when we talk about politics, we probably should avoid the word "all". Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Classical liberals distrust democracy, at least in its classic sense. That's why the U.S. was set up as a constitutional republic instead. They want to prevent tyranny of the majority. Among their reasons is they believed the masses would vote to take the property of the wealthy. This is mentioned in the article. Introman (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Or perhaps include it as sourced opinion. Something like- "According to so & so, belief in democracy is a defining characteristic of liberalism." maybe? L0b0t (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me to be a self-published document. What's more it's a "manifesto." Obviously it's not some kind of scholarly work in any respect. The only thing it could be used as a source for is a source for the views of the sources about themselves. You could say something like "The group of people who assembled at Oxford to set out principles for themselves said that 'true democracy' is true to liberal principles." But something like that couldn't even be in the lead for obvious reasons. They're not speaking for all liberals, and don't pretend to be. Introman (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read this: Oxford Manifesto. No, they're not speaking for all liberals. Nobody is. Nobody can. But they are a major group of liberals who came together to set down the liberal principles they had in common. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my point. Then they can't used to make a claim about liberalism. They can only be used to make a claim about the group of people that met at Oxford in 1947. And I don't think that would be appropriate in the intro. And yes, some people CAN speak about all liberals. Reliable sources can. Introman (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Manifesto is a perfectly reliable source for the the opinions of the Liberal International, a specific liberal organization that represents only the liberal political parties of its member states (The US is not a member & doesn't even have observer status with this organization.) L0b0t (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. But it would be out of place in an intro about "liberalism" in GENERAL, where we should be talking about the general characteristics of liberalism from sources making claims about the general characteristics of liberalism. Introman (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can look for sources, but they do not just represent people meeting at Oxford in 1947. The Manifesto represents the founding principles of the Liberal International to which individual member parties must subscribe. Members of Liberal parties must also subscribe to these principles. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Another attempt at a lede.

 * It seems neither of the ledes in the section above has strong support. I'm going to try again.  My touchstones are these 1) the lede should reflect what standard academic sources say about liberalism and 2) the lede should be short, and only touch on the most important aspects of liberalism.  My main source is brittanica online but clearly we cannot just copy what that source says, but need to use a variety of sources.


 * Proposed new lede:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, suitable for a free man) is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important value by many philosophers throughout history. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote praising "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed".

Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. John Locke is often credited with the philosophical foundations of modern liberalism. He wrote "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

In the 17th Century, liberal ideas began to influence governments in Europe, in nations such as The Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Poland, but they were strongly opposed, often by armed might, by those who favored absolute monarchy and established religion. In the 18th Century, in America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy. The American Declaration of Independence, includes the words (which echo Locke) "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Today, most nations accept the ideals of freedom. But Liberalism comes in many forms. According to James L. Richardson, in Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power, there are three main divisions within liberalism. The first is elitism versus democracy. The second is economic; whether freedom is best served by a free market or by a regulated market. The third is the question of extending liberal principles to the disadvantaged.


 * Comments? Suggestions??


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this is a tremendous improvement; thanks Rick. I would, perhaps, try to find a substitute for one of the two uses of the phrase "widely accepted".  L0b0t (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it in sentence 2 and change to a similar parenthetical clause in the last block of text, or maybe excise it entirely from sentence 2 and keep it at the end? L0b0t (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely not an improvement over what's there now. It's talking about political liberalism, rather than economic liberalism (free markets) which is only briefly mentioned. The latter is what liberalism refers to in the rest of the world outside the U.S. and Britain. Your not pointing out those geographical differences. And it's not showing the diversity of thought within liberals. Liberalism has been around for hundreds of years, so there's a lot of diversity. It's not some monolothic school of thought where everyone agrees with each other. That needs to be made clear. What's there now is no perfect but it's much better than the above. Just improve on what's there now. Introman (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I think it is good. Economic liberalism is only briefly mentioned, but liberalism is such a broad concept that it has sufficient coverage. It does by the way show the diversity of liberal thought, e.g., elitism v. democracy.

There are other things that might be considered in the lead. The class basis of liberalism, the conservative reaction, socialist views of liberalism, etc. But it is best kept brief and these other ideas can be developed in the article.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Note how Rick Norwood takes out what's said in the first line of the current intro: "Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals." This is the main problem. He and Four Deuces are obscuring that liberalism does not refer to just one monolothic doctrine, but includes varieties. Introman (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The lede above discusses the varieties of liberalism. But it starts out, as it should, with what it is that brings all those varieties together under one heading.  If the varieties of liberalism had nothing in common, they would not be grouped under one name.  We begin with what every major source mentions as the commonality of liberalism: freedom.  Then we mention the varieties. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not even agreed among liberal what freedom is, which in a sourced statement that you don't like. Classical liberals consider freedom to be freedom from restraint. Welfare liberals are talking about positive freedom. Introman (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, L0b0t. I'll make the changes you suggest in the text above.


 * The lede above discusses the varieties of liberalism. But it starts out, as it should, with what it is that brings all those varieties together under one heading.  If the varieties of liberalism had nothing in common, they would not be grouped under one name.  We begin with what every major source mentions as the commonality of liberalism: freedom.  Then we mention the varieties. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to Introman's comment. What you say contradicts your own sources.  You have called Locke and Smith "Classical Liberals" but they certainly didn't believe in "freedom from restraint", quite the contrary.  And, for most of the history of liberalism, the phrase "welfare liberalism" didn't exist, but you want to get that phrase in the lede in the general article on liberalism.  You want to argue modern politics.  This isn't the place.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a political argument, dude. I'm talking about the sourced statement that liberals don't agree on what freedom is. For classical liberals it's freedom from restraint. For welfare liberals, modern liberals, or whatever you want to call them, they embrace positive freedom. I don't know what you mean when you say that Locke and Smith didn't believe in freedom from restraint. Freedom from restraint means the government isn't stopping you from doing what you want as long as you don't harm others. Obviously, all these political philosophy concepts and terminology is new to you. Introman (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the first sentence in the last paragraph of the suggested lede, and provided a reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You say "obviously, all these political philosophy concepts and terminology is new to you." When I was in college, I had a close friend who was a Libertarian, so I have heard all these "philosophy concepts and terminology" many, many times. Hearing them over and over doesn't make them right.

The Four Deuces and I have provided many quotes, which you ignore.

You say that "Freedom from restraint means the government isn't stopping you from doing what you want as long as you don't harm others." Most people, I think, would take "freedom from restraint" to mean freedom to run wild, to form a mob. If you want to say that liberalism means that the government doesn't stop you from doing what you want as long as you don't harm others, I strongly agree.

In that sense, modern liberalism allows us to do many more things just because we want to than classical liberalism ever did. We can stay home from church, vote even if we don't own property, read sexy books, and criticize the president. Classical liberals passed laws against those things. The main thing George Washington was allowed to do that I'm not is grow hemp.

The introduction I propose discusses varieties of liberalism. It makes sense to discuss commonalities before you discuss differences. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly you don't know the concepts. Welfare state measures, such as minimum wage, is not freedom from restraint. It's an example of trying to bring about "positive freedom." Classical liberals only have conception of negative liberty, freedom from restraint, which means among other things that the government could not interfere without private contract between two people. If two people wanted to contract for a $1/hour wage, then the government would not be allowed restrain them. Welfare liberals, on the other hand, don't care so much about leaving people free to do what they want, because they see positive freedom as being important and believe government intervention as necessary to advance positive freedom. Understand yet? Or do I need to go into explaining what positive freedom is about now? Introman (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, Rick Norwood's lead is clearly sourced and represents mainstream thinking. If you wish to disagree then you must provide sources.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have. I put sources for everything that I've put in the intro as it stands now. Introman (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I mentioned before that the quote by Peter Vallentyne does not belong here: According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, "Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality.  You would not use an article about the history of Albania as a source for an article about the history of the US, so why use this quote.  It makes no sense.  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heads up, dude. This article is not about the U.S. It's just called "Liberalism." Introman (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That was an analogy. Please stay on topic.  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman: You keep saying that if only we understood the point you were making, we would agree with it. We do understand the point you are making. We don't agree with it. It is not, as you seem to think, self-evident. It is a minor view, held primarily by Libertarians. You have been asked repeatedly to cite a mainstream source. You have had pointed out to you repeatedly the problems with sources you cite. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since only one person here objects, I'm going to post the lede proposed above and move on. There is still a large part of this article that lacks references. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do agree with Introman's point; I just don't feel the lead is best place to make it. It is an important enough distinction that it should (in my opinion) be covered, in greatly expanded detail, in the article body. L0b0t (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it should be covered in the article body. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman has two points, one of which I agree with, the other I do not. His point that I agree with is that liberalism has changed over the years. The lede says that. It should be elaborated in the article. The point I disagree with is that the primary interest of liberals before the 20th Century was free trade, and that the primary interest of liberals today is welfare. I also disagree that freedom for individuals depends on freedom for corporations, but that's another story.

L0b0t: I'm going to be working on the part of the article that deals with varieties of liberalism over the next few days, and would be delighted to have your help, and the help of anyone else who is willing to use standard sources. I suggest that we structure that part of the article using Richardson's three categories.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of the literature discusses the divide in liberalism between elitist and democratic (although there is no general agreement on the terminology) liberalism. Louis Hartz spoke about this in his book and others have written about this in the UK and Germany.  One group of liberals is upper middle class (i.e., wealthy non-aristocratic) while the other is middle class.  The prime example of the first type in the US is the Federalists, while Jacksonian democracy represents the second.  But the cleavage between these two groups is not as clear as the cleavage between liberals and the upper class conservatives and the working class socialists.  And the policies they advocated often changed.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The meaning of "liberalism" has changed IN THE U.S. It has NOT changed in much of the rest of he world, where liberalism still means support of limited government and laissez-faire capitalism. In the U.S., the meaning of the word has changed, which is why we call the original meaning "classical" liberals or "traditional" liberalism to clarify what we're talking about. Liberals in Europe are traditional liberals or "classical" liberals, but they're referred to there simply as "liberals" (again, because the meaning hasn't changed). This article is not about what "liberalism" means in the U.S. That's only part of what this article is about. Introman (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: I hesitate to rely too much on Louis Hartz because he is writing specifically about America. You know much more about this than I do. I hope you'll write that section in the article.

Introman: You have expressed these views many times, but have never offered evidence. It doesn't help you to keep saying the same thing over and over. You need to find a major writer who agrees with you. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly did present evidence. And you DELETED it, as usual when a sourced statement says something you don't like. I sourced: "According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: 'In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies'. Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online)." That's from the MAINSTREAM SOURCE Encyclopedia Britannica "liberalism" article written by well-qualified scholars. A reliable source, according to Wikipedia policy. Introman (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned Hartz as someone who has written about the elitist/democrat split in liberalism but would rely on more recent sources. He actually used the terms Whig and Girondist as synonyms for elitist liberalism.  The National Liberal Party (Germany) is another example.  My point is that views on market liberalism are not the only divisions within liberalism.
 * Introman, we are in the middle of discussing the lead and your recent edits are unhelpful. Half the lead is now about laissez-faire liberalism.  You have not addressed any of the issues we discussed, such as why the lead is quoting from an article on libertarianism.  Therefore I am reverting your edits.


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Elitist/democrat split" is not a common distinction. That may be ok for detailed discussion in the body, but not in the intro. On the other hands, the classical and modern distinction is common and sourced to be so. If half the lead is now about laissez-faire liberalism that's because it should be. That's traditional liberalism, and half the world understands liberalism to refer to the philosophy that supports laissez-faire capitalism. Introman (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman: Your quote is about modern American liberalism. This article is about worldwide liberalism throughout history. The information contained in your quote certainly belongs in the article, but not in the lede. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my quote is about BOTH. It said what American modern liberalism is as well European liberalism. And since the term refers to different things in Europe and the U.S. that needs to be said. Introman (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, do you a source that explains this linguistic difference in greater detail? What reason is there anyway to discuss this in the lead?  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason to discuss it in the lead is because this is an international encyclopedia, and the the term refers to different things depending on what part of the world you are in. The intro is not the place to discuss the difference between traditional and social liberalism in a lot of detail. Introman (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know it the statement is true, so it would help if you could be a reliable source. Note that the European liberal party (European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party) is composed of both social and conservative liberal parties.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave a reliable source. Need another? Arthur Schelesinger Jr., "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans", in The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962) Introman (talk)

(out)Introman, this is what Schlesinger wrote:
 * As a young American political scientist, Professor Louis Hartz of Harvard, has brilliantly argued in his recent book The Liberal Tradition in America, the absence of feudalism is a basic factor in accounting for the pervasive liberalism of the American political climate.
 * Accepting the theory of America as essentially a liberal society, how can one distinguish the liberal and conservative tendencies within that society?
 * Similarly, it is difficult to believe that the crucial distinction lies in the attitude toward the role of the state. Thus the conservatives Alexander Hamilton and John Quincy Adams and the liberal Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed in advocating government direction of the economy, while the liberal Thomas Jefferson and the conservative Herbert Hoover agreed in wishing to limit the power of the state.
 * Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain. Liberalism in America has been a party of social progress rather than of intellectual doctrine, committed to ends rather than to methods. When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state.

Here is what you wrote:
 * According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: "In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies".

Schlesinger was claiming that the main split in American liberalism was elitist/democratic (he took his interpretation from Hartz but called the split conservative/liberal), not between pro- and anti-laissez-faire. His claim is totally different from the one used in Encyclopedia Britannica on line.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking about a split in American liberalism. Talking about different conception of liberalism in Europe and America. Introman (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked if you had an rs for this and one should be provided before inserting the comment.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I gave a reliable source for the statement: "According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: 'In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies'. Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online)." That's from the MAINSTREAM SOURCE Encyclopedia Britannica "liberalism" article written by well-qualified scholars. A reliable source, according to Wikipedia policy. And I just gave you an additional source that shows that there is a difference between European and American conceptions of liberalism. Introman (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) EB may be mainstream but it's still a tertiary source. The problem with them is that there are no footnotes to the sources of their information and no literature commenting on their opinions. How do we know that they are right? Because they are Encyclopedia Britannica. And the other source you provided (Schlesinger) contradicts them. So please find a reliable secondary source. If the statement in EB is true this should not pose a problem. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it it a tertiary source. So what? Tertiary sources are permissible. You ask "How do we know they are right?" You still don't understand Wikipedia. Whether it's "right" or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether it's sourced. As WP:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." And no, the Schlesinger source does not contradict it. And if it did, it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't make the source unreliable. Introman (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally we should be able to look at a statement in Wikipedia, then go to the source that was referenced, check the footnotes there and trace it back to the original research. Or we can find articles that question the findings in reliable secondary sources.  But we cannot do this with a tertiary source.  Which is why secondary sources are more reliable.  If you like I can set up an RS query on this.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What "original research"? There's not going to be an scientific survey anywhere surveying how different people are using the term, if that's what you mean. Whether a secondary source says this is a tertiary source, it's going to be the same thing. It's just going to be credible scholars telling you, from their studies and experience, the difference in what liberalism refers to in Europe and America. The source is reliable. Introman (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually scholars do perform original research to determine how words are used. Here's a link to an article on how the term neoliberalism is used.  P. 138 shows a count of how often it was used in literary journals, p. 142 shows its neutral, positive and pejorative use.  But EB Britannica does not countain footnotes that would allow us to find the research on the use of the term "liberal" in Europe.  We also do not know if the EB article is dated.  American usage may influence European usage.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like you're just going to have to take the source's word for it then because it's a reliable source according to policy. I think it's pretty common knowledge that Americans use the term "liberal" in a pretty unique way. So I doubt there's going to be any formal studies. Introman (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) It seems that there is now general agreement on the current lead. While this may change, it is unhelpful to  make major edits unilaterally without discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)