Talk:Modern liberalism in the United States/Archive 2

Embedded liberalism & The liberal consensus
Should these two sections be combined? Are they the same thing? TFD (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychology section
This section needs to be better worded, as it is not clear what it is saying. Also, since the study was conducted in 1976, we need more recent references to determine to what degree if any the findings have been accepted and developed and whether they have been extended to other liberals. TFD (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the locus of control theory, people see either the individual, powerful external forces or chance as having the major influence over their success. In the study, conservative student activists identified the individual while liberal student activists identified external sources.  That makes sense as liberals seek external change in order to assist individual success, while conservatives expect self-reliance.  But we really need to see further studies confirming the original study and probably applied to liberals in general.  If this cannot be found, then the section should be deleted.  TFD (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to be careful only to report studies, not to "make sense" of them. I agree, one study is a little thin, but my reading suggests that extensive efforts to find personality types that correlate strongly with liberalism have failed to turn up much of interest. I suppose it makes sense that conservatives tend to be homogeneous and liberals heterogeneous, but there I go, my last sentence ignoring the advice in my first sentence. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Social scientists identified five political groups: conservatives, moderates, liberals, radicals and left-wingers, of which only conservatism and leftism had any relation to personality.  That supports your conclusion.  Laird Wilcox wrote about leftists in the US (he called them far left) in his book American Extremists, but they are not really part of American liberalism.  TFD (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since no one can show that the psychology studies have received any attention since 1976 I will remove them. While I understand the view that if we have a conservative psychology section there should a liberal one, the assumption of symmetry is false.  The opposite of conservative is not liberal, it is left-wing.  While conservatives dominate conservatism in the US, the Left is a minor force in liberalism and is overshadowed by the other groups identified in the studies of conservatism:  moderates, liberals and radicals, none of which groups showed any relation to psychology.  TFD (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced
Much of this article does not seem to be sourced. For example, in American versus European use of the term "liberalism" almost all the qualities that are associated with American liberals are not cited. The same thing happened in the introduction and continues throughout the article. Other examples include section on Liberalism during the Cold War, Liberalism and Civil Rights, Liberals and Vietnam, and Nixon and the Liberal Consensus. Whenever (or at least most of the time) the article states what liberals believe in it fails to source that statement. On a side note, the section Philosophy of Modern Liberals seems to only to about economic policies, not social policies (such as abortion rights, voting rights, multiculturalism, views on illegal drugs, etc.). Maybe that section should be renamed Economic beliefs of Liberals? Reflections of Memory (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll start to supply references today. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

IP's removal of sourced content from "Possibility of a new consensus"
I reverted this edit by user 207.210.148.158 which as far as I can tell, removed sourced content from the Possibility of a new consensus section. I apologize if my undo was a mistake, but there didn't seem to be any legitimate reason for removing that statement or reference. Assuming this edit was made in good faith, is there a rationale for this removal? John Shandy`  &bull; talk 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * the latest Pew numbers from June 2010 show among all voters, conservatives = 40% and liberals = 22%. To quote: "In assessing their own political views, 40% of voters describe their own political views as conservative (either conservative or very conservative), 36% as moderate, and 22% as liberal (including very liberal)." It's hard to interpret that Pew data in terms of an emerging liberal consensus. see online Pew report, dated July 16, 2010 Rjensen (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Point data is not helpful in measuring trends, nor should this article change every time a new poll is conducted. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Badger Drink edit
The point is that a footnote should substantiate information in the next, not expand on the text by giving additional examples. Should Rove's duplicity be added to the text? My impression is that the attacks on Liberalism have been given enough space in this article. The material in question might be appropriate for the article on Karl Rove. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that that line of text was in the article is absolutely absurd. Aside from the weak sourcing (MMFA is good for it's own opinion, you need other sources besides a blog to make statements like that), comparing Obama and his administration hardly justifies such a vast and sweeping generalization, and 2008-2010 does NOT equal 2000-2010. Simply put, the statement as it was worded was not supported. Soxwon (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Isolationism
In regard to the text,"isolationism--demanded by both left and right": Could this please be clarified. Is it a reference to the Old Left and the Old Right or to liberals and conservatives? TFD (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * isolationism was generally popular among all sectors of American society, or nearly all, and dominated both political parties down to 1938.Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberal epithet
The paragraph of primary sources is WP:OR. Unless a secondary source confirms that these are deliberate attempts to demonize the word liberal, rather than simply sharp disagreement, then it needs to be kept out of the article. Soxwon (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read the talk page. You wanted a secondary source, so I provided one.  You deleted the paragraph anyway.  Since what the paragraph says is obviously true, just let me know how many secondary sources you want, and I'll provide them. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an important topic. However, I would remove the text with primary sources, e.g., Coulter and Hannity.  TFD (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I provided a secondary source for Coulter and Hannity, and can provide more if requested. Coulter is a best-selling author, and obviously had a lot to do with convincing large numbers of people that "liberal" does not mean what the word really means. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to ABCxyz
I think the list is getting a little too long, don't you. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We could make it into a separate article. TFD (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the names belong here but we should avoid talking heads on the media--and prefer more serious leaders. Rjensen (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Something seems to be missing
Could we put in something about how protecting/advancing LGBT people's civil rights has been a component of liberal causes, especially in the past few decades? This is something confirmed by numerous sources. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"the bearer agitation"
? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

schools:libertarianism
libertarianism shouldnt be listed as a school as it is usually considered a right wing ideology.

in the consertative article, "right libertarianism" or "libertarian conservatism" is listed

i suggest this article do the same ie left libertarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.54.131 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Are liberals "unenlightened"?
The section on the demographics of liberals should report basic facts about where liberals live, not attempt to prove that liberals are "unlightened". Enlightenment is not a state for which there is a scientific measure. The authors of the survey admit that there are many problems with their methods. Essentially, the survey characterized conservative economic views as "enlightened" and liberal views as "unenlightened", and then reports that most liberals surveyed are "unenlightened". This is not science. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This was introduced as an actual edit to the article? O_o Haha, I find that pretty funny, but good catch!  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen's edits
Please, be more careful about typos in your edits, and do not replace major sources with minor ones (in this case, an out-of-print textbook). Rick Norwood (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry about the typos, I'll fix them now, Britannica is still there I did not touch it (but Wiki advises against citing encyclopedias). As for textbooks, they're recommended sources and I'll use the latest edition. Rjensen (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the Encyclopedia Britannica article and it is misused, so I deleted that section.  The authors use "social democracy" only for the late 19th century, and not for recent history.  the elderly authors both retired years ago, and the Encyclopedia article has not been updated in many years-- the most recent event it mentions is the first term of Bill Clinton's administration in the 1990s;  its bibliography gives no books published in the last 10 years.  so it is not nearly as useful as a RS  on the 21st century as books published in the last five years by leading active scholars.Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your latest edit is much better than your previous edit, and I totally favor use of modern references. I've made just a few changes -- the issues mentioned are important liberal issues (I would have included the environment) but do not define modern liberalism. And liberals do not support "mandated insurance coverage", they support health care for all Americans. Mandated insurance coverage came about as a compromise with conservatives. Most liberals prefer the single payer option. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ok good points; I will change the insurance bit. The big fight in recent decade has been over tax CUTS--not the graduates income tax itself. Rjensen (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Demographics
Due to the blanket reverts without discussion, I've restored the demographics section which updates sources, better summarizes them, and gives better context. If there are any specific concerns, please discuss at the talk page. aprock (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Extensive sysnthesis in this article
There appears to be quite a bit of synthesis of primary sources in this article. Likewise, much of the content sourced to a given citation does not match the source. I had been bold and updated the article accordingly, but due the blanket reverts, I'm bringing these issues to talk. I've gone ahead and tagged the various content and sections. It would be useful for one of the reverters to review the original edits I made and bring up specific concerns.aprock (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * am illegal synthesis is a brand new idea --I don't see any and Aprock has not specified any sentence in the article. Rjensen (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm following you here. The most obvious example is the "21st century issues" section, which lumps a bunch of disparate sources together and claims they represent "21st century issues". aprock (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "21st century" is a date not a synthesis. Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not address the issue that there is no secondary source which lists this set of sources as particularly prominent in modern liberalism. aprock (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * which issue does not belong? Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a great question. There is no source which summarizes such issues, and without one it's not up to us to say. aprock (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

21st century issues
It seems like every single thing mentioned in the '21st century issues' section was also debated under Clinton, Bush senior, Reagan, and other Presidents going back through recent U.S. history. To call these '21st century issues' seems like a misnomer. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. There also seems to be no rhyme or reason as to what issues are included in this section.  The issues listed appear to be a hodgepodge picked from arbitrary sources with no indication that any source thinks that these specific issues are "21st century issues".  I've tagged accordingly. aprock (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted below, the core values listed in (page 141) contrast sharply with those listed in the lede and in the "21st century" section.  If there are no objections, I will update the sections accordingly in due course. aprock (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources for that section are: Checking those source citations, I do not see any source which lists the set of current issues given in the section. (I admit to not reading all of Wolfe, so if it is in there somewhere, please let me know.) aprock (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Dawn E. Johnsen, "A Progressive Reproductive Rights Agenda for 2020," in J. M. Balkin, ed. The Constitution in 2020 (2009) pp. 255-66
 * 2) Marc Landy and Sidney M. Milkis, American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights (2008) p. 696; Thomas R. Hensley, The Rehnquist Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy (1986-2001) (2006) p. 311
 * 3) Alan Wolfe, The Future of Liberalism (2010) p. xx
 * 4) Stephen Brooks, Understanding American Politics (2009) p. 297
 * 5) Lawrence R. Jacobs and Theda Skocpol, Health Care Reform and American Politics (2010) p. 96

JFK quote in lead
It's not clear what purpose this quote serves in the lede. JFK's views of liberalism are not a part of the body of the article, and having this quote in the lede puts undue weight on a single President's 50+ year old view of liberalism. I'm removing it per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE. aprock (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is one concern. JFK is a major liberal, and his views nicely sum up the beliefs of modern liberals.  You remove the quote on the grounds that it is the view of just one man, but every quote is the view of just one man, and on the grounds that it is fifty years old, but there is no reason to think new quotes are better than old quotes.  Rather the reverse, because old quotes have stood the test of time. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your view, but there is no secondary sourcing indicating that this excerpt from his prize winning book is a representative view of modern liberalism. Including such a quote in the lede when it is not discussed in the body of the article or properly sourced as representative is WP:UNDUE.  If this is your only concern with this specific edit, I'll ask that you restore the other edits while preserving the JFK quote. aprock (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is pretty standard to present a picture or a quote that is representative of the topic of an article. Kennedy was the iconic post-war liberal president in the same way that Reagan was the iconic conservative president.  His speech about liberalism to the Liberal Party of New York is widely quoted and representative of how liberals see themselves.  TFD (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While what you say may be true, there are two problems with the quote described above: (1) there is no secondary sourcing indicating that this specific quote is representative and (2) the lede is generally a summary of the article and Kennedy's views of liberalism are not discussed in the article. aprock (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1) The quote is just the first problem, far from the only problem. But let's talk about that.  Do you really need an outside source to confirm that Kennedy was a liberal?  I'm happy to provide one.  And Kennedy's description of liberalism is echoed in the article.  Rick Norwood (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that he was a liberal. My first stated concern from above is: (1) there is no secondary sourcing indicating that this specific quote is representative . aprock (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Aprock has started an AN/I thread regarding my reverts: aprock (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)  He has also accused me on my talk page of violating the three-revert rule for editing (not reverting) what he has written. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After your prior two blanket reverts, your recent edit summary is: "Remove a dubious flag on a referenced statement.". Instead of removing tags, why not discuss them first before removing them? aprock (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If anything, Rick Norwood may have made a mistake, but I will vouch that he has no ill will against you or that he is acting in bad faith - he is a seasoned editor and I have noticed his contributions to this article and his involvement in historical talk page debates for this article. Not everyone who has come to the talk page in the past has been as patient or cooperative as you are, Aprock, so some of the respondents here might seem a little standoffish at first. After all, any kind of political article on Wikipedia is always going to carry some politics with it. I'm not quite convinced that it was time to start an AN/I discussion over what appears to me to be a misunderstanding, but you did what you thought was appropriate so that's that. I think we're in a comfortable process of WP:BRD at the moment though. See my thoughts on your listed items in the discussion above - I hope they're helpful.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 03:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's unreasonable to expect any given quote to have a secondary source that relates it back to a characterization of the speaker's views - good luck finding any for the majority of quotes out there. I think it's sufficient and fair to be able to characterize or employ quotes of a person much in the same way that the person's views or identity are characterized. If JFK is identified as an important modern liberal figure, his quotes should be able to be used in helping to characterize modern liberalism. So I think it's fair to relate JFK to the topic as he is iconic, and I don't see how the quote is given undue weight if included in the article. However, I do think the quote may better serve the article if placed in a section rather than the lead. Indeed, one of my "closet suggestions" is to revamp the section that lists modern liberal thinkers and leaders to, rather than just be a big list, go into more depth (yet still brief) about each person's role in advancing or advocating modern liberalism - in such a section it would be entirely appropriate to introduce JFK and certainly include a quote from him. I'm not seeing how the quote has undue weight, and I think only its location is slightly questionable (not because I think the location is necessarily erroneous, but because I think it could serve better elsewhere).  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 02:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly all for a section on JFK as a former scion of liberalism, which I'm sure can be sourced. And if such a section were developed, then summarizing it in the lede would be most appropriate.  aprock (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I got a little hot under the collar. The thought of doing a line-by-line edit of a massive rewrite got to me. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concern. Based on the edits I did make, I honestly don't think there is much to be concerned about.  You're welcome to review them, and revert specific content edits (or restore sections) that you disagree with, then discussing them here.  I would ask that you leave the tags for the time being, as they represent content that I have concerns about.  I would be happy to be bold and just fix those concerns, but am happy to discuss the issues on the talk page.  I would specifically suggest taking a look at the "Demographics" section, which I spent significant time updating and sourcing. aprock (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aprock seems to be unaware of how to do the most basic google research--a google search shows that many standard books on liberalism have used the same Kennedy quote, which validates igts use here. google search. Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate pointer. Reviewing the first source, it does appear that the JFK quote is held up as representative of the core values of liberalism.  I'll also note that these core values contrast sharply with those listed in the lede and in the "21st century" section.  Assuming that others feel this source is reasonable, I'd be happy to see the article updated accordingly. aprock (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * core values are permanent, current issues change every few years. We need to cover both. Rjensen (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The source indicates that JFK's views are representative of the core issues of modern liberalism, and that those core issues are fairly stable. Do you have a source for what the current issues are and how they've been changing over time? aprock (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kennedy is talking about liberal approaches to issues. He for example does not mention the Cold War, which was a BIG DEAL at that time and is now gone. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good. Do you have any sources for current issues in liberalism?  I've had no real luck in finding anything reliable myself. aprock (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * an excellent source is political science textbooks, which are updated often--these are cited in the footnotes on 21st century issues.Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
I've gone ahead and added back the dubious tags to "fear the extremes" and "entitled to basic necessities" which do not appear to be supported by the cited sources or the content of the article. If page numbers for these phrases can be located, I'll be happy to support the inclusion of these characterizations. aprock (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the Krugman cite just supplied, there is no mention on page 267 of "Most American liberals support a mixed economy because they fear the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism". The relevant quote may be: "I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty.  I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law.  That makes me a liberal, and I'm proud of it."  If this is indeed the passage that is being cited, I suggest the content in the article be synched to the source. aprock (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the SAGE source provided, the relevant passage appears to be: "This liberalism favors a generous welfare state and a greater measure of social and economic equality. Liberty thus exists when all citizens have access to basic necessities such as education, health care, and economic opportunities."  This does not at all match the copy in the article: They believe that all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life , and should also be synched. aprock (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * we paraphrase here at Wikipedia. thus "all citizens have access to basic necessities" becomes "entitled to the basic necessities of life" If you have a better paraphrase then try it out.   Rjensen (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. aprock (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Voting rights
This article describes itself as for the 20 and 21st centuries, however it says it is for "voting rights for African Americans." This shouldn't be included in the article because that was a 19th century issue, but the Democratic Party totally opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments by a large majority. To suggest they were historically for African American voting rights is a falsity. - Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Errr, if you think that "voting rights for African Americans" was a "19th century issue" you need to read about the Voting Rights Act, for a start. It was a huge part of the Civil Rights Movement.  The article is about "liberalism" not "Democratic party" -- remember that "liberal" = "Democrat" and "conservative" = "Republican" wasn't always so.  There once was a huge right-wing Democratic presence -- particularly in the South, since Republican was the party of Lincoln, the sum of all evil for many of them (see yellow-dog Democrat) -- just as there once was a progressive wing of the Republican party (see Rockefeller Republican). Antandrus  (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was primarily a 19th century issue; the act you reference quotes extensively from the 19th century Amendment. At any rate, this article has a higher percentage of Republicans (arguably conservative at this time in history) then Democrats (arguably liberal this time) voting to pass the Act, therefore this would either be a conservative issue, or an issue for both modern movements, but certainly not something exclusive to modern liberalism in any sense. If this article is covering history, and it is decided to include "voting rights for African Americans" in this article it should be noted that Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments in the past. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have ignored Antandrus' response and replied with irrelevant trivia. TFD (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * False. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Voting rights was (and is) a core defining issue for liberalism since 1948. The fact is 90%+ of the blacks in the South were not allowed to vote in the 1950s--a century after the Civil War. Was it "exclusive" to liberals? Not quite, since some conservative Republicans supported it (many of the GOP supporters were liberal/ Rockefeller Republicans). Rjensen (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Some Republicans" is inaccurate. A higher percentage of Republicans (and in some case ONLY Republicans) supported the 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments, as well as the Voting Rights Act. It is ridiculous to describe this as a "core defining issue" for liberalism. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement was "most conservative Republicans". Most conservative Republicans opposed the Voting Rights Act.  TFD (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And now you're nitpicking. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and you still present the fallacy that "Republican=Conservative" prior to the late 1960s and Southern Strategy, which is laughably false, and just plain ridiculous. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * False. I'm stating that the evolution in parties should be mentioned in this article, because it is "laughable" to describe voting rights in this way. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Laughable? Maybe to some. Accurate? Most definitely. You started your argument with "but the Democratic party opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments by a large majority", and it was pointed out to you that, it doesn't matter what the Democratic party at that time was for or against, only what liberalism was for or against. You continued arguing as if "Republican = conservative" and "Democratic = liberal," after which it was pointed out to you again. You then brushed it off as "nitpicking," despite that nobody is nitpicking, rather they're pointing out your mistaken assumption that appears to be the semantic root of this ridiculous content dispute. If you won't acknowledge this caveat, then we'll just have to resort to waiting for you to offer reliable sources that support your point of view as to which ideologies (not parties) voting rights was a central issue for. Again, what matters for this article is whether the issue was central to liberals or conservatives (whether they were liberal Republicans or liberal Democrats is of minimal consequence).  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * YOU are the one that said "Republicans." It was primarily Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democrats that supported voting rights...and they were opposed by Conservative Republicans and Conservative Democrats. That's perfectly in like with the subject of this page...which is titled "Modern Liberalism in the United States," not "History of the Democratic Party." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Aprock's recent edit
Good quotes, Aprock. I've been busy with my life, but one of these days (maybe today) I am going to spend some time on Wikipedia, going over the present state of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone over Aprock's extensive edit of the 16th in detail, and apologize for reverting it. I am still in general suspicious of huge edits of controversial articles, but in the case of Aprock's edit, I acted too hastily.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the feedback. I can certainly understand your feelings here.  When I've got time I'll go back and make most of the constructive changes and start discussions regarding some of the undue issues that I felt warranted attention. aprock (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

American liberal causes
In the lead, we have "American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, and government entitlements such as education and health care." But wouldn't voting rights for African Americans seem a bit out of place, as Africans Americans have had the vote for a while now? It seems like the odd man out in a list of goals/expectations. ☢Pufferfish101⑨ 21:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is not a "current events" article, but is rather about liberalism in the 20th and 21st centuries. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, alright. That makes sense then. ☢Pufferfish101⑨ 07:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The section entitled "possibility of a new concensus" is a complete joke. The notion that the statement "Immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talents" is somehow indicative of one's liberalism is absolutely laughable.  There is a big difference between believing immigration laws should be enforced, as most conservatives believe, and thinking that immigrants don't contribute to American society.  Even more ridiculous is the assertion that the following statement is indicative of a liberal mindset: "The people's will should have more influence on US laws than the Bible".  I think you would find a very large percentage of conservatives who don't believe the Bible should have more influence on American law than the will of the people.  The other three statements discussed in that section may be indicative of modern liberalism in this country, but to claim the two I mention are somehow hallmarks of a liberal mindset is completely asinine.

Another ridiculous sentence is this one: "However, when polled on individual policies voters have sided with notably liberal ideas." When following the source provided, a grand total of four "ideas" are provided as evidence. The sentence I quote clearly is trying to make it sound as if a majority of voters side with the entire liberal policy agenda, rather than just a few ideas here and there. I would be willing to bet that if you look at the poll provided as a source, as well as other polls, you would find a majority (a level of support greater than the percentage of those who call themselves conservative)of voters agreeing with some "conservative ideas" as well. Thus I could just as easily, and correctly, state that "when polled on individual policies voters have sided with notably" conservative ideas. It's as if the "author" of the entry feels he needs to rebut the finding that a plurality of people in this country clearly identify themselves as conservatives by finding a few supposedly "liberal ideas" that conservatives happen to agree with and then forcefully implying that most individuals are actually liberal. Numerous polls have shown that a large majority of this country believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. A vast majority oppose having civilian trials for the terrorists at Gitmo and a clear majority have indicated that the so-called stimulus was a complete failure and more money should not be spent on similar "stimulus" packages, including more benefits for the so-called deadbea...I mean "99ers". Does that mean a vast majority of this country is conservative? Evidently so, because a vast majority of people, when polled, have agreed with the statements I have made, statements that are usually identified with conservatives. I could list other polling results concerning illegal immigrants, lower taxes, etc. I think you get the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Gee, you certainly did a good job of knocking over that strawman you set up. 90% of the words in your statement are nonsensical and have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Im sorry, but just because you don't like something doesnt mean your views are correct. You need to provide sources, reliable ones. And well, just as a free tip? Posting rants like that is basically going to see every one of your posts on the subject scrutinized, due to a clear lack of neutrality and/or shame. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2010 addition
I have included in here a section describing the heavy use of the term Liberal as an insult that was active in 2010 Kentucky. The link shows the posters as they arrived in the mail to independants. Please do not erase my final line; while it may at first sound like original research, it is not. There is no way one can claim a person both supports increasing medicare and decreasing medicare, as was done in the flyers. This is not ambiguous, this is not original research, and it does not need a citation. It merely "Is." It is important because the two ideas are both readily offerd and cannot be logically meshed. That is simply impossible. So pointing this out would not be considerd original research by any stretch. Any REAL criticism is, of course, welcome. However, should this be challenged on such a petty issue, I will revert it. Rewording is fine so long as it does not attempt to obscure the reality of what happend.

Not original research because to claim that anything other than what I wrote truly happend in these events is a declaration that one will be willing to play petty games, is delusional, or is just plain lying. To deny the appearance of the conflict is to deny reality. Reality is not original research, and any attempt to change this wording will invariably require original research beyond what was presented herein. All we have to go on is those flyers, which are unambiguous in their message. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but if you have to explain how you came to a conclusion, it's obviously original research. This incident would need coverage in a reliable source, not just your blog. Dayewalker (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The litmus test for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - while it may be true in this case, it cannot be verified by reliable sources. Therefore it is certainly original research for us to draw the link to derogatory use of the word liberal. Blogspot is unfortunately not a largely reliable source and is not necessarily reputable for fact checking as a mere primary source. While I personally don't at all doubt the validity of those flyers (which would make a great example of using liberal as a derogatory epithet). Try searching the local newspapers and other more reliable publications for mention of the flyers - then we could certainly add the example to the article (if the sources you find discuss the use of the term as derogatory, not just showcase photos of the flyers).  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 15:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * even if a local newspaper reported it the episode is not important enough to be encyclopedic in the history of liberalism. the article already makes clear that it is an attack word and has been for decades. This is merely a local example of that.Rjensen (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * litmus test for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -- yow! Dissemblance enshrined! Now that is as damning a political slur as can be: an attack on reality! Nothing like reality-denying, truth-obliterating edits... the very definition of propaganda. linas (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Linas, allow me to clarify. First of all, as stated right at the very beginning of one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, WP:Verifiability, is this exact wording: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. This is one of the basic tenets that makes an encyclopedia encyclopedic. It's not our job to guide the reader to truth - rather, we are meant to characterize the notable reliable literature (e.g. scholarly works in academic/scientific journals, news and journalism, media, etc.) on any given subject. This way, readers are introduced to "the lay of the land" knowing that content published on Wikipedia is sourced from reliable publications (because Wikipedia does not publish original research). The principle of verifiability, not truth culminates in Wikipedia being able to have articles on both Creationism and Evolution, for example, or Flat Earth and Spherical Earth (or what about Christianity and Islam?). Obviously not all editors think that Creationism is true or has merit, while not all editors accept Evolution to be a truly occurring process. If Wikipedia were about publishing truth, how would editors ever reach any agreement on how to proceed with articles on both of these subjects? How would editors reach an agreement on whether both subjects even deserve an article? How would flat earthers and round earthers ever learn to co-exist and write comprehensive, factually-accurate articles that demonstrate to the reader the actual mainstream discourse on the shape of Earth? This is where verifiability comes in and provides a framework of what to include or exclude (as well as its cousin, WP:Notability). Whether a reader is convinced enough to accept something as true or false is up to him or her. Our job as editors is merely to make sure that what people read on Wikipedia is an accurate representation of what they would read if they went out into the world and read a collection of reliable sources on a subject. You can throw your silly accusations of propaganda at me all you want, but without verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view, you can't have an encyclopedia that accurately represents humanity's discourse.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 03:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait im a bit confused (Really.) What are we supposed to do when a repeated insult is coming routinely from one group? Wouldnt that by itself negate the reliability of the source (due to its false statements and/or a clearly biased nature, right or wrong not withstanding?) Is there a policy directly affecting that issue? Im just really confused on how this is to be applied under the scenario we find ourselves in on this page so often. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

POV tag
I've gone ahead an tagged the article as POV. The blanket reverts, and the removal of tags without discussion indicate that this article being maintained in a disruptive manner. I expect good faith discussions to follow. aprock (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * aprock doesn't like liberalism I suppose, but has been unable to find one sentence he disagrees with. Rjensen (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tagged several sections and specific content. Here is a list to assist you: sections: "21st century issues", "Liberal as a derogatory epithet", both sentences in "Possibility of a new consensus", and the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede.  You yourself removed two of those tags. aprock (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, I think aprock's points are worth a close look - after all, we all want to improve this article. For the parts that are haphazardly sourced and synthesized, we shouldn't have much trouble finding secondary sources and revising the article's content. So I don't see the need to assume bad faith or that aprock doesn't like liberalism (and whether he does shouldn't matter much, as we should all strive for NPOV). I feel like the article is a sound representation of modern liberalism in the US, but if that's the case it shouldn't be difficult to find new sources and refactor the article to remove synthesis in favor of secondary source characterizations.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 18:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged additional content, which should be prominent by either reviewing the article or my edits. I invite any comments, concerns, or feedback. I will in due course address the tags with constructive edits, independently or collaboratively if others show constructive interest. aprock (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll note here that the language of the lede is rather dubious and appears to be unsourced editorializing. Phrases like "fear the extremes" and "entitled to basic necessities" do not appear to be supported by and of the cited sources or the content of the article. aprock (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You really need to explain your reasoning better. It may be POV, but if you do not explain why it is, then we cannot correct it.  TFD (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comment. Please do read the edit to which you directly replied, as well as the edit summaries of the reverted edits, and the discussions above.  If you have questions about where I may have been vague, please do ask. aprock (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the POV tags state, "Please see the discussion on the talk page". I should not have to search through multiple edits and discussions threads to piece together your argument.  TFD (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting directly from the edit to which you replied: Phrases like "fear the extremes" and "entitled to basic necessities" do not appear to be supported by and of the cited sources or the content of the article. I take it from your reply that you find this reasoning insufficient or unclear.  Is that correct? aprock (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * eing unsourced and being POV are two separate issues. Notice that they are covered under two separate policies.  What is the POV issue?  TFD (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather work to improve the article than quote chapter and verse of which policies are being violated. If you think the quotes I mentioned are problematic in terms of WP:RS and not WP:NPOV, that's fine.  The content can be improved.  Do you really want to debate whether those two specific quotes represent WP:NPOV problems or WP:RS problems? aprock (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is difficult for other editors to understand your concerns when you are vague. I do not know why you think the article is POV and therefore can do nothing to address your concern.  In those circumstances the correct procedure is to remove the tag, but I will wait for you to explain it.  TFD (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

List of POV issues in the article that I've noted on the talk page and in edit summaries: I'll update this in further edits in a bit. aprock (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * , ,, : 21st century issues, section is POV synthesis
 * : removed selective inclusion of causes from lede, some not mentioned in the article
 * : sync unfavorable language to sources
 * : clean up more unsourced unfavorable language
 * : remove unsourced and undue table
 * ,: broadened lopsided polling data
 * : undue block quote
 * : undue discussion of liberal as insult
 * : listing of specific undue sections:  "21st century issues", "Liberal as a derogatory epithet", both sentences in "Possibility of a new consensus", and the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede.
 * "Synthesis is not the same thing as POV. I do not know how you can remove some causes from the lead claiming they are selective, while retaining others, especially when the passage is sourced.  Why is your selection NPOV, while the source used is selective?  It is not POV to say "fear the extremes of wealth and poverty" any more than it is to say that superstitous people fear witches.  TFD (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From the first sentence of WP:NPOV: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views. Those causes (in 21 centruy and the lede) were not selected fairly or proportionately, and are in fact unbalanced and POV. aprock (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you keep saying, but you do not explain why you believe that, for example by providing a source that explains the subject differently. Again, you may be right, but I have no way of knowing.  TFD (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, so here's my thoughts on the issues listed by Aprock so far.


 * Per 1 through 4, I think the 21st century issues section does need work, and more sourcing to establish that they are distinctly issues of the 21st century, as the section suggests.
 * Per 5, Maybe they're selectively included in the lede, or not mentioned in the article, but then shouldn't the content be relocated to an appropriate section in the article? Just removing it is only a half-step, and certain to be scrutinized by other editors because the removed content was sourced. If you did indeed relocate the content, then I just haven't seen it.
 * Per 6, I think this is a good edit because I think it's safe to presume that you accurately synchronized the article's content with what the cited book actually says. However, if the book does indeed discuss fear of extreme wealth or poverty induced by rampant capitalism, then there's nothing wrong with the prior verbiage. If the book holds a point of view, that point of view should be channeled into the article. Putting that aside, at face value I think the new verbiage is more direct and explicit about "what" American liberals support rather than "why" they support it, but as to which is more appropriate for the lede, my ears are open.
 * Per 7, I am assuming that the removed text was not found explicitly in the cited source, but could it be that the statement They believe that all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life and they champion the protection of the environment. is a paraphrasing or characterization of part of or the whole of the cited book? That's a worthy consideration.
 * Per 8, seems fine to remove if it's unsourced.
 * Per 9 & 10, I think Gallup is a better source than "people-press.org", so I think that's an improvement. I haven't read the Newsvine source, but in assuming good faith I figure that you have more accurately characterized the Newsvine article. (I'm not familiar with Newsvine, so I can't comment on its reliability/notability - I assume it's a typical online national newspaper or news magazine?)
 * Per 11, I think it's a case of original research or synthesis to cast these as examples (I don't doubt they are examples, but an encyclopedic article should characterize another work that links it to the topic as an example). (Also, see my thoughts on item 12, which are quite similar to my thoughts on item 11).
 * Per 12, I think that the paragraph on Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc. represents some level of WP:SYNTH, but I don't see any reason to suspect it has been given undue weight. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity are staunch conservatives and are also major critics of liberalism. I do think the paragraph represents some synthesis though because it takes those authors' works (which are primary sources) and synthesizes them to fulfill an illustration or example of liberal as a derogatory epithet. I think it's a fair thing to do, but synthesis is original research and so instead, we need an article to make the connection from these works to the usage of liberal as a derogatory epithet. In all likelihood, I can't imagine it being too terribly difficult to find some reliable source secondary to those two which establishes such a connection. My time is somewhat limited, but I may look for some soon.


 * Hopefully these remarks are helpful. :)  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 02:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your constructive remarks. It's reassuring that some of the issues I've seen aren't mere illusions but are instead something that others have seen as well.  I take the point that providing better summaries and moving as opposed to removing some of the content may be a more effective route.  Thank you for the feedback. aprock (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Synthesis Rule is misunderstood here. It means taking A from source a, B from source B, and concluding C, when there is no source c. We have A,a, B,b but there is no C in the article so no synthesis. In the case of liberalism as epithet, there are explicit cites from several experts saying that happened. (That is, we have A and a) . Rjensen (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no support here for an "UNDUE" tag for the section on epithet. Many eminent RS have agreed on the denigration of "liberal," and the collapse of "Liberal" as major self-designation in the US seems quite appropriate for an article on Liberalism in the US.Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See below. Talking dolls are not reliable sources. aprock (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion regarding doll source. The whole section is very well sourced with numerous footnotes.
Please see here:. aprock (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aprock is not acting in good faith. He took the issue to Wikipedia, he received no support from editors not involved here--the consensus was the statement is factually true--and now plans to ignore that and impose his original opinions. The statement is sourced according to the rules. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with any of my edits, please do bring them up at the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Aprock and Rjensen's edits.
Good work, Aprock and Rjensen. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Liberal" as a derogatory epithet, poor sourcing
As discussed above in the "POV tag" section, this section appears to be an essay based on a lot of original research and synthesis. I've done a review of all the sources, and more than half of them appear to be misused in some way. Many of the articles fall into one of the categories, listed below.


 * (A) Content does not support the notion of "liberal" as an epitheth
 * (B) Source is a primary text of someone using liberal negatively
 * (C) Source is an op-ed, and does not establish notability
 * (D) Source is unreliable
 * (E) Source is a secondary source by an established writer

I've marked the sources which are appropriately used below using (E) before the source.

Here is a breakdown of all the sources in the section.


 * Alan Wolfe, "Jeremiah, American-style," New Republic, May 13, 2010, P. 31: This source does not support the idea of "libearal" as an epithet
 * E.J. Dionne, Why American Hate Politics (1991) p 37: This source does not support the idea of "libearal" as an epithet
 * Kevin Boyle, review of "American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time," by John McGowan, Political Science Quarterly, Winter 2008/2009, Vol. 123 Issue 4, p 706: [unchecked]
 * (E) The Triumph and Collapse of Liberalism, John Lukacs: This article is a good secondary source written by a historian.
 * (E) "Newt Gingrich's famous description of liberals as 'The enemy of normal Americans' is one of many iterations of this well-worn theme", notes Eric Alterman, Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Most Important Ideals (2009), p. 131: Book, very good secondary source written by a historyian.
 * (E) Arthur Finkelstein: Out Of Sight But In Control by Jonathan Karl, CNN, 1996-10-10.: Ok source from a senior poltitical correspondent.
 * (E) Now Is Not the Time For National Unity! by Nicholas von Hoffman, New York Observer, 2004-11-17.: Another ok source from from a political correspondent.
 * Should We Deep-Six the Term "Liberal" or Own Up to It? by Kathleen Reardon, The Huffington Post, 2005-09-16.: Huffington Post Op-Ed.
 * (E) "Talking Right: How conservatives turned liberalism into a tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show" by Geoffrey Nunberg, page 49.: An excellent book from a linguist.
 * (E) "Crashing the Gates: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics" by Jerome Armstrong, Simon Rosenberg, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, page 27.: A ok book source from a political activist.
 * "Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate" by George Lakoff, page 16.: Content in book does not support link to use of liberalism as negative.
 * Ann Coulter, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), p. 7 "If conservatives have not yet persuaded liberals to give up on socialism and treason, we have at least gotten them to fake linear thinking.", Crown Forum, 2004, ISBN 1400054184: There appears to be no secondary source basis for noting this book, which is an extended op-ed.
 * Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure, Conservative Book Service product page.: Citation to an online catalog, not a reliable source.
 * Sean Hannity, Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism, Harper Paperbacks, 2005, ISBN 0060750391: Likewise, no secondary sourcing for listing this particular book.
 * Brink Lindsey, Right is Wrong, Reason, August 2010, "What counts today isn't engaging the other side with reasoned arguments; it's building a rabid fan base by demonizing the other side and stoking the audience's collective sense of outrage and victimization. And that's a job best performed not by serious thinkers but by hacks and hucksters. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Joseph Farah, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin: they adorn the cathedral of conservatism like so many gargoyles.": Citation does not support included content.

Based on this review of sources, I suggest the section be rewritten based on the books Alterman, Nunberg, Zuniga, with supporting content drawn from the articles by Lukacs, Karl, and von Hoffman. Other sources could of course be considered, but they generally need to be reliable secondary sources, not screeds or talking dolls.

If my review of any particular source is incorrect or incomplete, please let me know. aprock (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aprock has invented nonexistent rules that are ad-hoc and not sanctioned by Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You reflected some of my personal criticisms of that section of the article, especially the original research and synthesis regarding the Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity sources. I agree that the sources being misused should be discarded in favor of writing the section based on the sources denoted as (E).


 * I have also found some reliable sources which I annotate below that I think could be used to shape the section. (I have tried to provide excerpts lengthy enough to offer adequate context - most of these can be found on Google Books). I've listed the works of scholars published by reputable academic presses first, followed by the works by other publishers.


 * Hofrenning, Daniel J.B. (1995). In Washington But Not of It: The Prophetic Politics of Religious Lobbyists. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
 * (pg. 81-82)
 * (pg. 81-82)


 * Craige, Betty Jean. (1996). American Patriotism in a Global Society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
 * Need to get our hands on page 102 if we can, as it was excluded from the preview, so the part about James Watt's quote is a bit cut off, but can be ignored for now:
 * (pg. 103)
 * (pg. 103)


 * (pg. 106)
 * (pg. 106)


 * Garry, Patrick M. (1992). Liberalism and American Identity. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
 * (pg. 80)
 * (pg. 80)


 * Nevins, Paul L. (2010). The Politics of Selfishness: How John Locke's Legacy is Paralyzing America. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
 * Need to see a page that wasn't available for the very end of the excerpt, but can be ignored for now:
 * (pg. 208-209)
 * (pg. 208-209)


 * I will see if I can get my hands on the full-text of those two which were cut off. I may be busy on/off this week, but I will try to help improve this section of the article with you.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 22:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The citations all support the relevant text and all are appropriate RS for that purpose.

1) yes the Dionne quote is accurate and yes it supports the statement "new line of attack on liberalism opened in the 1960s" 2) yes the Wolfe quote supports the statement "new line of attack on liberalism opened in the 1960s" 3) yes the Boyle quote is accurate and RS and supports epithet 4) yes Reardon is a RS (a prominent professor talking "making “liberal” negative by association" that = epithet 5) Lakoff cite supports the text statement that conservatives "have used framing to redefine terms like "liberal" to have negative connotations." 6)Coulter, Hannity-- the citations prove the text point that they "often use anti-liberal slogans" (that is, often use epithets in media) 7) link to commercial sale of anti-liberal epithet proves its existence, hence RS 8) "demonizing the other side" in note 99 tells how & why epithets are made So the citations all do the job, contrary to Aprock's misunderstanding of what citations are used for. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relating 1 and 2 to liberalism as an epithet without supporting secondary sources is synthesis and original research. I checked the Lakoff source and found nothing in there about reframing the word liberal.  Trying to use primary sources to "prove" a point (6) is original research.  Linking to a talking doll (7) without secondary sourcing is clearly undue.  I'm not really sure what your point is with (8), but as best I can tell, it's more OR/synth.  You're going to have to provide specific citations from secondary sources relating those sources to liberalism as an epithet if you're interested in any of the non marked sources being used. aprock (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. the Dionne and Wolfe are the ones who bring up the attacks on liberalism, we just report what they said. #6 A book published by a reputable publisher bearing Coulter's name is a RS for what language uses--it is not made up by the editor and is not a forgery. (Wiki rules state that a publication by author X is a RS for the words of X.) on #7 the text says the Conservative Book Club is selling a certain product and the link to its web page validates that statement. On #8 the citation supports the statement in the text about conservatives using liberal as epithet. Aprock misunderstands the nature of OR. When a RS reports something and we cite it, that is not OR.  I think we have a case of argument for its own sake. Aprock thinks that all the points are true but still challenges them--or maybe he thinks some points are false--he's opaque on this critical point so I will ask directly: does he consider ANY of the statements in the epithet section to be incorrect?  Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Rjensen. I agree that all of these sources are reliable, but that some are used erroneously (or at least, could be serving the article more appropriately). I think we need to be explicit in making sure that sources used to support this section are sources containing discourse on "liberal" as a derogatory epithet, label, or slur, etc. The distinction is that having a viewpoint or ideology that opposes liberalism is not the same as demonizing it and inciting fear of it by using liberal as an epithet.


 * Dionne's quote, after I read it in context via Google Books, does not appear to support a notion of liberal as an epithet. Dionne appears to be talking about genuine opposition to liberalism as an ideology, so I think the Dionne source would better serve the article in either the Liberals and Vietnam or Nixon section of the article (or wherever the New Left is most prominently discussed in the article). I suggest the same for the Wolfe source, because although I do not have access to its full-text, it seems that it is making a point similar to that of Dionne and is used to support the same idea in the article, about leftism vs liberalism, more genuine opposition rather than anything to do with the label.
 * I think the Boyle source is used appropriately and it discusses liberal as a label.
 * I think Reardon's source is okay but not great. I think it would be an improvement if we could find some of her non-OpEd publications where she might make similar arguments (she has a number of books, but I don't know what they're about). So I think the source is tolerable, but I think it's our responsibility to find better sources, particularly secondary sources.
 * I suggest the same thing for the Lakoff source as I did for the Dionne and Wolfe sources. Lakoff appears to be describing conservative efforts to germinate indoctrination into and embrace of the conservative ideology, not attempts to demonize the liberal label; in other words, it appears yet again to be a book talking about genuine opposition to liberalism as an ideology. This section owes it to the article to be explicit in characterizing the discourse on liberal as a derogatory epithet. The Lakoff source is a good one though, so like Dionne and Wolfe, I propose we use it elsewhere so it can better strengthen the article.
 * Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that Ann Coulter's and Sean Hannity's books are examples that demonstrate the use of liberal as a derogatory epithet, but for myself or any other Wikipedia editor to synthesize those primary sources with the secondary sources professing that conservatives use liberal as a derogatory epithet is original research. As such, we cannot use them in the way that they are presently being used. Instead, we need either a notable newspaper article (preferably national), a think tank report, a book, a journal article, or some other reliable secondary source, which explicitly makes the connection to Coulter's and Hannity's books/statements. Example: Let's say we have sources saying that evolutionist is used as a derogatory epithet, and then we say so in a wiki article - we can't then go find some book using the epithet and say "John Smith went even further in his best-selling book, How to Talk to an Evolutionist (If You Must), as he likened evolutionism to quackery." as if it were an example (even though it is, Wikipedia demands that such a link be verifiable, meaning it can be found in a reliable source published by a third party). Chances are, it shouldn't be too difficult to find sources secondary to Coulter and Hannity which criticize their use of the epithet. So, we may not even need to discard them, just rephrase and cite.
 * Using the Ann Coulter action figure product page in the way that it is presently used in the article is clearly original research, because the article is synthesizing this fact with the other independently-retrieved ideas in that paragraph. We absolutely need a source to make this connection. The product page verifies the product's existence, but cannot be used for anything more than that.
 * Going by the annotation of the Lindsey source in the wiki article's reference list, it does not seem that the source is used even remotely appropriately; plus, it's cited in support of a line about Nunberg's book, which the annotation doesn't seem to even mention. I think the Lindsey source is probably reliable, but the content referencing it should be changed to either a quote, or a paraphrasing of Lindsey. So I agree with Aprock's assessment that the Lindsey source does not support the line in the article that cites it.
 * I think the four sources I annotated in my earlier reply are very good secondary sources that would help strengthen this section. I intend to use them when I find some more time this week (starting a new semester of graduate coursework... meh).  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 01:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * well I just went over all that. The Dionne quote supports a statement in the text. Lakoff explains why and how conservatives create epithets. The cite to Coulter supports the statement about Coulter's words. (Wiki rule: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article,, which is what the cite does) The Lindsey quote adds additional information on the epithet issue that doesn't fit in the main text. Let me ask John Shandy to clarify his position: does he think there are any statements in the section that are incorrect or false?  If so let's see what they are and work on them, and stop arguing about statements he agrees are true.Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this. For the time being, I invite other editors to comment on the sources and their suitability to the section. aprock (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * it' easy enough for Aprock to answer this: is there any statement in the epithet section he thinks is false or misleading? yes or no. Rjensen (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * is there a reason to ask--yes. The purpose of the talk page is to "discussing improvements" and erroneous statements need fixing first. I take it Aprock is unable to find any statement he considers incorrect. Rjensen (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problems with the section relate to WP:OR and WP:NPOV, not WP:TRUTH. aprock (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK we've settled that. It's all true, and a matter of sourcing. There is no point in the section that is not sourced, hence no OR. The NPOV allegation is new--it's all true but nevertheless is POV?? Be a little more specific. Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For specifics please see the bulleted summary that both John Shandy and I made. Your own personal views on the matter are clear and there's not much further to be gained by explaining the issues a third and fourth time.  I await other views and feedback. aprock (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas, a new NPOV allegation requires a statement from the accuser about what is amiss--neither Aprock nor his alter ego Shandy have raised any NPOV issues about the text of the section. Instead all we get is misreading of Wiki rules that say there is no OR when statements are sourced by a RS. Rjensen (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, verifiability isn't the only ingredient necessary in order to make sure something in the article isn't original research. The parts I gave attention to are mostly forms of synthesis. A source doesn't need to be unreliable for it to be misused in an article. I don't think there's any "wrongdoing" in the article, so my points made above are not accusations... Chances are, these bits of original research are remnants left behind by past editors that perhaps didn't have a clear understanding of original research. I think the section was probably constructed in good faith, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. I disagree with your assertions about Dionne and Lakoff. While the Dionne quote supports a statement in the text, that she contends something... That's not relevant to liberal as an epithet. She is not describing the notion that liberal has been used as a derogatory epithet. She is talking about something different which I elaborated on in my other reply, and so I think that line in the article belongs elsewhere. As for Lakoff, I strongly disagree - Lakoff does not explicitly mention epithets or implicitly describe epithets at all, and I think you have a misunderstanding of what the Lakoff source actually says. As I pointed out, Lakoff is just talking about how conservatives attempt to germinate an embrace of genuine opposition to liberalism by gaining a stranglehold in education, media, etc. via their think tanks and their investments, which is clear by reading pages 15 and 16. If the Lindsey quote is supposed serve a purpose, it should do so in the text, not just appear in the reference list and be added as a citation after a sentence it has nothing to do with and doesn't support. Again, Aprock's and my position is not that liberal isn't used as a derogatory epithet, we just feel like this section is poorly sourced because some of the sources don't corroborate what the article states, some of the citations don't match up, and to top it off we have provided some additional secondary sources. There's no need for a debate here, because the gist of the section is going to remain the same, but it will be made more accurate and be cleaned up a bit. That's all.


 * Further, because I know you lack the audacity and have no good reason to do so, I will trust that you are not accusing me of being a sock puppet of Aprock, but I will strongly note that I am not an alter ego of Aprock. You're welcome to look at the userboxes on my user page if you'd like to see an overview of my views and biases. There, you'll find that I self-identify with progressivism/modern liberalism, and so I want nothing more than to strengthen this section of the article by improving its accuracy. With good reliable sources written by professional scholars and published by reputable academic presses, this section doesn't need support from ridiculous junk like a talking Ann Coulter doll.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 03:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The OR rule is that statements have to be based on a published source, and all statements are indeed sourced. John Shandy doesn't much care for popular culture, like dolls, but the doll saying "Liberals hate America"  represents a real example of the epithet in use.  Lakoff talks about how and why negative political labels (epithets) are framed and disseminated. Rjensen (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm not getting through, and I don't know how else to make my point any clearer. You insist on challenging my interpretation of WP:OR, so let's just get right down to what that policy says verbatim, and the parts of it that I am referring to when I voice concerns about the epithet section.


 * Per WP:OR, Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context.


 * Per WP:OR, Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. (the see below links to WP:SYNTH)


 * Per WP:OR, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.


 * Those are where I strongly feel that the "Liberal" as a derogatory epithet section has fallen very short. I hope this clears things up. I still disagree with you about what the Lakoff source says - pages 14 through 16 don't seem to support what you're saying - I can't access page 23 as I haven't been able to obtain the full-text. I think you're extending Lakoff's explanation of how conservatives seek to frame political issues into some kind of conclusion about responses to the word "liberal," but that appears to me to be a synthesis of Lakoff's ideas. He mentions ideologies and what they advocate, and how conservatives frame political debates and political issues, but nothing about labels, epithets, slurs, stereotypes, or anything that to me would resemble epithets/labels. Sorry, but I don't see any support for your assertion about what Lakoff is arguing.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 04:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lakoff is in Google books and you can read him there on framing. The section consists of a series of statements, each based on a RS.  Let's start with the biggest problem: what is the worst sentence from your perspective? Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All the sentences which are drawn from sources that do not discuss liberal as an epithet are problematic. Those sentences represent WP:SYNTH, see the above discussion.  aprock (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All?? rather vague. cite your best example. Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * well Aprock asserts a) it's all true b) some sentences are problematic. c) no sentence can be specified. Not much help here. Rjensen (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the section is that it has reliable secondary sources and that it adds examples from popular writers, which are allowable as primary sources. It seems that there is a lot of discussion for something that is minor.  TFD (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, Google Books is precisely where I have been reading the Lakoff book Don't think of an elephant!, but Google Books only offers a preview, not the whole full-text. The pages cited by the wiki article are 16 and 23 - of those, only 16 is available in the preview. The Lakoff source simply does not say what you argue it says. I will no longer entertain your idea that it somehow does. Framing issues != framing epithets. Framing debates != framing epithets. Objectives of conservative think tanks and investments to promote conservatism != framing epithets.


 * TFD, examples are fine, but as I explained above, we can't just decide what is or isn't an example. I agree that sources like the Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity books virulently use "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. However, those primary sources do not propose that they themselves are examples of such usage of the word, and so far we've included no secondary sources that propose that those books are examples of such usage. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - what matters is whether something can be verified to have been published in a reliable third-party source, not whether editors think it is true. I think the lot of us here agree that the section contains examples that are true, but such examples are not verifiable, simply because none of the sources cited argue that those are examples - we can probably find sources that do, but if we can't then it's original research on our part.


 * I watch over the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article a lot, and this problem often arises there when cranks and intransigent anonymous editors arrive and string primary sources together in order to make claims that such-and-such event is somehow an example that proves the claims of conspiracists, etc. It's called synthesis, and even some of the best articles on Wikipedia are guilty of it here or there. Fortunately, at this article, I am dealing with reasonable and rational editors, and so the minor clean-up proposed by Aprock and supported by myself shouldn't be such a contentious issue for Rjensen. I can't help but feel that he perceives these suggestions as an attack on his contributions to the article; I have lurked over this article for over a year and I know full-well that Rjensen, Rick Norwood, and TFD have done a good job with this article and have steadfastly defended it from POV pushers and other forms of nonsense.


 * To resolve this silly dispute, I propose that Aprock and I construct the section from scratch on User:John Shandy`/Sandbox, then we can propose it here on the talk page, poke and prod at it and move it over to the article after gaining consensus. That should end this debate for now and give us something concrete to discuss.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 14:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

First, I appreciate the careful work of several editors (and was sorry to see Rjensen, who can be a good editor, insult another editor. I don't understand why he does that.)  I don't think taking the rewrite to a sandbox is a good idea. In my experience, it works best for everything to be in one place, here on the talk page. It seems to me that there can be two kinds of sources in this section: primary sources that use "liberal" as a derogatory epithet and also secondary sources that support the idea that this kind of usage is widespread. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On second thought I agree with you that it makes more sense to keep things here.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 16:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect to using primary sources, as long as there is a secondary source which establishes weight and due coverage, all primary sources are fine. On the other hand, if there are no secondary sources, a strong case has to be made that the primary source is not being misused.  In particular, interpreting a source is not within the bounds of wikipedia editors.  Unfortunately, many of the sources in the section are prime examples of wikipedia editors interpreting sources.  I'm fine with redeveloping the section on the talk page, or a sandbox, or in the article.  If someone else would like to take a crack at it first, by all means go for it.  Otherwise, I'll take a whack at it towards the end of the week. aprock (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all regarding Coulter etc, it's a secondary source by Brink Lindsey (as quoted and cited) who identifies Coulter etc as attacking liberals. The Citation to a primary source having her do so illustrates the secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which book does Lindsey mention? You recently switched from one book to another: . aprock (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Coulter was and remains very active in attacking liberals. She uses many media from lectures to books to dolls.Rjensen (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether or not she's attacking liberals. The question is which book of hers is mentioned in sources discussing "liberal as an epithet".  If the answer is "none", then having a wikipedia editor pick and choose which Coulter books are representative is original research. aprock (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense and counterproductive to making an encyclopedia. There are untold millions of facts out there that editors always have to select from that's our job. The rule to follow is this" "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." WP:OR and anyone with a 7th grade education will be able to verify the info. Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you value these bits of OR. It looks like the next stop will be the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aprock has refused to identify a single problem sentence here--maybe he will do so to the appeals board. Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how you could honestly make such a claim. He identified plenty of problems, and plenty of problem sentences. Your statements here violate WP:CIVIL and seem to be based upon a strategy of saying "any educated person" would agree with you while lacking any sound reason to support your side. DreamGuy (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as the doll statement goes... First, if a doll were to say "Conservatives are dumb!" when a string is pulled, it would not be proof that "conservative" is an epithet anymore than someone saying "Cars are fast!" would make "cars" an epithet. It seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word even means. If it was used as an epithet the linking verb would be unnecessary. Second, the fact that some politically-minded group sells a product attacking another political position is both obvious and nonnotable. That is not something that meets the criteria that WP:RS demands, and mentioning it is WP:UNDUE. Third, a link to a catalog to sell an item violates Wikipedia's prohibitions on external links for marketing purposes. The whole thing served no purpose in Wikipedia, and indeed it directly violated four or more policies, so I removed it. Further, concentration on the doll seems to be ignoring the greater issues raised above. For example, the whole section is poorly sourced. The lead part with people attacking the New Left and trying to blame them for "liberal" being used as an epithet is a pretty dramatic violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. The idea that that is where it comes from is not mainstream in the slightest. For it to be given such a prominent position amounts to a slanted POV in the article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the doll is not any doll it's Ann Coulter's voice, which shows the role of expanding political debate into the popular culture. There is no commercial vio (the doll is no longer for sale and the topic is of historic interest). The section is about the demonization of liberalism and the RS by leading experts clearly state it began with the New Left. That's what history is like and we report that.  As for the sourcing of the dolls we had an elaborate discussion of that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing_article_content_to_online_catalogs.] DreamGuy neglected to participate there and now wants to impose his own viewpoint regardless of that official Wiki consideration.  As for the quality of sourcing: it's pretty good for a short section, with quotes and references to Professor Alan Wolfe, E.J. Dionne, Professor  Kevin Boyle, Eric Alterman, Nicholas von Hoffman, Kathleen Reardon, Professor  Geoffrey Nunberg, Professor George Lakoff, and  Brink Lindsey. All are well-known experts on the subject; they are explictly cited to mainstream publications. Indeed, most of them are liberals. Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While using liberal as a derogatory epithet is surely an act that serves the purpose of demonizing liberalism, not all demonization of liberalism takes the form of using liberal as a derogatory epithet. As I explained originally, the part about the New Left would be better suited to other sections of the article. The reliability of the quotes and books and authors cited isn't necessarily questionable, but the article's content that cites them is wrong about what they actually say, and extends some of them to do things they cannot do. The doll page allowed me to add it to a shopping cart, so I'm not sure as to whether it's still for-sale or not, but it doesn't matter because until a secondary source ties the product to the arguments of the section (explicitly, and with regards to epithets rather than genuine opposition to liberalism), the product is inherently irrelevant to the section.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 17:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen's refactored comments
extracted from within edit interjections above. aprock (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wolfe: yes it does. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dionne: yes it does. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Boyle: yes it does. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lakoff: it supports the text re framing an argument to make "liberal" a negative wordRjensen (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Coulter: follows Wiki rules on primary sources. there is no Wiki rule on specifying which book to useRjensen (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Talking doll: follows Wiki rules on primary sources. there was a long discussion on this Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hannity: follows Wiki rules on primary sources; there is no Wiki rule on specifying which book to use. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lindsey: Citation supports the exact quote--it's a cvut-and-paste! Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple chart to show the difference between US modern liberalism and other forms

 * US
 * Modern Liberalism= center left, social liberalism, social progressivism
 * Classic Liberalism= center right, conservatism, libertarianism
 * Most other countries
 * Social liberalism= center left,
 * Liberalism= center right, free economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Liberalism= center right, free economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be OR. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Norwood. Rjensen (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Norwood and Rjensen. At any rate, if we were to showcase distinctions between modern liberalism in the US, vs modern liberalism in other countries, I'd speculate that most of the differences we'd be highlighting would be differences in implementation, policy efforts, movements, and specific policies that have or haven't come to fruition - in other words, the notable differences would mostly be in the propagation of modern liberalism, rather than differences in ideology. So aside from your list being original research, international differences in liberalism seem to be a job appropriately belonging to Social liberalism and Liberalism.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 15:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft of a replacement for the epithet section
This is my draft of a potential replacement for the current section on liberal as a derogatory epithet. The references I used are included. Please provide feedback under the Comments subheading.

"Liberal" as a derogatory epithet
A number of politicians and media outlets over the past six decades from 2010 have employed "liberal" as an epithet to portray an ominous or sinister meaning, while invoking phrases like "free enterprise," "individual rights," and "the American way" to portray admiration and patriotism. Historian John Lukacs noted in 2004 that then-President George W. Bush, confident that many Americans regarded "liberal" as a pejorative term, used it to label his political opponents during campaign speeches, while his opponents subsequently avoided identifying themselves as liberal.

Ronald Reagan's ridicule of liberalism is credited with transforming "liberal" into a derogatory epithet that any politician seeking national office would elude. His administration established a sentiment distinguishing liberals from "real Americans." For example, Reagan's then-Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt said "I never use the words Republicans and Democrats. It's liberals and Americans." Reagan warned the United States of modern secularists who condoned abortion, excused teenage sexuality, opposed school prayer, and attenuated traditional American values. His conviction that there existed a single proper personal behavior, religious worldview, economic system, and proper attitude toward nations and peoples not supporting U.S. interests worldwide, is credited with polarizing America. Reagan persuaded the public to dismiss sincere analyses of his administration's policies as politically motivated criticisms put forth by what he labeled a "liberal" media.

George H. W. Bush employed the word "liberal" as a derogatory epithet during his 1988 presidential campaign. Bush highlighted matters of patriotism in his campaign, targeting liberalism as an enemy to persuade the public that he was more American than his liberal opponent. Bush referred to liberalism as "the L-word" and sought to demonize opposing presidential candidate Michael Dukakis by labeling Dukakis "the liberal governor" and by pigeonholing him as part of what Bush called "the L-crowd." Bush recognized that motivating voters to fear Dukakis as a risky non-mainstream candidate generated political support for his own campaign. Bush's campaign also used issues of prayer to arouse suspicions that Dukakis was less devout in his religious convictions. Bush's running mate, vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle said to Christians at the 1988 Republican National Convention "It's always good to be with people who are real Americans." Bill Clinton avoided association with "liberal" as a political label during his 1992 presidential campaign against Bush by moving closer to the political center.

Law professor and public policy researcher Patrick M. Garry notes that Republicans who insulted Democrats for their liberal values in 1988 ignored their own history with liberalism, citing the 1980 campaign of independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson as a visible example of liberalism originating from within the Republican party. Some Republicans have voiced disappointment over conservative attacks on liberalism, such as former governor of Minnesota and founder of the Liberal Republican Club Elmer L. Andersen, who commented that it's "unfortunate today that 'liberal' is used as a derogatory term." After the 1980s, fewer activists and politicians were willing to characterize themselves as liberals. Historian Kevin Boyle explains "There was a time when liberalism was, in Arthur Schlesinger's words 'a fighting faith' ... Over the last three decades, though, liberalism has become an object of ridicule, condemned for its misplaced idealism, vilified for its tendency to equivocate and compromise, and mocked for its embrace of political correctness. Now even the most ardent reformers run from the label, fearing the damage it will inflict..." Republican political consultant Arthur J. Finkelstein was recognized by Democratic political consultants for having employed a formula of branding someone as a liberal and engaging in name-calling by using the word "liberal" in negative television commercials as frequently as possible, such as in a 1996 ad against U.S. Representative Jack Reed: "That's liberal. That's Jack Reed. That's wrong. Call liberal Jack Reed and tell him his record on welfare is just too liberal for you."

Democratic candidates and political liberals have hidden from the word "liberal," in some cases identifying instead with terms such as "progressive" or "moderate." George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney espoused accusations of liberal elitism, softness, and pro-terrorism in attempts to frighten voters. Conservative political commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have been acknowledged as having used "liberal" as a pejorative label. Some liberals have opted to self-identify as progressives, while conservative radio host Glenn Beck has used "progressive" as an abusive label. Ann Coulter is recognized for espousing radical conservative views and hatred of liberals, such as when she outraged students attending her talk at The College of New Jersey by calling white liberals "a bunch of pussies" and condemning them as responsible for prolonging slavery in America. Historian Godfrey Hodgson notes "The word liberal itself has fallen into disrepute. Nothing is too bad for conservative bloggers and columnists—let alone radio hosts—to say about liberals. Democrats themselves run a mile from the 'L word' for fear of being seen as dangerously outside the mainstream. Conservative politicians and publicists, by dint of associating liberals with all manner of absurdity so that many sensible people hesitated to risk being tagged with the label of liberalism, succeeded in persuading the country that it was more conservative than it actually was."

Historian Eric Alterman notes that barely 20% of Americans are willing to accept "liberal" as a political label, but that supermajorities of Americans actually favor "liberal" positions time and again. Alterman points out that resistance to the label "liberal" is not surprising due to billions of dollars worth of investment into the denigration of the term. A 2004 poll conducted by the National Election Study found that only 35% of respondents questioned identifying as liberal compared to 55% who questioned identifying as conservative; a 2004 Pew poll found 19% of respondents identifying as liberal, and 39% identifying as conservative, while the balance perferred identifying as moderate. A 2006 poll by Democracy Corp found that 19% identified as liberal, and 36% conservative. In 2005, self-identifying moderates polled by Louis Harris & Associates were found to share essentially the same political beliefs as self-identifying liberals, but couldn't bare to embrace a condemned political label. Alterman acknowledges political scientist Drew Westen's observation that for most Americans, the word "liberal" now carries meanings such as "elite," "tax and spend," and "out of touch."

Comments
I took a few hours today to bite the bullet and go ahead and rewrite the section without any of the content disputed by Aprock and I. It references all of the sources marked (E) by Aprock plus the Kevin Boyle source, and the sources I introduced on the talk page, as well as one or two others I found today. I do have a few lingering concerns about certain parts of it, but in the interest of demonstrating my good faith intentions and clarifying my desired improvements to Rjensen, we can address some of those things hereafter.

My issues so far are:
 * The Reardon source is an op-ed piece at The Huffington Post. I'm fine with using it, but I do think it would be an improvement if we could find her making similar arguments in one of her more-academic publications. I think most of her published books have to do with entirely different subjects, though.
 * I thought Rjensen might like the part I've included about Ann Coulter which cites a secondary source that does discuss one of Ann Coulter's statements in the context of labeling liberals (white liberals in particular), however I am slightly concerned because The Trentonian appears to be a regional/local newspaper, and therefore the notability can be called into question. However, I think it is a significant step up from citing the mere product page of a conservative bookstore. There was a photo page on Huffington Post that did give brief mention to this incident involving Coulter, but I wasn't sure how to cite it or if it could really be deemed reliable - it also didn't go into the detail that The Trentonian article does.
 * I couldn't check the Boyle and Nunberg references because I don't have access to the text they cite, but I think that they're used appropriately and they are definitely reliable and written by notable historians.

Let's work from here. I think this is a good start. I'm open to any constructive criticisms. Just so it's easy to track what I wrote in the draft, versus others' suggestions, let's suggest-and-discuss first and edit this draft second. Once we're satisfied with the draft, we can transfer it to the article. John Shandy`  • talk 05:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting start. Some serious problems. 1) the opening is polemic ("Misusing words damages a person's capacity for reasoning and understanding reality, and words used deceptively or imprecisely indicate fallacies or imprecision in one's thinking.") The problem is "misusing"; misuse is not at issue. 2) The history is missing. "liberal" became an  epithet in the 1960s under the attack from the New Left. Erasing the material is a bad idea--it makes the false allegation that the Reagan people  started the epithet, when they were late-comers. 3) " "tax and spend", "death tax", and "government mandates" -- does not belong here. This article is about liberalism  not about tax revolts and complaints about spending. Anti-tax rhetoric goes back to the 18th century (eg the Stamp Act of the 1760s, the new taxes of the 1790s and the opposition to the Federalist spending programs of Hamilton). 4) lots of historical mistakes -- eg John Anderson (in 1980 he LEFT the GOP and ran as an independent. Elmer L. Andersen is a nonentity and does not deserve space. In fact the liberal republicans/RINO/Rockefeller republicans have been the target of attack since Goldwater (1960-64)  in the GOP. Indeed it goes back to 1912. However the word "liberal" as epithet is the  issue here, not the factions in the GOP.  5) weak points of the original are left in (the stuff about Jack reed for example, offers no new insights and clutters the text.)  Lots more problems as well, and especially 6) the exaggerated emphasis on party which diverts attention from the ideology. (much of the debate took place on the left or in the Dem party with attacks on people like Henry Jackson and Bill Clinton.)  7) opening with  the offbeat book by Nevins--not a RS -- is a bad idea (the publisher says "this book attempts to address why American "conservatives" are actually liberal, how American "liberals" can also be deemed liberal"; he is a former high school teacher turned lawyer and has no scholarly credentials to write the history of political philosophy. 8) a basic presumption that the epithets are unfair and undeserved and naughty. That's excessive editorial POV. We are considering the history of the language here, and trying to explain why liberals today largely have dropepd the term "liberal" Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that Paul Nevins is less reliable relative to the historians and scholars we cite. I don't quite think I would have categorized him as totally unreliable, but I have no objection to removing his work, or moving it elsewhere. I agree that the intro is polemic, come to think of it. Open to ideas.
 * Now we come back to the issue I raised about the Dionne and Wolfe sources. I don't have access to the full-text for the Wolfe source, so I can't check it to examine its quote in context. However, the Dionne source doesn't discuss the notion of liberal as an epithet. Dionne talks only about what appears to be genuine opposition to liberalism by the New Left. I don't think we should conflate genuine opposition to liberalism (as an ideology) with orchestrated demonization of liberalism's proponents through the use of liberal as a derogatory label. I think such a conflation of the two phenomena would constitute synthesis. Further, some of the sources I cited essentially argue that liberal as an epithet really culminated during Reagan's era. The Dionne source simply doesn't say anything explicit about "liberal" as a label, epithet, slur, insult, etc. Dionne only discusses the New Left's qualms with liberalism and notes that liberals were hated most of all by leftists, not that leftists used "liberal" as a term to attack liberalism's adherents.
 * Those were just parts I included because the paraphrased sentence was a list that started with "liberal" and then listed synonym phrases that have been pejoratively associated with the word "liberal" by the same politicians and media outlets that portrayed "free enterprise" and "individual rights" and "the American way" as patriotic. Nevins was making the point that "liberal" has been associated with those phrases for the purposes of those politicians/media that espouse anti-tax rhetoric.
 * Perhaps Garry did make a mistake in his source when referring to John B. Anderson, but nevertheless it was published by a reputable academic press. Does John Anderson's party switch really change much about the larger point Garry is making? I don't think so, given its context in his book. Rather, I think it reinforces Garry's point. Anderson originated from the Republican party and held to his liberal values insofar as to leave the Republican party and campaign as an independent. We could rephrase the last half of the sentence to be more accurate, such as: ..., citing the 1980 campaign of independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson as a visible example of liberalism originating from within the Republican party. Would this suffice? As for Elmer Andersen, he's notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, and more importantly, Garry is a notable scholar whose cited book is published in a reputable university press. So, I argue that this example raised as key to Garry's point is indeed worthy of the small space it is given (only one line).
 * Yes, I did leave in some verbatim lines from the original article, either because I was tired (I spent a lot of time reading and re-reading sources yesterday, putting together proper citation templates, and paraphrasing) or couldn't quite wrap my mind around how to better fit the sources into the section. My intent wasn't to relentlessly gut everything, and of the weak points in the original, I think the Jack Reed stuff is far stronger than the OR/SYNTH of the Coulter and Hannity stuff.
 * As for "exaggerated emphasis on party which diverts attention from the ideology." I don't quite see the exaggeration. Regardless, it is not my exaggeration, it comes from the sources cited, which discuss the ideological leanings and ideological labels used and abused by politicians and the media. That the sources mostly discuss Republican versus Democratic politicians as examples is okay. I have no objections to including more content about the debate on the left or within the Democratic party, especially if we can include some content about Henry Jackson and Bill Clinton, but I need your help for that, as the sources I cited and have access to don't really discuss Jackson or Clinton very much, at least not that I've seen.
 * Again, I have no qualms with discarding the Nevins source. I agree he's far less reliable than the academics we have available to us.
 * Nevins was the main source talking about the negative aspects of epithets in general, so the POV comes from him, not I. If we remove him then that takes care of that. This was something I overlooked in my haste yesterday.
 * Thanks for the comments.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 16:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The New Left demonized/ disparaged liberalism and made it a dirty word. "Hey Hey LBJ How Many Kids did you Kill Today?" was a typical slogan. (Let's not get focused on use of the word "epithet" it is used as a synonym for invective, 	berating, castigation, censure, condemnation, contumely, denunciation, diatribe, philippic, revilement, scurrility, tirade, tongue-lashing, vilification, vituperation [says Thesaurus.com] . Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The example given is in no way supportive of the idea that it was the Left that made liberalism a dirty word. The fact that there was disagreement amongst members of the same general end of the political spectrum has nothing to do with converting the term into an epithet. That entire subsection appears not only to be original research but bizarre soapboxing. There is nothing in there that in any way endorses the claims that are being made. Before the article can make the claim that the left made "liberal" into an epithet you need reliable sources (and of sufficient quantity to not just be WP:UNDUE weight) saying precisely that, not just sources saying there was conflict within the left which is then mangled through WP:SYNTHESIS into whatever position the editor wants to advocate. Lacking anything even remotely supportive of these claims, I have removed them as blatant POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy echoes the same point I have attempted to drive home to no avail on this talk page over the past week since Aprock first called the Dionne source into question. Thank you for your input, DreamGuy. I have at least two or three times now advocated that the Dionne and Wolfe sources' contents be relocated to serve the article better elsewhere. The New Left dredged up a sentiment towards liberals during the 60s and 70s, but so far the Dionne and Wolfe sources don't support anything about the New Left engineering the usage of "liberal" to become an epithet/label/slur/ad hominem. I understand your point Rjensen that the sources don't explicitly need to use the word "epithet," as there are many alternatives you listed of which I am fully aware. However, the source must explicitly convey the idea, no matter what synonyms the author chooses to use. I have argued repeatedly, and DreamGuy has also argued, that the idea is not conveyed by Dionne (and, if the quoted content from the Wolfe source is representative, the Wolfe source probably doesn't either).


 * Late last night, I found a source that actually notes that "modern welfare-state liberals" experienced anxiety in preserving "liberal" as a label for themselves, while "the radical Left" made an effort to attach the "liberal" label to free market advocates. This is in a footnote on pg. 61 of Richard A. Posner's The Problems of Jurisprudence published by Harvard University Press. In the footnote, Posner is recommending the reader look at Ronald Dworkin's Law's Empire pg. 440-444 (1986), and Richard H. Fallon, Jr.'s "What is Republicanism, and is it Worth Reviving?" pg. 102 in Harvard Law Review 1695 (1989). So, perhaps we should take a look at these three sources (Posner's, Dworkin's, and Fallon Jr.'s) to consider who the radical Left (which may or may not, but might well be referring to the New Left) was attaching "liberal" as a label to. On its face, it sounds to me like that's the opposite of the Left using "liberal" as an epithet to attack liberals who embraced a mixed economy rather than pure laissez-faire.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 20:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy wants some more sources to prove the New Left demonized liberalism, so I added Ellis and Kazin. He seems to think there was a friendly disagreement in the mid 1960s but there are no RS that say that. They say there was a deep hatred, typified by New Left attacks on LBJ. Rjensen (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC) We now have these cites to show the New Left demonized liberalism: 104 Michael Kazin, The populist persuasion: an American history (1998) p 196 #105  Kazin, Populist persuasion p 197 #106 ^ Nikhil Pal Singh, "Liberalism" in Bruce Burgett and Glenn Hendler, eds. Keywords for American Cultural Studies (2007) p 144; #107 ^ Quoted in Jeremi Suri, Power and protest: global revolution and the rise of detente (2005) p 129 online; #108 ^ Alan Wolfe, "Jeremiah, American-style," New Republic, May 13, 2010, P. 31; #109 ^ E.J. Dionne, Why American Hate Politics (1991) p 37; and #110 ^ Richard J. Ellis, The dark side of the Left: illiberal Egalitarianism in America (1998) p 129. Mind you the section does not deny that Republicans attacked--that is the whole next section--bu Nixon and Agnew began in 1968-69, years after the New Left made anti-war demonstrations famous.  Rjensen (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The section is not about demonizing liberalism. aprock (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's yet another source published by the Yale University Press which further supports conservative transformation of the "liberal" label.
 * Hodgson, Godfrey. (2009). The Myth of American Exceptionalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (pg. 101-102)  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 05:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hodgson, Godfrey. (2009). The Myth of American Exceptionalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (pg. 101-102)  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 05:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have revised my draft based on the above comments, so further feedback is welcome. I removed the polemic verbiage from Nevins and also removed a few phrases cited to Nevins that were slightly tangential to the word "liberal." However, I did leave a simple statement by Nevins in, and ABC-CLIO is reliable, though less so than academic presses. I reorganized a few statements and paragraphs. I have temporarily removed the Nunberg source until I can see a full-text of it, because I think the way it was used is indicative of the same kinds of synthesis I spoke of with regards to other sources. The Nunberg source is good, and we can probably use it better elsewhere. I also added some content from the Hodgson 2009 book I introduced in the above comments. I would like to replace the section in the article with this draft somewhat soon. I also think we should persist with the section being titled "Liberal" as a derogatory epithet rather than political epithet, because most all of the sources cited in this draft are making the point that using the label in particularly derogatory ways is how conservative pundits and politicians have transformed Americans' understanding of political discourse and disrupted people's comfort with the "liberal" label. John Shandy`  • talk 18:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I haven't received any commentary in about 11 days since I last called attention to this draft. In a few moments I'm going to be WP:BOLD and replace the section with this draft; if someone reverts, then we can re-engage in WP:BRD, but at least then this matter won't fall victim to a lack of attention. I have outlined serious problems with the current section which have been hashed out in numerous discussion threads on this talk page. This proposal uses most of the same sources and adds a few new ones (found not only by myself, but other editors who've participated in this particular content dispute). It's of course open to revision once placed in the article. John Shandy`  • talk 14:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your rewrite is good, by and large, but there are a few errors in grammar and a few infelicities in style. I hope you don't mind some changes. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all, I like your changes. You also stripped out a fair amount of passive voice I had left in, which is great. I made only one tiny little edit to the Glenn Beck line. Thanks for your contributions.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 18:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the rewrite, it's greatly improved although I do think rjensen's observation the the epithet grew out of attacking moderation from the left probably should be restored to the discussion. aprock (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, there is a difference between attacking what people in fact say and do, which is what the Left did, and straw man arguments that try to change what words mean, which is what the Right is doing. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Restoring OR without discussion
Responding to the edit summary: "discuss on talk page first" left by Rjensen, there has been extensive discussion of the OR in the content deleted. Continuing to restore OR is a violation of policy, and it appears likely a continuation of disruptive editing. I suggest that you either find sources which support your original thesis and remove the old ones, or self revert. aprock (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OR is a technical term in Wikipedia that means there is no reliable source cited. There is no OR --everything is fully cited to RS. Rjensen (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your incorrect interpretation of OR has been discussed extensively above. Given your recent history of tendentious editing, it is likely that there is little hay to be made out of explaining this to you yet again.  I'll be reverting the section presently.  If you have policy concerns with this, I suggest you bring it up at the appropriate noticeboard, or through an RfC.  There is simply no reason to spend valuable editor time spinning on this merry go round of yours. aprock (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the Wikipedia rule at WP:OR is "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, if you have an issue, you're going to have to take your tendentious approach to a noticeboard. aprock (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A merry-go-round indeed! I also have every intention of preventing Rjensen from injecting original research into the article and I intend to help in bringing the questioned section up to par. I've already outlined very thoroughly what synthesis is and how it is regarded by Wikipedia as original research. I won't do it any longer. Rjensen is just gong to have to wisen up and accept that his point of view is not supported by the sources. I see now he has added the Maurice Isserman source, the context of which is not available in the Google Books preview and I don't have access to its full-text at the moment. Nevertheless, it only mentions that the New Left used liberal as an epithet, nothing about whether it was used as an epithet to attack modern liberals rather than free market advocates, and I alerted us to 3 sources that potentially argue that the New Left used the "liberal" label to attack advocates of laissez-faire, not modern liberals. The majority of the sources seem to corroborate that "liberal" most strongly culminated as a derogatory epithet during its strategic use by Reagan and Bush Sr. during the 80s.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 21:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The entire discussion from Isserman of epithet is: "Both came to use the word 'liberal' as a political epithet." Here "Both" refers to the Shachtmanites and the New Left in a section of the book dealing chiefly with the Shachtmanites, not the New Left, or liberal as an epithet.  It is a passing mention, and to use it ex post facto as the basis for multiple paragraphs of content, supported chiefly by other sources, is again original research and synthesis. aprock (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Rjensen has duplicated the content in the article New Left, making inclusion here superfluous. aprock (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Isseman is a leading authority on the New Left and his statement deals explicitly with the New Left (and also another group) -- that it, is it an authentic statement about the New Left using the term "epithet" by a RS, which is what Aprock asked to see. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed just above. aprock (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the superflous "Challenges from the New Left" section from the article as it is nearly identical to the parallel section in the New Left article. The New Left is already discussed and linked to several times in the article. If a general summary of New Left or the mirrored section is useful, by all means add such a summary back in an appropriate section. aprock (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I added it back in. You can't tal;k about Modern Liberalism without including its critics. That would violate NPOV rules. Obviously the topic of how X interact with Y belongs in BOTH the articles on X and Y Rjensen (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, another edit war. I think the salient point is this. There is a difference between criticism of the actual stands taken by Liberals, which is what the New Left did in saying liberals did not go far enough, and attempts to change the meaning of the word "liberal", based not on what liberals actually believe, but by making claims that liberals believe what they in fact do not, as when liberals are accused of treason. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the New Left accused liberals of treason to the people; the New Right accused it of treason to the nation. They meant "treason" in the sense of profound betrayal. Mattson says "Take Ann Coulter...who has equated liberalism with "treason" toward America....Ironically, or perhaps not so, this is an inheritance from a strain of New Left political thought." Mattson cite Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rick Norwood, you hit the nail on the head as far as my perspective goes.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John shandy. The Mattson article is an interesting and serious article, but it is only one article, and I'm not sure it reflects the "preponderance of the evidence". I do think the vilification of the word "liberal" by both the right and the left has a place in this section, but we need to be careful not to give it undue weight. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a 1972 article by Anthony Arblaster, a noted historian of liberalism, who explains why the Left used the word "liberal" as a term of abuse. TFD (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim Wallis
"Jim Wallis (b. 1948), Evangelical pastor and found and editor of Sojourners" "found"? Abbreviation of founder? Shouldn't there be a period? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My guess is it's just a typo and that it should say founder. I'm not aware of an abbreviation for founder, and "found." would be a pointless abbreviation as it's only one character less than founder.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably sure it was just a typo, and have changed it to "founder".--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Blogs
I believe FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com should be added, considering how often it is that REALITY has a "liberal bias"--99.101.160.159 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

JFK quote
Why are we using a half century old quote in a definition of modern liberalism?--Cyrrk (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * because a) it is very well put; b) all the points are as relevant in 2011 as 1960; c) in the articles history section. JFK comes about midway; d) "Modern" does not start in 2008, it goes back a ways. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * a) How does it being well phrased have anything to do with this conversation?
 * b) This is also irrelevant. We're arguing whether the quote is appropriate for this article; not whether he raised topics and issues that are still important today.
 * c) This article makes many stretches; that included.
 * d) I didn't claim anything started in 2008. I'm stating that "liberal", like many other political terms, has the potential to undergo both subtle and not-so-subtle variances in meaning over time.--Cyrrk (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is a well-known passage and "modern" does not mean 2008. TFD (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several definitions of 'modern' in regards to time periods. Many refer to the beginning of the industrial age(1900's), some to the television being common, jet planes and air ports, etc. Modern American liberalism has a beginning too. One only has to read the article to see that. And to see that the Roosevelts and JFK had impacts on it. It's an appropriate quote. PS: Please do not remove other editors legitimate Talk page comments. Dave Dial (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * DD2K is right about "modern." The WP:Civility rule comes into play here: "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Rjensen (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rjensen. And as for the removal of other editors comments, I was not referring to your justified removal of a personal attack, I was referring to the several attempted removals(1,2,3) by the that same editor(Cyrrk) of TFD's comment. Dave Dial (talk) 10:32 pm, Today (UTC−5)
 * This is where we're getting into the problem. We have individuals who truly exemplify what is liberal in the modern sense such as Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, or Barack Obama. On the other hand, we have individuals like Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Both were products of much different times. For one example of what I mean, T. Roosevelt's hawkishness and Jingoism would probably result in him being labeled as a war-mongering imperialist by members of the New Left.--Cyrrk (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The New Left is not at issue here. They disagree with Carter and Obama using military force in Afghanistan (and Obama in Libya). Rjensen (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course it's an issue. The reaction against the Vietnam War reshaped American politics. JFK was also elected as a hawk and campaigned on being tough on communism. "Liberal" democrats embroiled us in nearly all of the major conflicts of the 20th Century. The conservatives throughout much of the century had been the ones skeptical of involving the US in overseas conflicts.--Cyrrk (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Does Cyrrk not realize that he is deleting other posters' legitimate comments? Or is this malicious?  He just did it again.    --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

He definitely realizes it and it is surly malicious. The editor needs to be brought to ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing malicious. This conflict began over one of my comments which was removed on account of being uncivil, and one of TFD's comments which I removed on account of taking up space and echoing the points of others while bringing nothing new to the conversation. Now the entire conversation has shifted in a direction it should have never went in the first place. You all have ruined it.--Cyrrk (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't get to decide whose comments should be removed. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules, and unbelievably rude.  --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why exactly should comments which simply state "yes, I agree" not be considered a waste of space?--Cyrrk (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not your call to make. And considering the fact that some of the comments you deleted were ones opposing your views and pointing out your misdeeds, it also shows a complete lack or ethics or integrity in deleting them.  If you want to debate the merits of these rules, you can find that elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Here is not the place, and you have no authority to control what does and does not get posted on a talk page.  --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see you're turning this into your little emotional release after our debate on the fascism page. And now you're jumping at the opportunity to slander me as a person. Taking into account that my comment was removed by another user for being what he considered to be "uncivil", I removed a comment which I considered to be spam. Then the situation spiraled out of control. Being that it was a thread I started and having observed another user remove my own comment, I assumed I had some authority to delete what was deviating from the topic. But apparently, deviating from the topic doesn't seem to be a breach of protocol on this site. It was an impulsive decision which I regret.--Cyrrk (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * spam? that's a false characterization: a) the fact that an editor agrees is important itself--when we search for consensus we need to know where editors stand; b) TFD made a new and useful point ["it is a well-known passage"] that had not been mentioned. c) Wiki civility rules calls for listening more closely, not erasing, and avoiding confrontational rhetoric (or action) Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If every user were to come in and say "I agree" to every post they agree on, this would become a mess. And the point he brought up, just as some of the points you brought up, was irrelevant. Once again, I have no idea how the quote being "well-known" or "well-phrased" has anything to do with this conversation. And I notice that you ignored my response to you above. I'm tempted to create a new thread because this might be beyond saving.--Cyrrk (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually gave you the benefit of a doubt (above) that you were doing this by accident, as you have shown previously that you are not very familiar with Wikipedia or its rules. I personally don't agree with the other editor's removal of your previous comment, as I don't think it was quite "uncivil" enough to warrant deletion.  However, that editor did post the specific "justification" for its removal, citing the specific rule enabling him to do that, which is the reason that I did not address it.  Also, for the record, if you would look at the parties involved on this thread, you will see that there are both Liberals and Conservatives (as well as a snarky, loud-mouthed Libertarian like me...) disagreeing with your position, and nobody supporting it.  Finally, I wouldn't be so quick to judge those who go off-topic, since it was your inability to stay on topic that caused me to ignore you on that other page.  I didn't go deleting everything you were posting, simply because it was off-topic, or that I thought it was a "waste of space." --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This "benefit of the doubt" comes off as somewhat self-righteous of you. I think it was clear that my removing of the off-topic comments was intentional. I find it interesting that one user can remove another comment they view as "uncivil"; even if other users disagree with the decision. But if one user attempts removing a discussion which is clearly off-topic and ruining the thread, he is immediately crucified. I'm aware now that only breeching civility seems to be grounds for another user to remove comments of another; though I would have preferred this discussion over removing comments for being considered spam, off-topic, or uncivil had been conducted on my talk page. I was correct in saying that this would end up wrecking the entire thread. And on the fascism page it seemed as if I was going "off-topic" whenever I took you up on a claim you were unable or unwilling to defend. --Cyrrk (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * From an uninvolved editor, User:Cyrrk your actions here are shameful. This off-topic part of the conversation should be collapsed. I'll be doing so myself soon.  BigK HeX (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So my actions are shameful even though you agree with me that it was an off-topic discussion? Now it's finally over because you say so? What you've just done is essentially what I'd been asking be done in the first place.--Cyrrk (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't try to conflate different things to vindicate yourself. Your actions to delete another editor's comments(1,2,3) ARE shameful.  I'll be collapsing this newest attempt to go off-topic soon.  BigK HeX (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, another user deleted my comment for breaching protocol, and I assumed that this off-topic discussion in a thread that I had started was also a breach. I find it cheap to throw potshots at me and then proceed to close down the discussion, telling everyone else to get back on topic. But go ahead, collapse away.--Cyrrk (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  BigK HeX (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And now ... back on the subject of improving the Modern Liberalism article....  BigK HeX (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The quickest way to resolve this content dispute is to look at whether political science scholars or historians have taken the quote to represent modern liberalism. I think that's more useful than exchanging opinions on the age of the quote or its relevance to the article. That's my $0.02 for how to turn this discussion thread into a useful one. John Shandy`  • talk 23:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick Google Books search showed me this scholarly example, where the quote is used in "Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis," by Lyman Tower Sargent, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, in much the same way as in this article. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems very reasonable to me then that we would use the quote similarly in this article. That's a relatively current and reputable source too. Nice find.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 13:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Part of a series on..."
on the "Conservatism in the United States" page, it is a portal to topics directly related to conservatism in the United States, but on this page, the portal only relates to liberalism in general. shouldn't there be a more relevant portal? --99.101.160.159 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Zogby
People have tried to include the Zogby survey in this article before, but it makes a basic mistake by defining as "enlightened" the result it wants to achieve. Surveys should be neutral. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

VVD - conservative?
You put it there as if it IS conservative. But it is not... so might you change that into considerd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.96.2 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

POV tag, stale
Should this tag be removed? I see it was added in August 2011 and, judging from what I've read in the talkpage archive, the discussion seems to have stalled. Are there still issues to address in various sections? El duderino (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I favor removing it, but there is at least one editor who puts it back whenever it is removed. You can try. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

JFK Quote--Format
Hey, so I see there is a lot of contention over the JFK quote used in the beginning of the article. I don't have an issue with the quote itself, but noticed that it is currently overlapping with the descriptive box at the right. this makes it difficult to read and looks unprofessional. I am new to Wikipedia and don't have the expertise to fix this issue. Does anyone know how to prevent this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriots649 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Different web browsers show the quote differently. I don't know how to fix it so it works equally well on all browsers. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not problem, just thought I'd check, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriots649 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

68.173.248.54
A friendly note: you really need to read a little American history. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and the 3RR rule, since he just got blocked for violating it. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  20:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the last person (user:Æðð)who just did the EXACT SAME REVERT as the IP, using the EXACT SAME REASONING, is actually a sock-puppet of the just-banned IP. See Here:   I have no idea how to investigate this, or who to report it to, so I'd appreciate it if someone checked this out.  Thanks!  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I set up an SPI here. TFD (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Got to be the same person. There can't be two people as ignorant of American history as he is.  Rick Norwood (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Æðð keeps coming back, I'm starting to wonder if he is actually so ignorant of American history that he honestly thinks Blacks in the South were allowed to vote in the years between the Reconstruction Era and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If that is the case, it might be kindest to suggest he follow the link. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Abrupt end
For an article about "modern" American liberalism, this article just seems to come to an abrupt halt around the mid-1980s. Even though that certainly marked the ascent of conservative dominance and the end of the progressive trends of the 1930s-1970s, it's not as if nothing else happened since then. The election of Bill Clinton and the advent of the Third Way as an attempt to win Democratic elections by making more concessions to moderates is an important point, as is the return of progressive protest politics in the form of Opposition to the Iraq War and Occupy Wall Street. Not to mention the election of the first African-American president. I'll add some basic info and hope that others can expand upon it. TempDog123 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The new material is well-written, carefully referenced, and is a fair summary of more recent events in American liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Modern liberalism in the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Modern liberalism in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "msn": From George W. Bush:  From George H. W. Bush:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Support for liberal postions
An editor has removed: "However, most Americans support liberal positions in opposition to cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and oppose stripping public workers of the right to unionize". The explanation is, "The burden's on you to make the case for using a ten-year-old survey"." While opinions do change over time, my approach would be to keep the information and search for more recent studies if one thinks that the information may have changed.  The editor also took out the mention of voting rights for African Americans.  TFD (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. There may be more recent data on these issues, I have not checked. But the method for rectifying that is to update the article, not remove content. As for the AA voting rights, that is a continued effort by the same editor(as an anon IP and his/her current account) for removal. It has been discussed here before and consensus is that it's relevant to this article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've noted before, this editor certainly seems like a sock of another blocked editor.   He/she/it seems to be pushing identical edits to that of a blocked editor.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  17:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wealthy liberals
Perusing the article, there is not mention that the most of the wealthiest areas of the United States vote for liberals. Here are a couple reliable sources to support this statement: Content reflecting this should be added somewhere, but of course, in a neutral manor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The connection seems to be education. Educated people are both more liberal and richer.  Uneducated people are both poorer and more conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, BO got 63% of the high school drop out vote, and McCain 35%. I'm all for it if you'd want to put an IQ test in place to register to vote, but you won't put your money where your mouth is because we both know which party would have most to benefit.--Æðð (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to see a more detailed analysis of the data. Rick Norwood's observation is probably true.  But we also need to explain how this relates to voting patterns.  African Americans for example are no more liberal than average, yet are far more likely to vote for liberal candidates.  TFD (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is less because African Americans are liberal on such issues as women's rights or gay rights, but rather because conservatives have so often used racism to unite their mostly white base. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You have it backwards, my friend. The conservative Republican Party overcame filibusters from the Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Act. It was Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, two conservative Republicans, who played key roles in desegregation, while it was a "liberal" Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who was a segregationist. If blacks' overwhelming support of Democrats has to do with any one issue, it's government dependency (slavery), and not where the GOP has stood on racial issues like civil rights or affirmative action (which was in fact, originally adopted at the federal level under Nixon).--Æðð (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to read a little American history. The Democratic Party was the "party of the White Man" in the years following the Civil War.  There was nothing Liberal about it.  And the Republican Party today is much more conservative than it was under Dwight Eisenhower, who had a top tax rate above 80% and built the Interstate Highway System at a cost of a million dollars a mile, or Richard Nixon, who opened the door to trade with communist China (after a very conservative record as Eisenhower's VP).  Blacks support Democrats primarily because Democratic President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights act.  Your suggestion that blacks like slavery makes no sense at all. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To use terms like "liberal" and "conservative" with their modern meanings to try to describe politicians in the 1800s is very tricky at best. And we're not arguing why blacks support this party or that party, but whether so-called "liberals" can claim ownership over this issue. Both the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act passed with the support of both parties, conservatives and liberals, so why does Johnson get credit again? As for slavery, I see little difference between the modern, welfare state plantation and the pre-Civil War plantations of old. Let's continue this conversation in the new section below.--Æðð (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One has to wonder if you might be totally ignorant of American history. Have you ever heard of a Dixiecrat? How about Southern Democrats and the Republican Southern strategy? You don't seem to understand that liberal doesn't/hasn't mean/t "Democrat" and conservative doesn't/hasn't mean/t "Republican". It's almost as if you have no basic understanding of these subjects at all. The Republican and Democratic parties have underwent major, drastic changes after the turn of the 20th century. Starting with the Republicans, here is a brief summarization of the changes. Teddy Roosevelt(and his leaving the Republican party) until modern times where the "Tea Party" seems to be expunging all Republicans that do not fit some "conservative" orthodoxy, the liberal northern Republicans have either shifted to the Democratic party or became independents. There are no members of the Republican party in the House that could be considered liberal right now, and there are 3 current members of the Senate, that could be considered quasi liberal, left(Snowe, Collins, Brown). The Republican party was formed through the liberals from the Whig party and disaffected anti-slavery Democrats from the northern States, but this changed since the 1860's. The Democratic party went through it's own drastic changes. Let's start at the modern times with FDR. This is really the beginning of modern progressive politics, and the start of the conservative southern Democrats leaving the party. Have you ever heard of Strom Thurmond? From Truman to the Republican Southern strategy, the conservative south changed from only voting for Democrats(because Lincoln was a Republican) and started to realize the Democratic Party was now a progressive party that championed liberal causes. Such as African-American voting rights and desegregation. Read up on this stuff. Hopefully you will be better informed and might be able to contribute to this encyclopedia. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I was hoping to start off fresh, but you just wanted to come in swinging with these ad hominem attacks and straw men. If you could show me where I claimed that "conservative means Republican" and so on, I'd appreciate it. My actual position is, that extending suffrage to blacks was the product of Democrats and Republicans, "liberals" and "conservatives" working together. The one-fifth of the population which describes itself as liberal has no propriety over this issue; the Voting Rights Act was approved by overwhelming majorities of both houses. And modern "Progressivism" began long before Franklin Roosevelt's time. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson are usually described as "progressives", and are both still held in high regard among most on the left.


 * As for Strom Thurmond, he was the one big segregationist that joined the GOP, and only after he had been kicked out of his own party. What about Robert Byrd and George Wallace? Did Bull Connor ever join the GOP, or Marvin Griffin? Strom Thurmond is the exception, not the rule, and was a very idiosyncratic figure at that. Finally, the South slowly moved to the GOP on account of economic, not social reasons. In the early 20th century, the South was still a very poor region, but as it became prosperous and self-sufficient in the second half of the century, Southerners moved from the politics of FDR to the politics of Reagan.--Æðð (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that this guy (who I still contend should be investigated as a sockpuppet of an already-banned editor) just posted these words:
 * As for slavery, I see little difference between the modern, welfare state plantation and the pre-Civil War plantations of old.
 * ...I think it's safe to say that this guy's absurd political POV will not be dissuaded by little things like "facts". That's almost as offensive as Holocaust Denial.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  15:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a Nazi, and then claim everyone else's POV is clouding their judgment. --Æðð (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a POV. It's just that the facts and scholarly consensus back up my opinion on the subject, whereas nobody buys yours except for Conservative propagandists.  Yeah, yeah...I know.  I've heard it before.  It's all a big Liberal "conspiracy" to change history.  LOL.  If you don't have RELIABLE SOURCES backing up your absurd, revisionist theories...you don't have standing to dispute ANYTHING...and nobody is going to be persuaded by your arguments...and your edits will be reverted.  That's how it works, Chief.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  18:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A source for the Voting Rights Act vote tally? I had already hyperlinked it below under "Black Suffrage" to make it easy for you, but it's never enough. The overwhelming support both parties had for the bill, conservatives and liberals, blows your position out of the water. Coopting this issue and revising history to give your fellow ideologues proprietorship over it is an attempt to whitewash the fact that your party has consistently been, from Jim Crow to the Japanese internment to the welfare plantation, on the wrong side of racial issues. You stick your hand in John Kennedy's rear, and wave him around like a little puppet, shouting: "See! This makes up for the KKK, poll taxes, and lynchings! Oh, and Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, Robert Byrd and the other segregationist Democrats, they were all real right-wingers. I swear!"--Æðð (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "My party?" I was unaware that the Libertarian Party had anything to do with any of that...  Being Socially Liberal does not a Democrat make...  And the fact that you'd try to lump the KKK (a Far Right, Christian Supremacist organization) in with the Liberals, is 100%, prima facie proof that you haven't the teensiest, weensiest grasp of American history.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  23:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The KKK, right wing? You mean small government, libertarian types like Woodrow Wilson and Robert Byrd, both of whom were supporters of the group? It's really difficult discussing such a complex topic with someone who has such an ideological, black and white take on American history. Any unsavory figure or political group regardless of their actual beliefs regarding size of government is "right wing", while segregationists on the left like Robert Byrd and Jimmy Carter never existed.--Æðð (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If readers want to find idiotic, dishonest interpretations of history, there are other websites they can visit. TFD (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If readers want to find a substantive contribution to the discourse, they won't find it above.--Æðð (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of past incarnations of the Democrat Party, the article is regarding Modern liberalism, as in the near recent past. Or am I wrong?

If I am not wrong, the growth of Democrat/liberal representation of higher income districts, as supported by the reliable sources I have provided should be somewhere within the article. To give it a sentence or two would not be giving the content undue weight within the article and would add to the the article's verifiable content.

I was thinking that the content should go something like this: "As of 2008, the Democratic Party represents a majority of affluent households (those with incomes over $200,000); this is a recent change as in 2005 when the Republican Party represented a majority of those same households."

The statement above is directly supported by the USA Today article, and is balanced and would not constitute undue weight within the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can make the equation Democratic voter = liberal. While less than 25% of people call themselves liberal, about half of all voters vote Democrat.  A good portion of liberals, perhaps as many as 20%, vote Republican.  TFD (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are, even now, Conservative-to-Centrist Democrats ("Blue Dogs"), and Socially Liberal Republicans ("Log Cabin Republicans," a lot of "Hollywood" Republicans...)...  I don't have an issue with the "concept" presented by the USA Today article, but since the terminology is "Democrat," rather than "Liberal," it probably belongs on the page for the Democratic Party, rather than here.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  19:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A few things. First, you lead off in the right direction, stating that there is a difference between modern liberalism and the Democratic Party. But then you go on to use "liberal" and "Democrat" interchangeably with your proposed edit. Next, the sources seem to be describing more of a move of some of the most affluent voters to the Democratic Party, but at the same time describe most of them as conservative. Also, there is more direct linking in the sources of more education being a factor in voting patterns. Lastly, most of the sources are describing the situation after the 2006 and 2008 elections, and give caution for people to make sure it is not a blip but a trend before making any conclusions. Well, we haven't seen what those districts look like after the 2010(and coming soon the 2012) elections. And that isn't even getting into the fact that one source also states that the Democratic median household income is still $1,180 a year less than Republican districts. Thanks for the good reads, but I think your proposed edit seems a little off base from the sources and probably a bit premature. Cheers. Dave Dial (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is premature, however, there appears to be multiple sources in news that coincide with the phrase "wealthy liberal" and "2010" and "election". Additionally, there is this article from the Huffington Post. That being said, three elections, might not be an aberration, and thus warrant due weight inclusion of a sentence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Most Americans support liberal positions..."
"However, most Americans support liberal positions in opposition to cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and oppose stripping public workers of the right to unionize."

Shouldn't it be pointed out that while most Americans support public workers' right to unionize, the majority also supports reform of the system ?

Also, I don't think saying that they oppose cuts to entitlement programs is honest, as the poll cited shows that Americans support a lowering of the retirement age and reducing MC and SS payments to the wealthy. --Æðð (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to provide reliable sources discussing whether or not most Americans support liberal positions. TFD (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to this specific sentence in the lead section. It's dishonest to claim that Americans support the right to unionize for public sector employees while not mentioning that the majority support an overhaul of the system (which is the same position Gov. Scott Walker has, is he a "liberal"?), or to claim that "Americans oppose cuts to SS" while the same poll shows they favor cutting it for the wealthy and raising the retirement age. --Æðð (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The source does not refer to "liberal positions", so I will remove it. TFD (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I consider this issue (the WSJ budget dilemma poll source from 2001) to be resolved. However, the above thread (about voting rights for African Americans mostly) is not.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 15:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Black suffrage
Seeing as the Voting Rights Act was passed with the overwhelming support of both parties, why do "liberals" get credit, especially seeing as the only substantial opposition to the Voting Rights Act, like the Civil Rights Act, came from the more "liberal" Democrat Party?--Æðð (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that is what sources say. TFD (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I could find sources describing Nazism as left wing, along with sources that describe it as right wing. "A source said it" isn't a compelling argument, especially in a case of such clear historical revisionism as this. With the Voting Rights Act having been passed by as overwhelming a margin as it did, there is no justification for members of an ideology which makes up a fifth of the population to claim ownership over it.--Æðð (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Derp. Like Rick Norwood says, you need to read a little American history, rather than relying on the uneducated ramblings of high school educated talk show hosts whose "qualifications" are not enough to obtain a job as manager of a Wendy's. The Southern Conservative Democrats who opposed Civil Rights and the Conservative Republicans actually came together and formed a group that they called the Conservative coalition. It included Conservative Democrats like Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond. (Byrd would later "turn Liberal," while Thurmond would switch to the GOP when the Republicans "went Conservative" and the Democrats "went Liberal," thanks to the Southern strategy.) This is all easily found information that anyone who has even taken a rudimentary examination of American political history of the 20th century would know. Now please stop wasting everyone's time with your hilariously absurd ramblings.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  15:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I really have no interest in listening to your off-topic, wingnut rant about how much smarter than Rush Limbaugh you think you are. Whenever you're ready to get back to the topic at hand, I'm on board.--Æðð (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You think Limbaugh is the only one? Try Beck, Hannity, Alex Jones...et cetera...  And if you were paying attention, I _did_ discuss the topic at hand, and completely demolished your argument.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  15:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean when you claimed that Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were conservatives, and every thinking person in the room laughed at you?--Æðð (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think anyone else does, either. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  16:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat who supported segregation, meaning he must have been a conservative of course, correct? You said the segregationist Democrats who opposed civil rights were conservative, and I'm following you up on that.--Æðð (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. The way your mind works, sport...It's priceless.  And it's the segregationist Democrats (and Republicans) THEMSELVES who called themselves "Conservative."  (That's why they called themselves the "Conservative coalition," remember?)  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  16:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only are you completely avoding my question, but you're trying to make this about me personally, which is a sign of partisan hackery if I ever saw one. Let's try again: Was the segregationist, Woodrow Wilson, whom we have to thank for the federal income tax and the federal reserve, a "conservative Democrat"? What did "conservative" even mean at this time? Your position is so shaky, so hard to defend with but a cursory glance at history, I don't understand how you can't sit back, take a look at these cartoonish, wingnut positions you've been trying to defend, and not feel embarrassed for yourself.--Æðð (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm only "avoiding your question" because it's a stupid question. Issues are "Liberal" and "Conservative."  And people are often so associated with Liberal or Conservative positions that they are described as "Liberal" or "Conservative."  But just because a "Liberal" adopts a "Conservative" position...does not change the description of the position itself.  This is absurd and fallacious thinking.  For example, using this "logical reasoning," if a Liberal president supports gun ownership...then gun ownership becomes a Liberal cause.  (LOL)  Surely you can step back enough from the Kool Aid to realize how ridiculous this is?  No matter what "spin" you try to come up, it will not change the fact that it was a Conservative position to fight against voting rights for African-Americans.  (As Martin Luther King, Jr. himself stated, "The Republicans have betrayed us by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of Right-Wing reactionary northerners. This coalition of southern Democrats and northern Right-Wing Republicans defeats every proposed bill on civil rights.") And unless some Right-Wing dictator comes along and changes the historical record to replace facts with propaganda...the historical facts are 100% conclusive in proving you wrong.  It's not a "conspiracy" that every time you promote these absurd arguments that...you know...EVERYONE (even Conservative editors) speaks up to say that you are wrong.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is freedom of speech a "conservative" or "liberal" issue? This idea that we can split each and every matter down the line indicates a superficial, tenuous grasp of politics. Giving the 20% of the population which considers itself "liberal" in this modern meaning of the term, ownership over a position which the vast majority of our elected officials, liberal or conservative, took half a century ago, it's really a sweet deal for them isn't it? Despite Nixon and Eisenhower's roles in desegregation, despite greater support for the Voting Rights Act among the more conservative Republican party than the more liberal Democrat Party, modern liberals, most of whom look back on conservatives like Nixon and Reagan with contempt, receive all the accolades? Seeing as "liberalism" and "conservatism" are considered to be the two dominant political philosophies, does attributing black suffrage to liberals not imply that conservatives opposed it when history tells us otherwise (again, the Voting Rights Act vote tally)? These are, I believe, reasonable questions, but I'm not seeing any serious attempt by any of you at even touching them.--Æðð (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been given answers. By several editors directing you to several articles with actual reliable sources. You just don't like the answers. As editors, we don't decide what is liberal or conservative, sources and history scholars do. Once again, read the Conservative coalition article. Wikipedia editors didn't just decide to call them that, or state that they opposed progressive legislation, Civil Rights for African Americans and desegregation, it's part of history. You don't get to re-write that based on your own fringe point of view. Now, this discussion is not what this Talk page is for. It's not a forum. So unless you have specific changes with major reliably sources to back them up, we should just drop this endeavor and move on. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You could cite me these countless left-wing historical revisionists all day long, attempting to coopt the bipartisan civil rights legislation to whitewash their long history of supporting institutional racism, and it wouldn't make your position, or that of the editors who puts this tripe into the article, any less baseless or extreme.
 * I've already hyperlinked the Voting Rights Act which has the vote tally prominently displayed, but you actually want me to go in to the article, and dig up the source used for that? A scholarly source to verify that a vast majority of both parties, conservative and liberal, supported the civil rights legislation? The burden's on you to back up these inane positions, like that a good 80% of the population in the 60s were "progressive liberals", or that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were "conservatives" on account of supporting Jim Crow. I well understand that this isn't a discussion forum, but all of you are throwing so much complete nonsense around that I can barely address it all without taking up too much room.--Æðð (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed several times in the past and is a recurring theme on the talk page. See these two threads in the archives: this one and also this one. You can also read the source, Thre Great Society and the High Tide of Liberalism published by the University of Massachusetts Press in 2005. (I've linked page 366. Pages 58, 367, and several others are also relevant.)  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 15:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Having read both threads, only in one is my central argument addressed, which is that the Voting Rights Act was passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support. And in that discussion, you basically wore the guy out as opposed to defeating his position, which is that this is a clear attempt by modern ideologues at coopting legislation supporting by the vast majority of the American people and our elected representatives.
 * None of you, in that thread or this one, have given any reason to attribute credit for this to the one-fifth of the population referring to itself as "liberal", other than that you found one book which decided to do so baselessly, while I could find twenty that acknowledge the wide, bipartisan, non-ideological support for the civil rights legislation.--Æðð (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sucked in again! Æðð, please observe that this page is not a forum for a general discussion of the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a blog where we present original views and could AEDD please stop it. TFD (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's time for some intervention, especially considering all of the reverts and blanking going on on this talk page. I'm too busy at the moment, but something needs to be done about the disruption.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do right now is to disengage. Let things run out, and if the other editor persists, then someone will file a report. I'm sure people can see(have seen) the disruption and attacking edit summaries. So it's best to just ignore and not respond. Everything that can be said has already. Let's leave things as they are. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Æðð keeps removing the Black suffrage content (which is referenced and cited) with edit summaries suggesting that this issue was resolved [in his favor] on this talk page. Such a result is surely in his imagination, because we most certainly have not reached a consensus that it should be removed, but rather a consensus that it should stay. Be on the lookout as he keeps removing it, I will be gone for most of the day. The following thread, with regards to the WSJ budget dilemma source, was indeed resolved, so I made sure to leave that out and only revert his removal of the voting rights for African Americans content. This is tiresome, and we should pursue alternative courses of action to end this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT strategy of disruptive editing.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 15:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Æðð is still engaging in disruptive editing. Looking at the edit history, he yet again deleted content that is referencing reliable sources here, which I reverted here, and which he again removed here. His latest removal of the content was accompanied by an edit summary of The conservative GOP passed the Civil Rights act over liberal Democrat filibuster. Why do you keep running from history?. I find the allegation that I am "running from history" amusing. The content removed deals primarily with voting rights for African Americans, but such rights were established via the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, not any of the Civil Rights Acts. Nobody is running from history, but someone is definitely making up their own. The content is reliably sourced, and so it shall remain.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 04:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny
Funny that Liberal as an Insult has its own section but Conservatism as an insult does not. Either That "Liberal as an insult" section should get its own page along with one for right wing politics or it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.117.143 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * How one article is written is not dependent on how others are written. TFD (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As the main editor who took the initiative to rewrite that section well over a year ago or so, I don't apologize for having chosen to spend some of my time editing this article and not some other article of your choosing. Any label can be used as an insult, but the "liberal" label's metamorphosis into a derogatory epithet is historically different from "conservative" in that conservative politicians, particularly around the 1980s, began re-engineering the meaning of the word to describe affinities and positions that modern liberals did not actually identify with. The section exists because it has an abundance of reliable sources, including scholarly publications by political scientists and historians, as well as news articles. Being liberal was something that used to transcend the "left or right" dichotomy, as many Republicans and Democrats both self-identified as liberal up through around the mid-1990s or slightly later, until further polarization led some Republicans to abandon the label or outright change party affiliation to independent etc. Some may still exist, but they tend to get labeled as RINOs (Republican In Name Only). If you can find sources to support the edits you would like, you're more than welcome to start editing. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia upholds neutrality, not balance.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, this article is called Modern liberalism in the United States, not liberalism and hence its counterpart is not conservatism. While there is no Modern conservatism in the United States, there is a Timeline of modern American conservatism which says "conservative" was originally used in the U.S. as "as a term of abuse."  The main conservatism article btw says, "The word "conservative" itself is a term of abuse in France."  But there is no article Conservatism in France in which to expand this, it re-directs to Conservatism.  TFD (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen's edit
Good edit, Rjensen. I see your point, now. When I think of Jackson, I think of the Trail of Tears. I need to add him to my list of presidents I need to read more about. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FDR quote
There is a typo in the new FDR quote, but since I don't have the book, I would like someone who does to correct it. I think it is that "define" should be either "defined" or "definite". While you're at it, please check the capitalization of "Government". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ann Coulter
Rjenson: why was the Ann Coulter quote a BLP violation? She is a public person, the quote was made in a public setting and was referenced, and it illustrates the extremes to which major conservative writers will go in characterizing liberals.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a BLP violation, but it is undue. If her views on liberalism are worthy of inclusion, they should be included on the basis of secondary sources.  We can't use her to establish the weight of her own words.  If we did, we could just replace the article with one of her books. aprock (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Coulter material was added primarily to ridicule and attack Coulter, which is a BLP violation. It was not designed to provide new information on liberalism, in my judgment. I read the cite, which was written by a freelance local musician who strongly dislikes Coulter. He covered music & is not a reliable source on political ideologies.  His story --published five years ago--contained only four words from her speech "One of the more outrageous moments of her talk came when she called white liberals "a bunch of (p--ies)" and charged them with prolonging slavery in America". I suggest that is incompetent journalism and not a reliable source on her views of liberalism. As for rhetoric, "pussy" is not extreme rhetoric--the Collins Dictionary  says: "(taboo, slang, mainly US) an ineffectual or timid person."   see the Wiki article Pussy--it gets a laugh from college students as a double entendre.  (We just learned a White House official told a reporter that Israel's prime minister Netanyahu was a "chickenshit")  If Wikipedia wants to say something about Coulter's analysis of liberalism find a less POV source who actually tries to understand her position.   Rjensen (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The topic of the paragraph was not Ann Coulter's views, but rather was the use of "liberal" as a derogatory epithet. Certainly that is the way Ann Coulter uses the word, and she is one of the more prominent examples of that use. On the other hand, I'm not familiar with the reference used to establish that she actually said that, so if it is not clear that it correctly represents what she said, it should be removed.Rick Norwood (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rick makes a good point. The deleted passage about Coulter does not shed any light on the question of exactly how she uses the word "liberal". Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The sections seem overly long. Can't we just say that "liberal" has become an epithet and provide a brief overview?  Also, I think more attention should be paid to the term "progressive."  There has been at least since Roosevelt a 3-way division in the Democratic Party that was evident in the 3 VPs he chose.  Liberal and progressive are overlapping but not interchangeable terms.  TFD (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalizing the article
‎UberCryxic Has been vandalizing the article. He repeatedly erased race chunks of material With a variety of different excuses. That is vandalism since he is not taken his objections to the talk page where it belongs. His first excuse was " and doesn't need to get bogged down with very old polls." -- He is talking about polls from the 1990s In an article that stretches back over 100 years to show the continuity of liberalism. So I dropped that line of thought. His latest excuse goes this way: "No deleting of material, just objecting to your characterization of that material; saying political identification is "stable" when liberals have gone from 18% in the exit polls of 72 to 25% of those in 2012 is laughable." Three problems for this. First, he erased 870 bytes of fully sourced material. Second He erased reference to a source that explicitly says: "Juliana Horowitz, "Winds of Political Change Haven’t Shifted Public’s Ideology Balance," "Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, press release", November 25, 2008. Third, he misread the section ignoring the opening line "How voters identify themselves has been fairly stable over the last quarter-century, with some gains since 2011." Gallup said last month: "the percentage considering themselves liberal rose a percentage point for the third straight year." I think a one percentage point gain for three years running qualifies as "some gains." (The poll has a margin of error of one point.)  What is happening is the number of moderates is rapidly shrinking, the number of conservatives is growing, and the number of liberals is growing slightly faster but they are still well behind.  You left out of his report on the Gallup poll their emphasis on liberals being well behind the Conservatives and 2014. I think that omission was deliberate POV on his part. His careless repeated vandalism is not a laughing matter and it is unfortunate that he is unable to engage in a serious discussion on how to handle important material. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be discussed, and the recent uptick in liberal identification should not be overstated. TFD (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

American versus European use of the term "liberalism"
I do not see the purpose of this section. We should just say that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" entered modern usage in the U.S. when Roosevelt used the terms in 1936. Schlesinger's essay is probably an oversimplification and dated anyway, and U.S. usage is creeping in too. But it is beyond the scope of the article to explain usage in different countries. TFD (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Except, I trust, to compare and contrast. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The main source used for the section does not seem to say anything about the use of the term. In my reading, all I have found is that in the U.S. the term came to be associated with supporters of Roosevelt, while in France it generally means neoclassical economic liberalism.  And there are differences between liberal parties in different countries.  But otherwise I do not see that the term takes on different meanings as one crosses borders.  TFD (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen edit
Rjensen: there are a couple of typos in your recent edit. Do you want to fix them or shall I? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Liberals and Congress
This added section is really mostly about conservatives in congress. It is ungrammatical. It contradicts itself. It makes unsupported statements, such as the claim that Eleanor Roosevelt opposed equal rights for women. I tried to fix it, but reluctantly decided that it couldn't be fixed. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Eleanor never endorsed the principle of ERA. was a vigorous opponent of ERA from 1920s to 1951--she went quiet & insisted on the need for special protections. She chaired Kennedy's commission on women, whose report (released after her death) said ERA was not needed. It was Howard Smith the archconservative on race, who was a liberal on gender.  He supported ERA year in year out for decades and finally got it written into law.  see http://books.google.com/books?id=55XG0oS3XyYC&pg=PA184 &  http://books.google.com/books?id=_R_3BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA173   In 1960 at the Democratic national convention the explicit opposition from liberal groups to ERA was overwhelming,  It included the labor unions, AFL-CIO, ACLU, Americans for Democratic Action, American Federation of Teachers, American Nurses Association, the Women's Division of the Methodist Church, and the National Councils of Jewish, Catholic, and Negro Women.  Citation =  http://books.google.com/books?id=LF8ov6Vc4YQC&pg=PA209  Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Rjensen. I still don't see what Eleanor Roosevelt has to do with Liberals and Congress. Your version is a big improvement.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The ERA had to pass Congress before it could be sent the states, so Eleanor Roosevelt's refusal to support it was a big obstacle-- she was by far the most prominent liberal woman and Democratic woman in the 1945-62 era. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Before the Earl Warren, the Supreme Court generally used the Constitution to rule against liberal legislation. I wonder to what extent that influenced the debate.  In any case, since we mention it was supported by liberals in the 60s and 70s we should mention they did not always do so.  TFD (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln
While Lincoln is so popular everyone tries to claim him as one of their own, the fact that conservatives at the time favored slavery, states rights, and a small federal government, and Lincoln took the nation to war to establish the right of the federal government to enforce its laws in the several states, establishes him as a liberal by any reasonable definition of the term. He favored freedom and equal rights under the law. The argument that he is a conservative is, essentially, that he said he was a conservative in the Cooper Union speech, a campaign speech trying to win conservative votes. It was unsuccessful. Lincoln got almost no conservative votes, and the conservatives at the time hated Lincoln as much as they hate Obama today. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * YIKES! Hold it right there. It is not true that "conservatives at the time favored slavery, states rights, and a small federal government".  Andrew Jackson, the liberal hero, for example favored slavery and a small federal government. It is not true that "Lincoln is so popular everyone tries to claim him as one of their own" -- Blacks in recent decades have dramatically downplayed or even denounced Lincoln. " Lincoln took the nation to war to establish the right of the federal government to enforce its laws in the several states" is not true--He took the nation to war because the U.S. Army had been attacked and forced to surrender at Ft Sumter. It is not true that "conservatives at the time hated Lincoln" (Who are those mystery conservatives?  In the North, the main elements that hated him were old-line Jacksonian Democrats ("Copperheads") and Irish Catholics (as in the 1863 New York draft riots).  In fact he won over the support of many conservative Democrats, such as Stanton (who became his Secretary of War). A key point however, is that 19th century liberalism (which Lincoln did espouse) is very similar to modern libertarian versions of conservatism. For example Lincoln was strongly pro-business and pro-banks.  But you might want to look at what historians have decided about Lincoln.  William C. Harris in Lincoln's Rise to the Presidency says that Lincoln's "reverence for the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the laws under it, and the preservation of the Republic and its institutions undergirded and strengthened his conservatism". Historian James G. Randall emphasizes "his preference for orderly progress, his distrust of dangerous agitation, and his reluctance toward ill digested schemes of reform". Randall concludes that, "he was conservative in his complete avoidance of that type of so-called 'radicalism' which involved abuse of the South, hatred for the slaveholder, thirst for vengeance, partisan plotting, and ungenerous demands that Southern institutions be transformed overnight by outsiders." Lincoln was the leader of the moderate and conservative Republican factions who fought the Radical GOP faction during the war. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly Lincoln would not feel at home among what people today commonly call conservatives - people to the right of Reagan, the Bushes, Dole, McCain and Romney.  But the Copperheads would feel right at home.  The states rights issue is a red herring.  Hamilton wanted a strong central state.  Conservatives and liberals will switch side on states rights, free trade, the equal rights amendment, judicial activism and many other issues depending on which is more likely to achieve their core objectives.
 * Lincoln btw never intended to end slavery in the South but to prevent its extension into the West. Like Hamilton, he saw the U.S. future as lying in trade, industry and commerce, which required the West be used to produce food for the cities rather than cotton for the UK.
 * TFD (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln and Liberalism
I removed fallacious information regarding the liberalism of Abe Lincoln. Freeing the slaves should not be considered liberalism...just common decency. Do not allow your own liberal bias to get in the way of constructive thinking. Thank you.--173.75.33.123 (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 173.75.33.123: The dictionary definition of liberalism is support for freedom. Freeing the slaves is an example of support for freedom.


 * Rjensen: We are using the word "conservative" in two different ways. I'm using it to mean "Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization." -- Wikipedia.  I gather you are using it to mean support for banks and businessmen.  Yes, Lincoln supported banks and businessmen.  No, he did not support retaining the South's "peculiar institution".  He was willing to accept slavery to preserve the union, but he always described slavery as an evil.


 * Andrew Jackson is hardly a liberal hero. Liberals remember the Trail of Tears. He was, by your definition, a conservative.


 * You can find a few people in any large group with just about any view you care to name, but it is still true that Lincoln is one of our most popular presidents, and that both parties claim him as one of their own.


 * You say "Lincoln took the nation to war because the U.S. Army had been attacked and forced to surrender at Ft Sumter." That was the proximate cause, and is one example of establishing the federal government's rights to property they owned inside a sovereign state. But the preservation of the union was Lincoln's stated goal.  That meant preventing succession.  That meant opposing state's rights.


 * You say, "It is not true that "conservatives at the time hated Lincoln" (Who are those mystery conservatives?)" Read some of the articles in the southern press at the time.  They were conservative using the Wikipedia definition of conservative, but not using your definition of conservative.


 * You write: "In fact he won over the support of many conservative Democrats, such as Stanton (who became his Secretary of War)." Read "A Team of Rivals" on why Lincoln appointed to his cabinet people with whom he disagreed.


 * You write: "A key point however, is that 19th century liberalism (which Lincoln did espouse) is very similar to modern libertarian versions of conservatism." This is indeed the key point.  The historians you cite are using "conservative" not in the same sense as either you or I, but in the sense of "supporting the constitution", "not radical".  That's how Lincoln used the word in the Cooper Union speech.  But moderate liberals and moderate conservatives share those beliefs.  If that is what you mean by "conservative", then essentially all Americans are both liberal and conservative.


 * But the title of this article is "Modern liberalism in the United States", and the meaning of "conservative" when it is used as the opposite of "modern Liberalism" is opposition to the great liberal causes of the last hundred years: rights for Blacks, rights for the poor, rights for women, freedom of religion, and most recently (and surprisingly) freedom for gays.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a couple points: Jackson is indeed a great liberal hero for the 20th century (for example Arthur Schlesinger Jr was his acolyte). Lincoln spent A great deal of effort 1861-65 As leader of the moderate and conservative factions in the GOP and fighting the Radical Republicans On issues of Reconstruction. During the war, the Confederates were hostile to Lincoln-- that includes Confederates of all shades. It's striking, that after the war the ex-Confederates were much more favorable toward Lincoln because they realized his anti-Radical position. Now to stir up the confusion a little bit, the anti-radical position in 1872 formed what they called the Liberal Republican party. Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To me, modern liberalism is the New Deal coaltion and its successors. Some modern liberal policies were anticipated by earlier groups but that does not provide a strong link.  The progressives for example became isolationists and Taft Republicans.  Jefferson and Jackson were influences, but they were influential among the Dixiecrats too.  I do not see why  we should imply that modern liberalism had roots before its inception, but should merely mention comments by people such as Schlesinger that try to show them.  TFD (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we need to break this article up into "modern social liberalism" and "modern economic liberalism"? And do we need to do something similar with the article "conservatism in the United States"? I hope not. The situation is already sufficiently complicated. And yet, the belief in government control of the economy does not have a lot to do with the civil rights movement, and the belief in private sector control of the economy does not have a lot to do with the antiabortion movement. Schlesinger may have been Jackson's acolyte economically; I doubt he approved of slavery.

Maybe this will help: we can take care, in both articles, to distinguish between economic beliefs and social beliefs, by careful use of the two adjectives.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As Schlesinger explained, "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."  So trying to determine who was a modern liberal before FDR by examining their policies is futile.  TFD (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reproductive rights for women?
I replaced that with the clearer "legalized abortion on demand" for reasons given in this edit summary. Rick Norwood restored it saying "let's keep both", which I can almost agree with except I still don't don't see a basis for including something as vague as "reproductive rights" here. I had figured someone might bring up another legitimate issue and I had anticipated supporting it under a "let's keep both" principle. But instead Rick cited Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 SCOTUS decision striking down Connecticut's anti-contraception law. While that decision had relevant ripple effects for constitutional law, it wasn't a political issue, or much of a contentious cause. Connecticut and Massachusetts were the only two states to have anti-contraception laws in the 1960s, and even there it was almost never enforced. In fact early challenges to the law were dismissed on the grounds that no prosecution had taken place. Griswold happened when a $100 fine was imposed, making the case ripe.

I propose we either delete "reproductive rights", which isn't a political issue in the US, especially with abortion now listed separately, or replace it with something clearer and more pertinent. One possibility might be something cultural rather than legal, like "open sexual expression", that actually captures something relevant in describing modern liberalism in the United States. VictorD7 (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rick Norwood. We must use mainstream descriptions.  TFD (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with him on what precisely? What does your reply have to do with anything I said? VictorD7 (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I googled "conservatives on reproductive rights for women" and got more than five million hits. The first bunch from sources like Solon and HufPo clearly show liberal bias, so I ignored them. But, scrolling down, I came to this: "Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s O.K. Contraception’s O.K.’ It’s not O.K. because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” - Rick Santorum. And various attempts by conservative businessmen to keep their employees' insurance from paying for birth control.  So apparently this is still an issue for some. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You should have dug a little deeper: "Those remarks have been misinterpreted, he said. “I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’"


 * That was just a one of countless statements taken out of context and lied about by partisans in a campaign season. Clearly it's not an issue. As for the recent, largely manufactured "controversy" about whether people should be forced by the government to pay for every type of contraception for their employees, including abortion pills, that's where I initially figured you might take this. I'd be fine with replacing the misleading and hopelessly vague "reproductive rights" with something clearer about liberals supporting government insurance mandates for those and maybe other things. But as it is, apart from my recent abortion addition, the passage is so broad that it's useless. We've got to make it clearer. VictorD7 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up for me. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. So would you now accept deleting "reproductive rights" or replacing it with something clearer? VictorD7 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We should not use the terminology of partisan writers, but should use that of neutral writers. "Legalized abortion on demand" while similar to a slogan of feminists in the 60s is no longer considered neutral.  TFD (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to accept anything that is widely supported by scholarly sources. I tend to agree with The Four Deuces that "legalized abortion on demand" is a catch phrase used by the anti-abortion movement, and that just "legal induced abortion" is more scholarly. (The word "induced" is important because by far the greatest number of abortions are spontaneous and occur shortly after fertilization.) Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, "abortion on demand" references the legal/political issue, as even many Americans who want more restrictions than currently exist (including some Pro Lifers and most in the middle) accept keeping "induced" abortion legal under certain circumstances. The current law, via SCOTUS ruling, is abortion on demand throughout the country. That's not a "partisan" characterization. It's in mainstream dictionaries:


 * "''abortion-on-demand
 * noun
 * 1.
 * the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first six months of a pregnancy.
 * 2.
 * an abortion performed on a woman solely at her own request''."


 * "abortion on demand,
 * a concept promoted by prochoice health advocates that it is the right of a pregnant woman to have an abortion performed at her request. That right may be limited by time of gestation, or it may pertain to any period of gestation."


 * It comes up on liberal as well as conservative sites, for example stoppatriarchy.com...


 * "''Abortion On Demand
 * and Without Apology!
 * For Every Woman in Every State''"


 * ...amplifyyourvoice


 * "Abortion on demand is the idea that women should be able to access abortion services without having to jump through hoops."


 * ...and The Nation.


 * "Free Abortions on Demand Without Apology"


 * It's used in news coverage around the world:


 * "Women 'should have abortion on demand'"


 * It's also already in common use in other Wikipedia articles, for example:


 * Abortion law - "Although nearly every European country makes abortion available on demand during the first trimester, when it comes to later-term abortions, there are very few with laws as liberal as those of the United States.[17]"


 * Abortion in Norway - "Current Norwegian legislation and public health policy provides for abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks of gestation, by application up to the 18th week, and only under special circumstances thereafter."


 * And it's used in scholarly books:


 * Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge (p 1673; Cheris Kramarae, Dale Spender; Routledge; 2004) - "In 52 nations, abortion on demand is permitted."


 * Abortion: Statutes, Policies, and Public Attitudes the World Over (p 50; Rita James Simon; Greenwood Publishing Group; 1998) - "Across the Atlantic, only Cuba, Canada, and the United States permit abortions on demand."


 * The Pro-Choice Movement : Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict (p 29; Suzanne Staggenborg; Oxford University Press; 1991) - "Even after women’s liberation activists began demonstrating for "women’s control of their bodies" and "free abortion on demand," abortion movement organizations continued to work through the “system” by lobbying their legislators and supporting litigation to test the abortion laws."


 * This is all just a small sample. Clearly the wording is mainstream and accurate. Oh, and Rick, most postnatal infant deaths are natural. "Abortion" is mostly used to refer to the prenatal equivalent of infanticide, as these various sources illustrate, unless it's accompanied by a qualifier like "spontaneous", and even then "miscarriage" is far more common.


 * You didn't answer about whether you'd now accept removing or replacing "reproductive rights" now that I've cleared up the false claim about Rick Santorum. VictorD7 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was not clear. I accept removing or replacing "reproductive rights" and withdraw my objection to "abortion on demand". Of course, I'm not the only person you have to convince. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. For now I'll remove it, since I haven't seen anyone else object, and since we have added the clearer abortion segment, though I'll be open to adding a new item if someone has a specific proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Link to "Health care" article
Should the first mention of “health care” in the lead be linked to the Wikipedia article on the subject? I was about to make this edit myself when I realized there might be a good reason this hasn’t been done yet, and that I’m just unaware of said reason. The terms “abortion” and “same-sex marriage” are linked in the same sentence, so why not “health care”? Thoughts?Kerdooskis (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the link.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor's claim that Modern liberalism in the United States is not a form of American liberalism.
An editor repeatedly removes a link from this article to the article Liberalism in the United States, with the claim that "Modern liberalism not American liberalism". Presumably this claim is based on the idea that modern liberalism in the United States is not liberalism or is not American. This claim is strongly POV. It seems reasonable that someone reading this article, who wants to understand the origin of these ideas, would follow up by reading the Liberalism in the United States article.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that U.S. liberalism and modern U.S. liberalism are not synonymous. The dispute is:  (1) says "American liberal causes include voting rights for minorities, legalized abortion, support for same-sex marriage, and government programs such as education and health care," where "American liberal" links to Liberalism in the United States.  (2) uses the term "Modern liberal" and provides no link.
 * The U.S. liberalism article is about liberalism as normally defined: support for individualism, capitalism, constitutionalism, and is the main ideology in the U.S.  Liberalism has always had divisions however and the U.S. confusingly adopted the terms liberal and conservative to identify its major strands.  The belief that individuals should take responsibility for their own welfare and do not have the right to engage in immoral behavior, even if it is victimless, is well within the liberal tradition.
 * I would point out though that since this article is called "Modern liberalism in the United States" it can be abbreviated to liberalism when it is understood in context that that is what is meant. But in that case there should be no links.
 * TFD (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

When two articles have subjects that are synonymous, they should be combined into one article. When the subject of one article is related to the subject of another article, as is clearly the case with Liberalism in the United States and Modern Liberalism in the United States, they should be, and in almost every case are, linked. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * They should not be synonymous. In the other article, the first paragraph of the lead defines the topic, although most of article focuses on modern liberalism.  It would probably be better to improve that article, otherwise it is just a duplication of this one.  TFD (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

They should not be synonymous and are not, though I am all for improving any article. The topics of Liberalism, Liberalism in the United States, and Modern Liberalism in the United States should each be subsets of the preceding article, and ideally expand on one section of the preceding article. But it seems obvious to me that each article should be linked to the preceding article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. But this article is not about liberalism in the U.S. today, but about a specific branch of U.S. liberalism.  There are even problems in saying that.  Some writers say there are two ideologies in the U.S.:  liberalism and Republicanism in the United States (although that article is not clear), which roughly corresponds to the liberal/radical division.  And the term liberal is used so widely that even socialists in the New Deal and Great Society are considered part of liberalism.  TFD (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Modern liberalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4173

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Modern liberalism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120803004534/www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/novak.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/novak.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160225221559/http://www.unm.edu/~pre/law/articles_advise/PolSci_Overlooked.htm to http://www.unm.edu/~pre/law/articles_advise/PolSci_Overlooked.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029063356/http://articles.cnn.com/2000-12-13/politics/cnn.poll_1_sampling-error-poll-usa-today?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS to http://articles.cnn.com/2000-12-13/politics/cnn.poll_1_sampling-error-poll-usa-today?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing the Modern Liberalism in the U.S. template.
I've been trying to add some names to the template of "Modern liberalism in the United States." However, I, for some unknown reason, am not able to do so, because I don't see the "V-T-E" options for the template on it. I'd like somebody to help me fix this problem. Thank you for your understanding & cooperation. Mr. Brain (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

summary statement in lede
Thanks for the edit, Rick Norwood. I've further tweaked it because, while I see what you were getting at with your wording, I think some of it has unintended implications. Do modern American liberals necessarily oppose privatization of healthcare? Taken literally, wouldn't that imply favoring nationalization of healthcare, and isn't that something about which liberals could reasonably take either position? Saying liberals oppose privatization of education is tantamount to saying that they're opposed to private and parochial schools. Likewise, wouldn't opposing privatization of welfare entail being against private charity? On the flip side, only die-hard libertarians support privatization of criminal justice, if by that we mostly mean policing, though privatization of prisons seems to have mainstream supporters on the right.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your formulations, but what do you think about my attempt to get at many of the same points? I've tried to word it in a fair-minded way, implying neither criticism nor uncritical endorsement of those positions. And by citing the Democratic Party Platform in support of those claims, I don't have any axe to grind about how liberal the Democratic Party is, but it's certainly the most mainstream of the liberal-leaning political parties in the United States, and I couldn't think of a better citation for those claims. Jbening (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Or maybe we should parallel language from the Overview section, such as, "The American modern liberal philosophy strongly endorses public spending on programs such as education, health care, and welfare," and, "Modern American liberals generally believe that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy..." Jbening (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * While liberals are closer to those views than conservatives, that really hasn't been the liberal position for the last fifty years. Incidentally, many liberals support privatization of education, prisons, etc. (Privatization means the transfer public services to private ownership or control. It doesn't mean just allowing private property to remain under private ownership.) TFD (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you've been following American politics closely enough. Democratic politicians frequently criticize Betty Devos's efforts to use government money to fund private schools, especially religious schools, objecting that it violates separation of church and state. They have also pointed out that private prisons are often corrupt, and are a way of warehousing unwanted minorities, and forcing them to work for low wages. This practice has been called "slavery" by some liberals, especially Black liberals. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I said some not all. Cory Booker and Rahm Emmanuel for example. My point is that these are not what define the distinction between liberal and conservative but that the liberals are more likely to tend one way on the issue than conservatives. There is no distinction similar to that between royalists and jacobins in the French revolution. TFD (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)