Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National liberalism (2017)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The point raised by the keep-! voters that there are sources that address something called "National liberalism"; which is different from liberal nationalism or  Civic nationalism--is a solid argument.The opposers have failed to convince the discussants to the contrary. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  05:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

National liberalism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article didn't improve since 2009, and I can't find any reliable source that say that National liberalism is diferent than Liberal nationalism (Civic nationalism), the sources that I found use national liberalism with the same concept of liberal nationalism, it seems that is a synonymous, but I can be wrong. I think it should be redirect to Civic nationalism. For example, in the source "Verlag C.H. Beck, Germany from Napoléon to Bismarck, 1800-1866, Princeton University Press" is only used once and as a synonymous. The source that was added by E.M.Gregory, The Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Liberalism, use the term national liberalism but its talking about the ideology liberal nationalism like Mark Evans says in the page 71. These seems to be a WP:SYNTHESIS and as the policy says, it combines "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you read the sources completely as a whole, none of these talk about an ideology. As is pointed bellow, a lot of unsourced material was tried to be push in the article. What is sourced are WP:PRIMARY comments of some researchers, and along with the use of the term by some parties the article try to pass it as an ideology. I suggest that the editors read and verify by themselves what the sources state. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Asserting that an article has not improved substantively since 2009 is a very poor justification for starting an AfD on a 19th Century topic that closed as keep after a well-attended AfD in 2009.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * loup, it is bad form to expand the rationale for deletion in mid discussion. If you have something to add, please do it in a clearly separate edit.  However, it is inept to take the edited collection of essays and, instead of citing the essay or page (273) that I cited, cite an entirely different essay on page 71, and accuse me of misrepresenting the passage I was citing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't accused you of anything. I don't know what you're talking about. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put here what I stated in the article's talk page: Some times the term is used as a synonymous of liberal nationalism, this is because the term is not a real ideology and we can give it the meaning that we want according with the circumstances.
 * In this source presented by Checco, Göran B. Nilsson talks about national liberalism and compare it with cosmopolitan liberalism, again like in some of the other sources, he is talking about the regional variant in contrast with the worldwide variant. There is no a cohesive ideology with particulars dogmas. There isn't also a cosmopolitan liberalism per se. There are just terms. There are terms that researchers use to label the parties and academics of the time. Like the sources state there were liberals and nationalist, or that is how they describe themselves. Some were nationalist, liberal, libertarians or socialist. If there were nationalist and liberals then they called them national liberals. As James Alfred Aho states, they had very different ideas. He use the term "mind set" to talk about the ideas that German liberals had at the time. It's logical that they need to use the term so in that way the reader could understand of what their talk about. Again, is not a distinct ideology is a term and the meaning vary with the circumstances in which is used as noted before. Sometimes is used to refer to the indigenous liberalism, other time as a synonymous, other to refer at the nationalism and liberalism of the time. No one agrees that it is an ideology or what it constitutes this ideology. There is no a scholarly consensus. And the term is used loosely. All the sources presented here use the term few times. Later use nationalism or liberalism. Is not a notable term by any means. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Clearly, "national liberalism" and "liberal nationalism" are different concepts, similarly to conservative liberalism and liberal conservatism: while the former are variants of liberalism, the latter are variants of nationalism. As I wrote eight years ago at Articles for deletion/National liberalism (the result of the discussion was keep, after seven users opposed the deletion with quite good arguments and only who favoured it), "en.Wiki has plenty of articles about sub-ideologies (see Category:Political ideologies) and many branches of liberalism (see Category:Liberalism)" and "national liberalism is a historical brand of liberalism typical of some German-speaking countries, but the term has been used also recently. The subject clearly deserves an article in en.Wiki, but, while the current one already includes good sources, it could be great improved. Please let's not delete it. --Checco (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? Rupert Loup (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All that I wrote is quite self-evident. And it should also be noted that other 22 Wikis have articles on the subject. --Checco (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, without sources is original research and doesn't have place in Wikipedia. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article can (and should) be improved and expanded upon, of course, but it needs to continue to exist to do so. Liberal nationalism is a separate, different concept to national liberalism (as it national conservatism, may I add) and it would be misleading to conflate the two under the same article.--Autospark (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, do you have a source for that? I'm genuinely asking. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The first 2 sources that come up in a JSTOR search in the toolbar above are utterly persuasive.  Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way? Did they say what national liberalism is and how is diferent of liberal nationalism? The first source only mention it three times and says that were used as synonymous of german nationalism. But didn't explain what it is or what is the diference with liberal nationalism. The second source didn't mention national liberalism at all. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Loup, you cannot claim that the source ( Dalton on JSTOR) are inadequate, then, when I begin adding material form Dalton to the page, complain in your edits that you have no access to it because of a paywall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim nothing about Dalton, I was talking about Heinrich H. Maure and Peter Uwe Hohendahl. That are the sources that shows in the search. And you mean Dutton. That talks about the Liberal Nationals in the preview. Also what you are adding says that is a term. Not a distinct ideology. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My apology, the first 2 items on my JSTOR search were Dalton (I have not read that article yet, it's about the Natinoal Liberals in Walse, U.K.) and  Kurunmaki, Jussi. (“On the Difficulty of Being a National Liberal in Nineteenth-Century Finland.” Contributions to the History of Concepts, vol. 8, no. 2, 2013, pp. 83–95., www.jstor.org/stable/43610946.)  I was referring to Kirumaki.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hohendahl says," This very aim-to exploit Schiller's dramas for national liberalism brought the conservatives into the picture." IOW German liberals claimed Schiller as one of their own.  By "national liberalism" he means "German liberalism" and elsewhere in the text refers to them as liberals without qualification.  TFD (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD, that is from the JSTOR search? I searched for national liberalism here and nothing shows. Am I doing something wrong? Rupert Loup (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rupert Loup, sorry not to answer earlier. The article is "The Literary Canon of the Nachmärz" and your link shows it.  But you can click on the link to JSTOR at the top of this page.  The article is open access.  TFD (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD, found it. It's mention once. Yes I concur, in the books that I read, the term "national" it's just used to refer the autochthonous liberalism of a country or as a synonymous of liberal nationalism. Not as a particular ideology. If you read the sources of the article, every party has a diferent way of see "national liberalism". It's not an ideology with common caracteristics. Like in this used source. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Other example here, that is used to source the content "Gordon Smith understands national liberalism as a political concept that lost popularity when the success of nationalist movements in creating nation states rendered it no longer necessary to specify that a liberal ideal, party or politician was "national."", Emil J. Kirchner only use the term 3 times, and not to define it as "political concept". Then just use liberalism or nationalism. There is no sings of a specific ideology. And doesn't explain what are the ideals or philosophy of this so-called ideology. He use it to refer to the specific liberalism of Switzerland. In fact he states that "some are national based, other are regional parties. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Loup, I now see that earlier in the AfD process you deleted a substantial amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV from the article. and repeated the action after being reverted.  I don't know what game you're playing here, but please cut it out.  Furthermore, sources like books and academic journals do not require verification simply because you cannot access them.  They are valid sources even if a particular scholarly source is not public access. Other example is here that is used to source the content "Gordon Smith understands national liberalism as a political concept that lost popularity when the success of nationalist movements in creating nation states rendered it no longer necessary to specify that a liberal ideal, party or politician was "national."", Emil J. Kirchner only use the term 3 times, and not to define it as "political concept" E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because don't mention national liberalism. I checked them. And I can't check the sources that you added, that's why I'm asking for verifications. Who says that they not requiere verification? can you give me the policy that says that? E.M.Gregory, please see WP:VERIFY. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is, however, irregular to mass-delete sources that look reliable during an AfD. Adding small corrections to a deletion that you have just made so that it cannot be reverted and taken to talk will inevitably make it appear that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.  I advise you to revert all of the many the deletions you have made during this AfD, then justify each on the talk page so that other editors can assess them and come to a consensus about what material should be kept in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As per WP:AGF, we assume that an article adding a source to a page has verified it unless we carefully read the source and specify (in a comment, or on the talk page) exactly why that editor was mistaken. You can demonstrate good faith by restoring the citation to a university press book that you just deleted along with all of the other reliably sourced material that you have improperly deleted from this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM, this is not the correct place to disscuss that. Also I alredy told you that I won't going to re add sources that doesn't talk about national liberalism or in this case are incoplete and fail verification. You used a non-english source that doesn't have pages to cite a content. Can you quote it and give me a page? Checco can you point where in the page given in the sources that I deleted it talk about national liberalism? because Checco said that indeed mentioned it. I don't assume bad faith, I stick to the facts. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I fear you are actually assuming bad faith, when removing parts of the article as well as sources which have been there for years (and were not included by me, but by other users, by the way). There is an ongoing discussion and I would wait for its end before editing the article: while there have been definitely improvements (thanks especially to User:E.M.Gregory), some removed parts should be re-included. That is what I am going to do. Otherwise, people can say that there is "no definition" in the article (see below). --Checco (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ps: I answered to your message in my talk page at Talk:National liberalism. There is no need of using talk pages, while we are already discussing.
 * I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking for sources. The article has being tagged since 2012. I removed the unsourced material citing WP:OR and you deliberately re added it without citations. And stated that the sources mention national liberalism, which they not. Thats vandalism and you are doing it again. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that what you are doing is vandalism and that you are totally not interested in consensus. However, this discussion is on the notability of "national liberalism": the article's content can be discussed at Talk:National liberalism. --Checco (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to National Liberal Party (Germany). As I pointed out at the last AfD, there is no ideology called "national liberalism" and no definition is given in the article.  The term normally refers to the National Liberal Party (Germany), which called itself that because it was a liberal party organized on a natioal level.  See for example the first hit on Google books, The Splintered Party: National Liberalism in Hessen and the Reich, 1867-1918:  "The National Liberal Party...was one of the two genuinely national parties of its day." (p. 1)  Most of the article is sourced to an article called,  “On the Difficulty of Being a National Liberal in Nineteenth-Century Finland.”  Other authors do not use that term, see for example The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries  The term is not used in the book.  TFD (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * *That redirect won't work, not least because this term does not "normally" refer to any single party.  Many countries have had important national liberal parties. Including many called National Liberal Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that this is a concept that was at the height of its popularity in the 1800s, and that like Wikipedia itself google searches have a presentism problem, gSearches, including gBooks searches, bring recent sources to the top, making the wider use of the term in term a century ago difficult for editors running searches to perceive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are lots of out of copyright books from the 19th century and early 20the century texts available in full on Google Books and other sites. See Guido De Ruggiero's History of European Liberalism] (1927), which is still considered a leading text.  It does not mention national liberalism.  Lots of books by Austrian School liberals, such as Carl Menger (1840-1921), Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek are also available.  Since the Wikipedia article says that national liberalism was the major liberal ideology in Austria, they should have mentioned it.  Nothing in Mises' Liberalism (1927) or the other writers.  The works of Karl Marx (1818-1883) are also available on line.  He was German and wrote about the National Liberal Party and liberalism, but did not identify a national liberal ideology.  No mention either in Left Liberals, the State, and Popular Politics in Wilhelmine Germany, The Ashgate Research Companion to Imperial Germany or Anthony Arblaster's The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (1986) which is considered the most important history of liberalism since De Ruggiero.
 * In any case, lack of sources necessary to write an informative article is a reason not to have an article. None have been found in the last 8 years.  Maybe at some point sources will become available and someone can write the article again.  But in the meantime, it is uninformative and useless.
 * TFD (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN improvements by USER:Checco answers all objections raised by Nom and by other editors. I strongly suggest that the next experienced editor coming to this page close the discussion on the strength of the HEYMANN preventing Nom from yet another round of WP:DISRUPTive deletions that serve only as the kind of annoyance that drives good editors away.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am still not seeing a topic, just an observation that there are unrelated parties called "National Liberal." I would expect to see at least one source that defined national liberalism and explained the connection of national liberals in the various countries in the article. TFD (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that defining a political ideology is not as easy as slotting birds into species (although, even there...,) National liberalism does offer well-sourced definition. As for "explain(ing) the connection of national liberals in the various countries in the article," it is not a reasonable WP:HEY demand.  To understand why, consider a similar demand being made for articles like Socialism, let alone the world's self-identified  People's Parties.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with TFD, there just a series of parties that use the term. And also a lot of unsourced material was added. Now it's a WP:SYNTHESIS, using the primary comments of some researchers and the term use by some parties to pass it as an ideology. WP:HEY is an essay, not a policy. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, so different writers define liberalism and socialism differently, although in each case political scientists have been able to identify the core elements in common. Among the core elements of liberalism is the "pursuit individual/economic freedom and national sovereignty," which is the definition provided for national liberalism.  There are no liberals who oppose freedom or national sovereignty.  Could you please provide one book or even one article about the concept of "national liberalism."  If you cannot, then it fails "Notability" It has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources."  ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention."  TFD (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Repeating my request that the next editor coming to this page close this discussion as keep. Nom, who had been  making repeated mass deletions of text has been blocked for 24-hours.  It is my hope that with the AfD closed it will be possible to resolve any remaining issues at talk, as suggested at AN/I.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. The article still is a WP:SYNTHESIS, and the sources state that as I said. Nothing has changed. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. The article, and the additions under discussion on the talk page, show that there is scholarly discussion of an ideology of "national liberalism," and that a series of major political parties formed around this ideology in the 19th century.  This is not to say that the article is perfect, only that the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the talk page no one of the sources talk about an ideology, the parties had its respective different ideologies that go from nationalism, liberalism and socialism, they use the term to describe themselves but its ideologies had nothing in common in one another. There is not a cohesive ideology in any of the sources. Also, the comments of the researchers on the subject are primary, again you are doing a WP:SYNTHESIS. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Loup, Please do not make major changes to a comment that you make earlier in the discussion, as you have just done. Doing this after the discussion has moved on is regarded as a disruption of the process.  Reason, is, once the discussion moves on, changes to a comment can give a misleading impression about the comments other editors were responding to.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this behaviour is quite exacerbating. Additionally, this is a discussion on the notability of the subject "national liberalism", everything else has to be discussed in the article's talk page. I also think that this discussion could be closed as keep, per the reasons mentioned by E.M.Gregory above. --Checco (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what are you talking about, there is no policy or guide that says that I can't do that. I didn't modify my previous comment. It's the reason that I state for the AfD. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Modifications that were added after discussion had moved on here:,, , , , , , , , , .  Out of time for now, although I have only gone through part of this AfD.  There may well be more examples.  Loup, the point is that changing a comment or a Nom after other editors have responded confounds the possibility of reasoned discussion, which is our rules forbid it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: In response to the AN/I phrase or that an editor would close the AfD (this dispute regards political ideal popular in the 1800s that was kept after a previous AfD discussion.), this debate cannot be (non-admin closure) as SNOW KEEP because of the significant delete !votes. It cannot be closed as no consensus because it is only two days old and hasn't attracted enough attention, so it will probably have to be relisted. Thanks,  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I perceive a moment, or, rather, a series of moments in many central European countries in the 19th century when national liberalism was an ideology; I source such a moment in Germany just before unification above.  I see "national liberalism"  as a significant 19th concept, a view validated by the selection of the term as the name of a series of major political parties.  In addition, "national liberalism" has been have recurred to by significant contemporary figures, and discussed extensively in the writings as Prime Minister József Antall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See the talk page of the article. National liberalism is a synonymous of liberal nationalism. Is used in that way in most of the sources. József Antall is described as liberal nationalist . There are various sources that describe clearly what liberal nationalism is, like this example, and there is none that explain in what consist national liberalism. Rupert Loup (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - The proponent of deletion has not established the case that, first, this article is the same as Liberal nationalism or Civic nationalism, or, second, that the first AFD was not persuasive. Also, the proponent of deletion is being tendentious in responding to all of the Keep statements.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:TENDENTIOUS is an essay. This is a discution page. I'm who is being accused of bad faith for presenting arguments. The first AfD is irrelevant to this. I stated in the talk page that the sources use the term as a synonymous of Liberal nationalism with examples. Also it was discussed how all the sources doesn't state what national liberalism is or what advocate. Please, care to elaborate why this article should be a keep. What is National liberalism and how is notable to have an article? I already state my arguments. I'm curious of what are yours. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and note that the OP, having failed to get his way, is now retired. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources I've looked at (from the article) do appear to be addressing something called "National liberalism", and it does appear to be a different thing to what is described by the sources at Civic nationalism. And the OP's statement "I can't find any reliable source that say that National liberalism is diferent than Liberal nationalism (Civic nationalism), the sources that I found use national liberalism with the same concept of liberal nationalism, it seems that is a synonymous, but I can be wrong" appears to be OR - essentially "They seem the same to me, and we don't have a source explicitly saying they're different". By that reasoning, I doubt we have a source that explicitly says blue whales aren't cabbages, but we wouldn't direct one to the other on that basis - to assume two things are synonymous, we'd need sources that explicitly say they're the same, not an absence of sources that say they're different. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.