Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 19 September 2009

Liberalism received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Please note that this article concerns itself with the widest sense of liberalism, including American, European, classical, and modern traditions. Since it is inclusive, it may seem to depart from the intuitions of new members. Please acquaint yourself with the historical and geographical facts if you have not already done so. Thanks.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WPLibertarianism Template:WP1.0

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Conservapedia

all of you must read the definition of liberal in conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal) it is very funny. and maybe put a section in this article "conservatives/conservapedia's view on liberals. --Violarulez (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Democracy" and "Liberalism" are not synonyms.

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

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

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

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

Lack of References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin work to improve article.

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

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

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

Intro is very bad

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

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

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

(out) Encyclopedia Britannica presents its article as an historical narrative, with the various schools described as they emerged. It does not have a Variations section. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter what Encyclopedia Britannica does? What's your point? Introman (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman wrote, Encyclopedia Britannica is not a mainstream source? All mainstream sources on liberalism point out how broad it is, and includes the laissez-faire school of liberalism (classical liberalism) and the interventionist school of liberalism (modern or social liberalism) and how it's evolved over time....What does it matter what Encyclopedia Britannica does? Exactly. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the information in it, not how it's organized. You're talking about how it's organized. I'm asking what does that matter? Introman (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

references

I've done some more work on the article, mainly adding references, but also moving sections around so that the organization makes more sense: lede, origins, philosophy, politics. Much more work remains to be done. The next long section, beginning from the picture of Benito Juárez, has no references at all! Rick Norwood (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in lead

User:Introman has added the following tag to the lead

The neutrality of this article's introduction is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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

Alright, how do you think it should be phrased?

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

Rick Norwood, I don't know what you're talking about "meat inspection." I'm not aware of any difference between classical liberals and modern liberals on safety inspections. What differentiates the classical and modern liberals is mainly in economics in that classical liberalism is for an economy where quantity of supply and demand, and price of goods and services, and the distribution thereof, is not regulated by the government but by the market. The philosophy of freedom from government control, laissez-faire, that liberalism is most known for (except in the United States use of the term "liberal"), which you seem intent to obscure. Introman (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume your comments are meant for me because I mentioned meat inspection. I misunderstood what you meant by regulation. Modern American liberals support an economy where quantity of supply and demand, and price of goods and services, and the distribution thereof, is not regulated by the government but by the market. So by your definition there is no distinction between the supposed two types of liberals in the US. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you could say that. That's bizarre. Modern liberals are in favor of government regulating a price floor for wages, many of them are in favor of laws putting a price ceiling on pay as well for CEO's for example, they're in favor of laws to break up what they believe are monopolies instead of letting the market regulate competition, they're in favor of government controlling monetary policy instead of leaving money supply and interest rates to the free market, they're in favor of government-mandated wealth redistribution by through various regulations, and support distribution of wealth through a welfare state instead of leaving distribution of these resources only to market mechanism and charity, they support government controlled energy policy (including subsidies and specialized tariffs to that end) instead of leaving energy to the free market (as well as telling automakers what kind of fuel efficiency the cars they produce have to have), they support government-mandated distribution of health care instead of leaving it to the free market, and so on. They don't trust the free market to distribute resources equitably, is what it comes down to. Classical liberals don't support any of that. They believe the market, unhindered, is what most equitably distributes resources. Introman (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This version of the intro was much better: Introman (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about who I "consider modern classical liberals." I don't use that term. So what if only 5 states have minimum wage laws? What's that have to do with anaything? And yes welfare exists. What does that have to do with anything? I don't even know how to respond to your second paragraph. It's just bizarre. Introman (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact is there are lots of sources that say liberalism includes both classical and modern versions and that they differ in important ways, which is why the term exist. It was well sourced in the previous version of the intro. Liberalism is not a monolothic philosophy with no divergent schools of throught within it, and not a static philosophy. Not to mention, what "liberalism" refers to in the rest of the world is NOT what "liberalism" refers to in the U.S. Introman (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Although you may find the second paragraph "bizarre" it reflects mainstream thought on modern American ideology. Your conversation would be more helpful if you were familiar with the subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with this article. This article is not about libertarian versus conservatism. It's not about conservatism at all. Introman (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You will note that I have not used the term "libertarian" at all and although I used the term "conservative" I said "the US did not have conservatives". So when you say This article is not about libertarian versus conservatism I agree, but ask what that has to do with what I have said. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Was a typo. I meant "liberal." Introman (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

the part of this article on the subject of modern liberalism

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

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

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

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

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

Islamism

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

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

two ledes

There are currently two different ledes under consideration.

Lede A:

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

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

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

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

Lede B:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now lede A includes this paragraph, by Introman:

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

Rick Norwood (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Reverse of how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work

User The Four Deuces has put in an unsourced or wrongly sourced statement while deleting a properly sourced statement. That's the reverse of how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. I deleted the statement "All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law" which was sourced to the 1947 "Oxford Manifesto" . The reason I deleted it is because , first of all it's not true that all liberals are in favor of democracy, not sure if they all would support "liberal democracy," but also because you can't source a claim about "all liberals" by a primary source like that of one group of people describing themselves. However, The Four Deuces has put the line back in. I think he's unjustified in doing this, for the reason I just stated. I also added the line "However, liberals do not agree on other things, such as on the legitimacy of the welfare state, the virtues of democracy, the boundaries of toleration, or even the nature of the liberty they think liberals ought to seek, whether negative liberty or positive liberty, which I sourced by Ryan, Alan. Liberalism. A Companion To Contemporary Political Philosophy. Eds. Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit. Blackwell Publishing, 1995. pp. 291-293. Rick Norwood deleted that. So, Norwood is putting back in the wrongly sourced and deleting the properly sourced. Introman (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman, why do you not think that the Oxford Manifesto is a poor source? Yes it is liberals describing themselves, but why does that matter? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the claim was that it sourced a statement about "all liberals." It's like if you picked a view from one liberal, say Adam Smith, and say that that view represents all liberals. You would need a secondary source saying that that particular view is representative of all liberals. Introman (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Any claim of opinion like that MUST be directly attributed to the author making the claim. That is the only method by which opinion is allowed into articles. Claims involving absolutes (such as "all liberals believe" or "all x are y) are troublesome as they are very often not true, tend to be opinions rather than statements of fact, and without impeccable sourcing and direct attribution (who makes this claim, why do they do so, and why is their opinion valued over others?) really have no place in an encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the statement that all liberals believe in democracy is like the statement that all triangles have three sides. However, I understand L0b0t's point -- politics is not mathematics, and when we talk about politics, we probably should avoid the word "all". Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberals distrust democracy, at least in its classic sense. That's why the U.S. was set up as a constitutional republic instead. They want to prevent tyranny of the majority. Among their reasons is they believed the masses would vote to take the property of the wealthy. This is mentioned in the article. Introman (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Or perhaps include it as sourced opinion. Something like- "According to so & so, belief in democracy is a defining characteristic of liberalism." maybe? L0b0t (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me to be a self-published document. What's more it's a "manifesto." Obviously it's not some kind of scholarly work in any respect. The only thing it could be used as a source for is a source for the views of the sources about themselves. You could say something like "The group of people who assembled at Oxford to set out principles for themselves said that 'true democracy' is true to liberal principles." But something like that couldn't even be in the lead for obvious reasons. They're not speaking for all liberals, and don't pretend to be. Introman (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read this: Oxford Manifesto. No, they're not speaking for all liberals. Nobody is. Nobody can. But they are a major group of liberals who came together to set down the liberal principles they had in common. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. Then they can't used to make a claim about liberalism. They can only be used to make a claim about the group of people that met at Oxford in 1947. And I don't think that would be appropriate in the intro. And yes, some people CAN speak about all liberals. Reliable sources can. Introman (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Manifesto is a perfectly reliable source for the the opinions of the Liberal International, a specific liberal organization that represents only the liberal political parties of its member states (The US is not a member & doesn't even have observer status with this organization.) L0b0t (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But it would be out of place in an intro about "liberalism" in GENERAL, where we should be talking about the general characteristics of liberalism from sources making claims about the general characteristics of liberalism. Introman (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Another attempt at a lede.

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

Proposed new lede:

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

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

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

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

Comments? Suggestions??

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

In my opinion, this is a tremendous improvement; thanks Rick. I would, perhaps, try to find a substitute for one of the two uses of the phrase "widely accepted". L0b0t (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep it in sentence 2 and change to a similar parenthetical clause in the last block of text, or maybe excise it entirely from sentence 2 and keep it at the end? L0b0t (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly you don't know the concepts. Welfare state measures, such as minimum wage, is not freedom from restraint. It's an example of trying to bring about "positive freedom." Classical liberals only have conception of negative liberty, freedom from restraint, which means among other things that the government could not interfere without private contract between two people. If two people wanted to contract for a $1/hour wage, then the government would not be allowed restrain them. Welfare liberals, on the other hand, don't care so much about leaving people free to do what they want, because they see positive freedom as being important and believe government intervention as necessary to advance positive freedom. Understand yet? Or do I need to go into explaining what positive freedom is about now? Introman (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman, Rick Norwood's lead is clearly sourced and represents mainstream thinking. If you wish to disagree then you must provide sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have. I put sources for everything that I've put in the intro as it stands now. Introman (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned before that the quote by Peter Vallentyne does not belong here: According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, "Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality. You would not use an article about the history of Albania as a source for an article about the history of the US, so why use this quote. It makes no sense. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads up, dude. This article is not about the U.S. It's just called "Liberalism." Introman (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That was an analogy. Please stay on topic. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Since only one person here objects, I'm going to post the lede proposed above and move on. There is still a large part of this article that lacks references. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do agree with Introman's point; I just don't feel the lead is best place to make it. It is an important enough distinction that it should (in my opinion) be covered, in greatly expanded detail, in the article body. L0b0t (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree it should be covered in the article body. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introman: You have expressed these views many times, but have never offered evidence. It doesn't help you to keep saying the same thing over and over. You need to find a major writer who agrees with you. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly did present evidence. And you DELETED it, as usual when a sourced statement says something you don't like. I sourced: "According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: 'In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies'. Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online)." That's from the MAINSTREAM SOURCE Encyclopedia Britannica "liberalism" article written by well-qualified scholars. A reliable source, according to Misplaced Pages policy. Introman (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Hartz as someone who has written about the elitist/democrat split in liberalism but would rely on more recent sources. He actually used the terms Whig and Girondist as synonyms for elitist liberalism. The National Liberal Party (Germany) is another example. My point is that views on market liberalism are not the only divisions within liberalism.

Introman, we are in the middle of discussing the lead and your recent edits are unhelpful. Half the lead is now about laissez-faire liberalism. You have not addressed any of the issues we discussed, such as why the lead is quoting from an article on libertarianism. Therefore I am reverting your edits.

The Four Deuces (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Introman: Your quote is about modern American liberalism. This article is about worldwide liberalism throughout history. The information contained in your quote certainly belongs in the article, but not in the lede. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, my quote is about BOTH. It said what American modern liberalism is as well European liberalism. And since the term refers to different things in Europe and the U.S. that needs to be said. Introman (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman, do you a source that explains this linguistic difference in greater detail? What reason is there anyway to discuss this in the lead? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason to discuss it in the lead is because this is an international encyclopedia, and the the term refers to different things depending on what part of the world you are in. The intro is not the place to discuss the difference between traditional and social liberalism in a lot of detail. Introman (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know it the statement is true, so it would help if you could be a reliable source. Note that the European liberal party (European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party) is composed of both social and conservative liberal parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave a reliable source. Need another? Arthur Schelesinger Jr., "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans", in The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962) Introman (talk)

(out)Introman, this is what Schlesinger wrote:

As a young American political scientist, Professor Louis Hartz of Harvard, has brilliantly argued in his recent book The Liberal Tradition in America, the absence of feudalism is a basic factor in accounting for the pervasive liberalism of the American political climate.

Accepting the theory of America as essentially a liberal society, how can one distinguish the liberal and conservative tendencies within that society?

Similarly, it is difficult to believe that the crucial distinction lies in the attitude toward the role of the state. Thus the conservatives Alexander Hamilton and John Quincy Adams and the liberal Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed in advocating government direction of the economy, while the liberal Thomas Jefferson and the conservative Herbert Hoover agreed in wishing to limit the power of the state.

Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain. Liberalism in America has been a party of social progress rather than of intellectual doctrine, committed to ends rather than to methods. When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state.

Here is what you wrote:

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

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

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

I wasn't talking about a split in American liberalism. Talking about different conception of liberalism in Europe and America. Introman (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked if you had an rs for this and one should be provided before inserting the comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I gave a reliable source for the statement: "According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: 'In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies'. Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online)." That's from the MAINSTREAM SOURCE Encyclopedia Britannica "liberalism" article written by well-qualified scholars. A reliable source, according to Misplaced Pages policy. And I just gave you an additional source that shows that there is a difference between European and American conceptions of liberalism. Introman (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) EB may be mainstream but it's still a tertiary source. The problem with them is that there are no footnotes to the sources of their information and no literature commenting on their opinions. How do we know that they are right? Because they are Encyclopedia Britannica. And the other source you provided (Schlesinger) contradicts them. So please find a reliable secondary source. If the statement in EB is true this should not pose a problem. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it it a tertiary source. So what? Tertiary sources are permissible. You ask "How do we know they are right?" You still don't understand Misplaced Pages. Whether it's "right" or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether it's sourced. As WP:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." And no, the Schlesinger source does not contradict it. And if it did, it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't make the source unreliable. Introman (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ideally we should be able to look at a statement in Misplaced Pages, then go to the source that was referenced, check the footnotes there and trace it back to the original research. Or we can find articles that question the findings in reliable secondary sources. But we cannot do this with a tertiary source. Which is why secondary sources are more reliable. If you like I can set up an RS query on this. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What "original research"? There's not going to be an scientific survey anywhere surveying how different people are using the term, if that's what you mean. Whether a secondary source says this is a tertiary source, it's going to be the same thing. It's just going to be credible scholars telling you, from their studies and experience, the difference in what liberalism refers to in Europe and America. The source is reliable. Introman (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually scholars do perform original research to determine how words are used. Here's a link to an article on how the term neoliberalism is used. P. 138 shows a count of how often it was used in literary journals, p. 142 shows its neutral, positive and pejorative use. But EB Britannica does not countain footnotes that would allow us to find the research on the use of the term "liberal" in Europe. We also do not know if the EB article is dated. American usage may influence European usage. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you're just going to have to take the source's word for it then because it's a reliable source according to policy. I think it's pretty common knowledge that Americans use the term "liberal" in a pretty unique way. So I doubt there's going to be any formal studies. Introman (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

work on the later part of the article

The next big task, it seems to me, is putting the later part of the article in some kind of order, and adding references. As a first step, I'm going to see if it is possible to organize the material along the following lines:

Kinds of liberalism

Elitism versus democracy

Deregulation or regulation of banks and businesses

Extending liberalism to the disadvantaged

Liberalism in various countries

Liberal democracies

Liberal conservatives

Christian liberals

Liberal socialists

other???

Comments? Suggestions?

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on the later part of the article, which contained a lot of repetition. So far, I've only tried to group paragraphs with a common theme under a common heading. Much work remains to be done, especially in the area of references.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

The following has been added to the first paragraph of the lead:

Liberalism is not an undifferentiated philosophy, as their (sic) is disagreement among liberals on things such as regarding the legitimacy of the welfare state, the virtues of democracy, the boundaries of toleration, or even the nature of the liberty they think liberals ought to seek, whether negative liberty or positive liberty.

There are of course differences in many ideologies, however I think that the placing of this statement in the first paragraph gives too much emphasis to the differences. The reader is told that there are differences before s/he is told what liberalism is.

Also, the terms negative and positive liberty are jargon which should be avoided as much as possible. When they are used they should be explained in the first instance.

I will therefore remove this unnecessary text. Please discuss further before re-inserting.

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It needs to be made clear straight from the start that liberalism is not one monolithic philosophy but includes a set of philosophies, some in significant disagreements with each other. The way the intro stood before just left the reader with the impression that all liberals agree on the same things. As the statement points out, they don't even agree on what "liberty" means. Don't give the reader the impression is one undifferentiated philosophy. It has a long history and different schools of thought within it. Introman (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the article explained what the points of agreement were before launching into differences and you should not use jargon without explanation. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces is correct. It makes no sense to put differences before commonalities. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I also agree with The Four Deuces. The local differences in its meaning are all listed under Liberalism worldwide. And while this article should briefly make a note of them, I don’t think it is necessary to go into much detail, especially in the lead, where concerns of WP:weight might arise.

I’d also like to apologize for reverting without discussing. I corrected myself. Cheers. Likeminas (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Liberalism" in American versus Europe

Rick Norwood removed this statement from the intro: In the U.S. the term "liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies and regulatory state created by the New Deal, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with limited government and laissez-faire, a philosophy that is closer to classical liberalism or what Americans call conservatism.

The statement is exhaustively supported by six sources. Norwood's edit summary says "Rewrite to reflect what the references actually say. Provide quotation for evidence." Apparently this is a request. I dont know why he just doens't check them himself, but here goes:

"In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies". (Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online))

"Significant differences exist between the use of the term "liberalism" in the United States, in Canada, and in Europe. In the U.S., the term "liberalism" became associated with the welfare-state policies of and expanded regulatory state created by the New Deal and its successors, from the 1930s onwards..Western European liberal parties tended to adhere more closely towards classical liberalism, with a notable example being West German's neoliberal Free Democractic Party (FDP)." (Dijk, Ruud van. Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis, 2008. p. 541)

"Moreover, Ameicans do not use the term "liberalism" in the same way Europeans do. In fact, classical European liberalism more closely resembles what we (and what Americans generally) call consevatism." (Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, Stanley Rothman. Yale University Press, 1996. p. 41)

"Constructive discussion of liberalism has to identify which of the many meanings of the term is being used...The most noteworthy example of the latter is the difference between the conventional usage of the term in the United States and elsewhere in the contemporary period. Whereas generally liberalism has the connotation of a commitment to individual rights, economic liberalism and a relatively limited role for the state vis-a-vis the market and private institutions in genearl, in the United States it usually connotes social liberalism, that is acceptance of varying degrees of state intervention to acheive certain social objectives, and is contrasted with 'conservatism' which..." (Wim van Oorschot, Michael Opielka, Birgit Pfau-Eff. Culture and Welfare state: Values and Social Policy in Comparative Perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. p. 30)

"The term 'liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state." (Patrick O'Meara, Howard D. Mehlinger, Matthew Krain. Globalization and the challenges of a new century. Indiana University Press, 2000)

"The term 'liberal' can also be easily misunderstood by European and American readers. In Europe "Liberal" usually refers to classical liberalism, i.e. the European philosophical tradition of ineividualism that supports policies of laissez-faire in both civil liberties and economics. In the United States 'liberal' generally refers to someone who supports both civil liberties and a significant role for government in the economic and social areas." (Gunlicks, Arthur B. The Länder and German federalism. Manchester University Press, 2003. p. xi)

Ok? Since this is an international encyclopedia, this difference needs to be explained. We can't make this article just about Americans' idea of "liberalism." Introman (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes. There are problems with them. When you put something in quotation marks, you should use the exact words from the source, not a paraphrase. For example, your first "quote" is "In the United States it is associated with ... ." The actual quote is "In the United States liberalism is associated with ... ."

More important is the context. Here is the context of your first quote: "The disagreement among liberals over whether government should promote individual freedom rather than merely protect it is reflected to some extent in the different prevailing conceptions of liberalism in the United States and Europe since the late 20th century. In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies." My version of the paragraph includes that context: regulation of business to promote indicidual freedom. Your version removes the context.

We do not disagree with the statement that "liberalism has a different meaning in America and in Europe." We disagree about whether the primary meaning of "liberalism" is "freedom" or only "economic freedom".

Turning to your second quote, I'm sure the source doesn't use a double apostrope in 1930's. An elipsis consists of three dots, not two. The way you've listed the reference is wrong. You've only listed one of four editors, and left off the comma after the name, and do not mention that he is the editor rather than the author. (While on the subject of general carelessness, your version of the disputed paragraph has an open quote without a close quote.) I don't have a copy of the book at hand, but it seems clear to me that the context of the quote is economic liberalism, and that is not the only meaning of liberalism, just as economic conservatism is not the only meaning of conservatism.

Your third quote lacks a title. I've found several books by the authors you list with other authors, but without a title I can't find what book you're citing.

I have no problem with your third quote. It says explicitly that intervention in the market has as its purpose certain social objectives, which is the point my version of the paragraph makes that your version lackes.

I have to teach a class now. More later. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This information is too trivial to be included in the lead. This topic came up several years ago when User:RJII inserted this into the leads of various articles about liberalism, which other editors moved to the bodies of the articles. Modern liberalism in the United States shows an example where a new section was created and has since been expanded. In the UK, Canada and Australia, liberalism usually refers to the policies of the Liberal Party, especially when capitalized. These three parties differ in their policies. Should we put this in the lead too? The lead is supposed to give a concise explanation of the topic not digress into linguistic variations. Note too that the article begins: This article discusses the ideology of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in Liberalism worldwide. For other uses, see Liberal. Also, the lead is followed by a section called "Etymology and historical usage". That's enough coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Trivial that "liberalism" means a whole other thing in half of the world? I don't think so. If it was trivial then it wouldn't be explained in the sources. Introman (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman said "liberalism" means a whole other thing in half of the world. Got any sources for that? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just listed them above. The whole developed world, is what I meant. I don't know what it refers to in Somalia. Introman (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What about UK, Canada and Australia (which I mentioned above) - are they not part of the developed world? And your sources do not support the term "whole other thing". That is a misreading of the sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking population-wise. Regardless of what I say, the sources say what they say. Introman (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Population-wise more people live in developing countries than in the US and continental Europe combined. Could you please make a clear argument for your case. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman: Your edit is trying to make the case that "liberalism means a whole other thing in half the world". This is not a mainstream view. The mainstream view, as reflected in the Encyclopedia Britannica, is that liberalism is the belief in personal freedom, as contrasted with conservatism, which stresses conformity. In a part of the world, Europe, where state control of business is much greater than in the US, greater freedom is found by resisting the state. In the US, where state control of business is much less than in Europe, greater freedom is found by resisting corporate interests. Freedom is always found in a balance of power, not in an absence of power. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC for Note of European versus American liberalism

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Two users keep removing this statement from the intro: "In the U.S. the term "liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies and regulatory state created by the New Deal, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with limited government and laissez-faire, a philosophy that is closer to classical liberalism or to what Americans call conservatism.

I think it should be kept because this is an international encyclopedia, and the U.S. and Europe are large population centers that read this article that use the term "liberalism" is very different ways. And it's even notable information prima facie just from the fact that it's explained in several sources. This is what books and encyclopedia articles on liberalism do in order to help the reader out to know what "language" they're speaking, or at least to let them know that it does refer to different things, because there is an international audience. For a liberalism article, on a widely read international encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages, this is especially crucial. For your convenience, quotes from the sources provided follow and are all available to verify see on Google books except for Encyclopedia Britannica which is available on their website. (I also ask that anyone who thinks it belongs there shoud help put it in rather than simply commenting, because I'm pretty much by myself against two editors who want it out. Hardly anyone is paying attention, so what the consensus is probably won't make a difference without that assistance. Thanks.):

"In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies". (Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online))

"Significant differences exist between the use of the term "liberalism" in the United States, in Canada, and in Europe. In the U.S., the term "liberalism" became associated with the welfare-state policies of and expanded regulatory state created by the New Deal and its successors, from the 1930s onwards..Western European liberal parties tended to adhere more closely towards classical liberalism, with a notable example being West Germans neoliberal Free Democractic Party (FDP)." (Dijk, Ruud van. Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis, 2008. p. 541)

"Moreover, Ameicans do not use the term "liberalism" in the same way Europeans do. In fact, classical European liberalism more closely resembles what we (and what Americans generally) call consevatism." (Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, Stanley Rothman. American Elites. Yale University Press, 1996. p. 41)

"Constructive discussion of liberalism has to identify which of the many meanings of the term is being used...The most noteworthy example of the latter is the difference between the conventional usage of the term in the United States and elsewhere in the contemporary period. Whereas generally liberalism has the connotation of a commitment to individual rights, economic liberalism and a relatively limited role for the state vis-a-vis the market and private institutions in genearl, in the United States it usually connotes social liberalism, that is acceptance of varying degrees of state intervention to acheive certain social objectives, and is contrasted with 'conservatism' which..." (Wim van Oorschot, Michael Opielka, Birgit Pfau-Eff. Culture and Welfare state: Values and Social Policy in Comparative Perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. p. 30)

"The term 'liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state." (Patrick O'Meara, Howard D. Mehlinger, Matthew Krain. Globalization and the challenges of a new century. Indiana University Press, 2000)

"The term 'liberal' can also be easily misunderstood by European and American readers. In Europe "Liberal" usually refers to classical liberalism, i.e. the European philosophical tradition of ineividualism that supports policies of laissez-faire in both civil liberties and economics. In the United States 'liberal' generally refers to someone who supports both civil liberties and a significant role for government in the economic and social areas." (Gunlicks, Arthur B. The Länder and German federalism. Manchester University Press, 2003. p. xi) Introman (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Introman (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Of course. Introman (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Exclude The Introduction to the article should give a brief overview of the subject, including different strains of liberalism. But detail about the varying uses of the term liberalism in the US and continental Europe (while excluding the varying uses in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and the developing world) excessively bloats the lead. Also, the issue is complex: there are variances of the use of the term "liberal" within Europe and within the US. There is already a line at the top of the article saying: This article discusses the ideology of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in Liberalism worldwide. For other uses, see Liberal. The section immediately following the lead ("Etymology and historical usage") provides ample opportunity to discuss varying usages. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't "discuss the ideology of liberalism" without pointing out the different conceptions of liberalism. Introman (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman, could you please explain what your comment has to do with my posting? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Do not exagerate the importance. I also point out that you have requoted your "references" without going to the trouble of correcting the many mistakes I noted above. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't nitpick on typos and syntax. That's not what this is about. Introman (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To point out that a reference omits the title of the book it cites is hardly a nit! But the larger point is this: your careless and hasty changes take up the valuable time of the many people who are serious about keeping Misplaced Pages a scholarly work. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG, you are hardly one to call someone else careless. You original research is rampant. You misinterpret sources, and say things are in sources that are not there, constantly. For example, the bottom of the Liberalism in the United States talk page you are claiming a source is saying something that it's not. Introman (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Four Deuces, this seems a crusade to change the lede with material which might be worthy of some reference in the main body (although in a veryu different form). This seems to a campaign across several articles and should be resolved in one place. Raising it illustrates the issue. --Snowded 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I concede that the lede is bloated, but I contend that it is bloated with such as the 'I like pie, flowers are pretty' truism "Today, most nations accept the ideals of freedom" (note that Freedom is too ethereal a concept to merit more than a Disambiguation page), and not with two sentences that clarify a complete disjunct between usage in the US and the rest of the world. Which is summarizing the issue into a generalization, I will concede that also. But summarizing is what we do here at WP, no?, and especially in the lede, so I find that argument to be specious. The sentences call attention to and complement the link to Liberalism worldwide, and two sentences is not undue weight for such a weighty distinction in my opinion. I propose the addition of 'libertarianism' to 'conservatism', or replacing conservatism with libertarianism. I have not looked at the source texts, so that might require additional citation.

Side note: I propose the inclusion of libertarianism in the See also section, and although anarcho-capitalism is more closely related to libertarianism, it is related to Classical liberalism as well, and I support its inclusion also. Anarchangel (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I support inclusion because the readers would get a much clearer picture about how the term is used. -- Vision Thing -- 11:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

First, note that nobody disputes a statement that Liberalism is used differently in different countries. The dispute is over the claim that the US usage is unique (the sources mention Canada and Germany, and limit themselves to the West -- what "liberal" means in Japan is obviously important), that the European usage is universal throughout Europe (one source mentions Western Europe and makes an exception for Germany), that the European "liberal" corresponds with the American "conservative" (do European liberals oppose the teaching of evolution?), and that the American usage corresponds with the "welfare state" (as if the Civil Rights movement never happened). Clearly, we cannot and should not try to cover all this in the lede. Therefore, I favor a sentence or two that limits itself to economic views. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Briefly mention and link to main article That should be enough. There's no need for Misplaced Pages having duplicate information of what is already presented in a separate article.

Chomskyian (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like lede POV pushing to me, by. To a certain political segment of the US, liberalism may have some associations with the "welfare state", but that's by no means universal, and (as someone else noted), it's not like liberals in Europe are pushing for prayer in schools and eliminating pensions. The perspectives and refs might have a better place in the wider discussion of the body of the article, but the lede is not the best place to put a POV. Ronabop (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean welfare state isn't universal? Are you aware of any American modern liberal that isn't for public healthcare? That's welfare state. Besides, it's sourced, so how can it be POV pushing? If you can find sources that say they're not for a welfare state then you might have an argument to go on. Good luck. Introman (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're using your own OR to redefine "welfare state" as "public healthcare", but be that as it may (since you asked), modern US liberals who aren't advocating for state run public healthcare include Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. Instead, they're advocating for a mix of state, and private healthcare plans (which we already have with Tricare, Medicare, both supported by liberals and conservatives alike). The right is pushing the phrase "welfare state" right now as a scare tactic, because of historic negative connotations (it was a Nazi slur, and later, welfare was demonized under Reagan). Have a look: http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+"welfare+state" In the more accurate form of usage of the term "welfare state", almost all liberal and conservative politicians in the US (and most of the democratic world) generally support and fight for numerous welfare state programs , but it's only used (as a catchphrase) in a negative sense towards liberals. Hence, my opinion that it looked like POV pushing. Ronabop (talk)

A welfare state is just where the government provides for the welfare (material well-being) of the citizens as opposed to not interfering. I dont mean it in any negative sense. Liberals themselves use the term. For example Paul Krugman said: "It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised." (If you want the source, it's in the Krugman article). Introman (talk)

So, if "welfare state" is liberal, was Reagan a liberal? Would Reagan's fans object to him being labelled as such? Ronabop (talk)

He might have been partially liberal, I'm not sure. His philosophy was to reduce the welfare state, though, not expand it. So I don't know how you could say his philosophy was liberal, in that sense. But it's rare to find anyone that 100% conservative, 100% classical liberal, or %100 social liberal, and so on. These are just philosophical ideals. You have to look at a person's overall views of a person and see where they might fit on a scale. Introman (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment: RFC Requesters should not comment within an RFC. The purpose of an RFC is to elicit disinterested editors. As the RFC Requester has acted as though this is a discussion; I will not be commenting in relation to their RFC. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? How about the other commenters here besides the requester that are not disinterested parties? Introman (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The very term "liberalism" has substantially different meanings to two different audiences who each comprise a significant proportion of wikipedia users. "Liberalism" is widely used in political debate on each side of the Atlantic to say different things. The intro should accommodate this difference. Bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Richardson's three categories

Currently the article has this, which at first I liked.

"According to James L. Richardson, in Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power, there are three main divisions within liberalism. The first is elitism versus democracy. The second is over economic questions. The third is the question of extending liberal principles to the disadvantaged."

Now, trying to get the latter part of the article in better shape, it occurs to me that one major division within liberalism is big government vs. small government, which doesn't seem to fit into any of Richardson's categories. Do we want to replace Richardson with another source?

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The big government versus small government seems to usually POV. But I think it is covered by the other distinctions. Support for greater regulation and redistribution of wealth are seen as big government. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement probably doesn't belong in the intro, unless it can be shown that this "elitism versus democracy" is a common thing. Classical/modern liberalism is a more common distinction. Introman (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The classical/modern liberalism distinction was important 100 years ago. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's extremely relevant today because liberalism is the international term for the laissez-faire philosophy. So to avoid confusing readers in the U.S. who don't use the term in the classic sense but use it to refer to social/welfare liberalism, "classical" is put in front of the term. Introman (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780199540594.
2. Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846-1946 By Anthony Howe
3. Ideologies and Political Theory By Michael Freeden
4. The Cambridge Economic History of Europe by Peter Mathias, John Harold Clapham, Michael Moïssey Postan, Sidney Pollard, Edwin Ernest Rich, Eileen Edna Power, H. J. Habakkuk
5. Locke, John (1690). ] (10th edition). Project Gutenberg. Retrieved January 21, 2009. {{cite book}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
6. Paul E. Sigmund, editor, The Selected Political Writings of John Locke, Norton, 2003, ISBN 0393964515 p. iv "(Locke's thoughts) underlie many of the fundamental political ideas of American liberal constitutional democracy...", "At the time Locke wrote, his principles were accepted in theory by a few and in practice by none."
7. Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
8. "in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion", The Charter of the United Nations, Chapter One,
9. James L. Richardson, Contending Liberalism in World Politics: Ideology and Power,
10. Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online)
11. Dijk, Ruud van. Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis, 2008. p. 541
12. Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, Stanley Rothman. Yale University Press, 1996. p. 41
13. Wim van Oorschot, Michael Opielka, Birgit Pfau-Eff. ulture and welfare state: values and social policy in comparative perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. p. 30
14. Patrick O'Meara, Howard D. Mehlinger, Matthew Krain. Globalization and the challenges of a new century. Indiana University Press, 2000
15. Gunlicks, Arthur B. The Länder and German federalism. Manchester University Press, 2003. p. xi
16. Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online)
17. Dijk, Ruud van. Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis, 2008. p. 541
18. Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, Stanley Rothman. Yale University Press, 1996. p. 41
19. Wim van Oorschot, Michael Opielka, Birgit Pfau-Eff. ulture and welfare state: values and social policy in comparative perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. p. 30
20. Patrick O'Meara, Howard D. Mehlinger, Matthew Krain. Globalization and the challenges of a new century. Indiana University Press, 2000
21. Gunlicks, Arthur B. The Länder and German federalism. Manchester University Press, 2003. p. xi

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• High-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment