Talk:Liberalism

Liberal and Social Democracy

In the new world, liberal conservatives and modern liberals argue in cultural changing. Whereas conservatives do not want rapid changes in the society while modern liberals think that changes can do something more which is important and substantial. It is true that culture preservation is sometimes the root of political illness and social inadequacy.

People around the world would always ask for changes in the society especially the concerns of the government. A conservative government is sometimes foiled out by oppressing forces of the state, liberals and conservatives are all radicals but however they turn to have a little difference of principle. Yes, they do care about social rights but liberals would always see to something new for good while conservatives do not because of religion and culture.

The modern Liberal thought was first pronounced in the United States during World War II, the country was emotionally mobilized to tighten more its security. Capitalists who hold classic liberal thought abolished its self-mindedness and focused themselves for the better of the society. This abrupt change in the country has brought economic depression easier to handle.

American Liberalism mostly adheres to the morality of freedom and free trading where the concept of selflessness sprung for the sake of the country even though the projection of individualism is still there.

The concept is commonly used by social democrats to where “the government’s aim is the proper redistribution of wealth, the rule of the majority and the protection of the minority classes.”

Absolutism is purely intolerable avoid exploitation and oppression of the rights of each individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.144.115.105 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is about the article "Liberalism", not a discussion page for the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We should define Liberalism as it is actually, not as Marxism in sheep's clothing, (ie not American 'liberalism') I edited out the equality part, as that is only part of Marxism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter099 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Im not going to change the post, cuz im new to all that in Wikipedia. But i think it is of critical importance that we specifically exclude American Liberalism from general liberalism as the people who would classify as liberals under the definition given on this wikipedia page, would actually be the republican party in america. Whereas the current "liberal" or "democratic" party is really nothing more than Marxism/Leninism. If, in replying, you could please refrain from arguing about whether or not marxism is good or bad, or whether the "civil rights" as pursued by modern day american liberals is really just racism under another name, and just address the issue, Modern day american liberalism is the antithesis of classical liberalism. Something needs to be done to the page 174.29.37.9 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)M

"equality" and "democracy"

"Liberalism", according to all major reference works, is the belief in individual freedom. Freedom implies equal rights and equal oportunity, but the claim that liberals want to enforce equality of outcomes is made by the enemies of liberalism, not by the liberals themselves.

"Democracy" is generally used to include representative democracy and constitutional monarchy, which includes all of the Allied Powers in World War II.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Thanks for the comments. My change was a simple one. I replaced the word 'democracy' with the more general term 'government' because the US is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. While it is true that senators and representatives are elected democratically by their respective states, it is inappropriate to use the term Democracy to identify the US as a whole. The President is elected by the electoral college (and senators were elected by state legislatures prior to the 17th Amendment), which is a Republic concept, not a democratic one. I think this discussion has probably occurred many times before on many forums. The political science literature identifies the US as a republic not a democracy, so I would urge not including the US in that particular phraseology, as it leads people to the false conclusion that the US is a Democracy, when it is not. I would not be opposed to a further change to make this distinction clear. It appears the original author in the desire to be brief, included all of The Allies as democracies, when in fact, this is not true. Do you think if I added some sources, which a) call the US a constitutional republic or b) exclude the US as a democracy, would be helpful to improve the article? I have numerous sources which do both a and b. Detah (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with that view and arguments but they appear to be fringe, and therefore unacceptable for the article. TFD (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a view. It's a definition. The United States is not a democracy, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.25.198 (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Really lets not stoop so low in our pursuits of having our own definitions posted that we throw reason out the window. The United States is the DEFINITION of a democracy. All modern democracies are judged by the standard of our constitution. Your apporach to the situation seems like a rediculous splitting of hairs. Obviously its not a pure democracy because a pure democracy like you are saying is not possible in a complicated society. The equivalent to your argument would be to say that we cant call water water unless it is distilled water. 174.29.37.9 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC) M

The problem comes in assuming a constitutional republic is not a democracy, i.e. that they are mutually exclusive. Democracy is a general form of government, republics are a type of that general form. "Democracy" encompasses a broad range of governmental types, INCLUDING our Republic. Not all democracies are republics, and technically, not all republics are democracies, but ours is. But saying we are not a democracy is like saying an orange is not a fruit. We are one of the many specific forms of democracy, but we are a democracy. An orange doesn't stop being a fruit because it is a specific type of fruit. Please refer to our existing page on democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy. Please do not confuse "democracy" as a term for our form of government with the more specific term "direct democracy". These two are not synonymous. Direct democracy, like our Republic, is a FORM of democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.182 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In particular, a republic is a representative democracy. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Further clarification on meaning of liberalism in the USA

In the USA, the commonplace meaning of the word liberal/liberalism is, roughly speakiing, the platform/priorities of the US Democratic party. In some ways this is very different than the world-definition or outside-of-the-USA definition of the term, which is what is described in this article. Living in the USA, I only recently learned this, and I think that few USA readers know this. IMHO this could use a couple of sentences in the USA section and maybe one in the lead to at least acknowledge the difference. That would be enough enable readers to fully absorb (instead of being confused by) what is in the rest of this article. The previous posters' notes about Thomas Jefferson sort of force this point. USA definitions would tend to classify Jefferson as a conservative or libertarian, being so prominently an advocate of smaller and more limited government. But, by the world-definition, or outside-of-the-US definition, Jefferson would probably be classified as a liberal. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is explained in the article. TFD (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. The closest I see in there is the Americas section, which hops all over the place without really clearly saying it, and which also avoids the main area where the US definition is opposite the world definition. I don't plan to pursue this here, it was just a suggestion. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. definition is not the opposite. See for example "American liberalism" in Political ideology today.[1] TFD (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those areas where Wikipedia has a couple of problems. The word liberal does vary a lot in its usage around the world, then there's the variation between formal academic meanings and populist usage. Which do we report? I live in a country (Australia) where the more conservative of our two major political parties calls itself the Liberal Party, but liberal in popular conversation means pretty much the opposite of conservative. My impression of the popular use of the word in the USA is that it's an insult thrown by conservatives at less conservative people, on a par with socialist and commie. The fact that it's used as an insult prevents most people there who would be happily given that label elsewhere totally avoiding the word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. TFD (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and...? HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history."[2] TFD (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that distinction, but don't see how it helps us here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hilo48. Responding to your earlier post, in the US, it is often used in a pejorative sense, but I wouldn't call it inherently pejorative. Nevertheless, most folks in the US who are liberals would use the term "progressive" rather than "liberal" in referring to their political beliefs. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for that. "Progressive" has reawakened some slumbering memories deep in my brain. I knew there was a more socially acceptable term. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello TFD. Or, in the case of this article, it's about more than one and very different concepts that use the same name. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is one concept, but there are a variety of forms. TFD (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but again, I was only making a suggestion. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we include parts of the 2011 Arab world protests?

Some parts of the Arab world protests seem to be progressive in nature. I am talking about the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and other governmental protests in that region. Should that be placed in this article? Let's keep an eye on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.227.12 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be a quest for many of the attributes of Liberalism as described in the article, but it's not up to us to decide. Just find those reliable sources that say so. (And avoid the Americans who equate Liberalism with Communism.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

They could also be seen as an anti-liberal challenge to regimes supported by the United States. TFD (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

2nd sentence: change "understanding" to "interpretation"

The wording of the article's second sentence is confusing and potentially implies biased PoV. "Depending on their understanding of these principles" can be read to mean: "depending on their grasp of these principles". The current wording can be read as questioning whether some liberals grasp the principles of liberty and equal rights. Assuming good faith, I believe the sentence intended to convey "depending on their interpretation of these principles". This wording wouldn't potentially question anyone's understanding. Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Sign your comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Liberalism worldwide be merged into Liberalism. Liberalism worldwide is a fork of Liberalism and is unsourced. It is original research about which political parties should be called "liberal". TFD (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never looked at Liberalism worldwide and don't plan to. Given that this is a global encyclopaedia, I had always assumed that THIS article was the one about Liberalism worldwide (perhaps as distinct from Liberalism USA, which would be a very different animal.) I don't even really care what's in Liberalism worldwide. An article with such a name should not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that the merger would result in an excessively long article of over 150k as there is essentially no overlap otherwise. Also note that other ideology articles do not list every group or party subscribing to that ideology or philosophy. Communism does not contain List of communist parties. Marxism does not list Marxist parties. Listing various worldwide parties in an article such as this would be unique. Collect (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you propose determining which political parties should be listed as "liberal"? TFD (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be the venue of the article talk page. It is not up to me to decide anything. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree with TFD's proposal: Liberalism worldwide should stay. Almost every country has its own article about liberalism (see Category:Liberalism by country) and this is the article which recollects all those articles. --Checco (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Then what is this article for? HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

About 1500 edits in the past year alone. Well over six thousand total edits. The list is exceedingly stable in comparison, with a relative handful of total edits (under five hundred in seven years). Seems absurd to add a lot of material here instead of leaving it in a stable article, no? Collect (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why this "stable" article provides nil sources? TFD (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Then ask for cites for it on that page. Seems a lot simpler than moving it here - where you will still need the exact same number of cites. Collect (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It now appears that I was happier when I didn't know that "liberalism worldwide" even existed. I doubt many people go there, but it still should be improved or removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I ask again, why on earth do we have an article called Liberalism AND an article called Liberalism worldwide? There is absolutely nothing in those names to differentiate them. Maybe at least one of them needs a different name. HiLo48 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the other article should likely be renamed - possibly to "List of liberal parties by nation" and the philosophical sections removed? Collect (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Liberal International has a list of its member parties worldwide. Unfortunately there is no authoritative sources for listing liberal parties, and an argument could be made that most parties, including socialists and conservatives, are liberal. TFD (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And is the issue somehow easier to deal with if it is merged here making a 160K+ article? Collect (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Once we delete unsourced material, OR, POV and duplication from the other article, the remainder will not significantly increase the size of this article. TFD (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I ask again, why on earth do we have an article called Liberalism AND an article called Liberalism worldwide? There is absolutely nothing in those names to differentiate them. (Yeah, it's a repeat, because no-one seems capable of answering it.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

One should be renamed to List of liberal parties by nation. Simple. Collect (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose deleting any material from the article, although I think that the it needs a rewrite. I especially oppose the removal of the "philosphical sections". Otherwise, I agree with renaming the article "list of liberal parties by country" (nation is not correct) and I subscribe the following sentence by Collect (from the other discussion): "any party which reliable sources so describe" is liberal. Please continue the discussion in a single talk page: here. --Checco (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

I sincerely do not think that this article needs an etymology, the definition is in the first paragraph. Any objections?----MICROFN (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles have an etymology. That's different from the definition; it is the origin of the word. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move (rename) "Liberalism Worldwide" to "List of liberal parties by country"

Discussion on the merge topic above having quietened down after some disagreement on a merge, and no-one objecting to a rename, I now propose moving "Liberalism Worldwide" to "List of liberal parties by country". Any objections? HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree Collect (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agree Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agree Cory Donnelly (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This discussion belongs on the Liberalism worldwide discussion page. TFD (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • • I take it that the "merger" attempt failed, then. Collect (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong talk page for this straw poll. HiLo48 already started an identical one at Talk:Liberalism worldwide.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to note who started this one? I rather think HiLo48 knows what he posted and where. Collect (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I started both. There had been earlier discussion on both pages about the proposed merge. I wanted to catch both audiences. Both needed to be aware of my proposal. I obviously agree that discussion would be better primarily continued on the [[Talk:Liberalism worldwide] page. I should have made that clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that "Liberalism by country" (consistent with Category:Liberalism by country) would probably be the best option. --Checco (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To draw this to a close, I have moved Liberalism worldwide to Liberalism by country HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Change in §4.1 Europe

In the sentence "The Purple Coalition, one of the most consequential in Dutch history, brought together the progressive left-liberal D66,[103] the market liberal and center-right VVD,[104] and the socialist Labour Party" I'm going to replace socialist with social democratic. That is because the PvdA/Labour Party profiles itself as such and because there is also the Socialist Party which has evidently a bigger claim on the label socialist.--217.123.72.153 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Equal rights

Equal rights don't belong to the definition of liberalism. No other language version of wikipedia includes equal rights in the main definition of liberalism. Britannica defines liberalism thus: "liberalism, Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government." Here it is also sourced problematically. What we need here is some dictionary definition and I'm sure that none includes equal rights as a major principle of liberalism.--85.162.94.135 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We use definitions taken from scholarly writing on the topic, not dictionaries or other encyclopedias. Do you think btw that the quote you provided is referring to unequal rights? TFD (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Equal rights = Egalitarianism. By "rights" the definition is referring only to legal egalitarianism - equality before the law. The mention about equal rights in this article is taken from some unimportant book called "Christianity and Liberal Society" on page 45. It looks it is taken out of context and it certainly doesn't look like part of any definition.--85.162.0.150 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)