Talk:Liberalism

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.

Template:V0.5

Archive 1 | Archive 2 |Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6

This statement is false

In the intro it states "It (contemporary liberalism) seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion". Contemporary liberalism or Modern liberalism distinctly calls for more government intervention - not less. This is just plain false. Doctors without suspenders 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think the "contemporary" part is a little bit weird in this context. That statement describes both liberalism now and liberalism a long time ago, so the distinction is not necessary. On the other hand, it does say "broadly speaking." Ideologically, modern liberalism still borrows heavily from the classical variety....the statement is not false; it just probably needs clarification and a realization that the situation is a tad complex.UberCryxic 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, we should mention that modern liberalism does not call for greater government intervention for the sake of government intervention. There were many stimulii that prompted liberals to call for greater state action, among them the rise of communist ideology, World War I, and the Great Depression. Simply because they started doing so under these conditions, however, does not mean that they apostatized their original intentions and beliefs. It simply means that those ideals had to be rethought and reworked in new contexts. In that sense the statement is fine.UberCryxic 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic, thanks for your input, and no offense, but I don't know what the heck you just said. Let's just look at this straight on. Either a statement evaluates true or it evaluates false. That statement simply evaluates false. It's not a judgement on more government intervention and there's no need to defend or attack it here. The statement is just not true. Doctors without suspenders 03:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The most appropriate thing to do would be to get feedback on how the term 'contemporary liberalism' is being used here. It could be that it does not square well with what you and I are thinking. I am not certain about that "either true or false" criteria (it seems quite ridiculous on account of not enough effort being devoted to defining the terms), but if we were to take that stance, then the statement would go to true under my evaluation. I explained why above. The conditions that forced liberals to examine the mechanisms of their societies does not mean that liberals lost track of some of the most fundamental aspects of their ideology. Limitations on the power of government is still a central liberal tenet, but it may exist under a different context in our world. This is what's probably causing the confusion. But there are still some aspects of classical and modern liberalism that match up quite nicely with regard to the limits of government power; one of them would be respect for constitutional states and societies. This is a defining feature of political liberalism and it has not changed in the modern world. In that sense, one can see how 'contemporary' liberalism holds that government should not have too much power: constitutions were, and are by definition, meant to regularize, standardize, and sometimes restrict what states can and cannot do in relation to the people that they govern. The statement is more than appropriate.UberCryxic 04:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all fine if you're into revising reality. Classical liberals called for as little government intervention as possible - modern liberals like lots of intervention. Sorry, it's a well-known fact. Doctors without suspenders 04:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's disparaging to say they "like lots of intervention." This confuses intent with expediency and circumstance. Socioeconomic and political situations in modern times have made it expedient for liberals to modify the roles they are willing to accord to government, that's the well known fact, but that does not mean that they like doing that, at least generally speaking.UberCryxic 04:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't understand what all that means. All I am interested in here is fact. It also contradicts the statement in the following paragraph: "Many modern liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market..." Doctors without suspenders 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if all you are interested in is fact, then Wikipedia is not the appropriate place. Wikipedia is supposed to document what reliable sources say; we take on stance on whether a given statement is true or not. That's just a general policy reminder. As regards to this article, then you are incorrect. So despite your interest in fact, you are actually saying things that are not factual. Either way, I've now changed that part and it simply says 'liberalism' instead of 'contemporary liberalism.' Finally, if you are having difficulty understanding what I am saying to you, then you should probably make an effort to rectify that. Making assumptions and strawmen arguments that serve to characterize your perceptions of what liberalism is does not help anyone and leads to futile confrontations.UberCryxic 19:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the contradict tag. One contradictory statement would not be enough to warrant the tag, and the statement is not even contradictory in the first place. It makes the distinction between modern and classic liberals rather clearly. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Today, that is in 2006, it is conservatives rather than liberals calling for greater power for the federal government. Historically, every administration, Republican and Democrat alike, has roughly doubled the spending of the federal government over the previous administration. Nobody comes right out and says, I like the idea of a powerful federal government, but the liberals were willing to accept a powerful federal government to end segragation and the conservatives are willing to accept a powerful federal government to fight terrorism. On the other hand, to say that liberals "like" a powerful federal government is equivalent to saying that liberals "like" corruption, just because some liberals have been corrupt. The ideal of liberalism is freedom. The idea that liberals want a federal government that micromannages people's lives is Republican political propaganda. Rick Norwood 12:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rick. I just want to add that this is not an article on American liberalism, so the fears of Doctors without Suspenders are no valid. Electionworld Talk? 17:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't get my information from Republican propaganda. I personally don't care what the Republicans say. Second, I know that the Republicans and the Democrats both advocate a bigger federal government. It's completely irrelevant here because this article is on liberalism - not the Republicans or the Democrats. It's false to say that contemporary liberals advocate little government involvement (in America, at least), no matter what the conservatives want. It's true I don't know much about European, or other, liberalism, other than American liberalism. There should be some clarification on all this in the article, though. Otherwise it is completely confusing. I don't find it clear at all. And the article is still contradictory no matter what arguments are given here. Doctors without suspenders 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be wise to read the whole article. It makes clear distinctions between various forms of liberalism. Electionworld Talk? 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To argue that the entire article must be read to understand the contradictions in the introduction is absurd. The introduction does contradict itself. I mentioned this when I was a lowly IP, I called it, "flowerbox liberalism". WP:OWN, whatever.--Scribner 01:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction does not contradict itself, now or before.UberCryxic 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to format your comments on the talk page UberCryxic, thanks. The introduction is too long and misleading. I'll edit.--Scribner 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I feel it's easier if I start completely on the left if someone before has indented. I really hate it when the comments just keep piling up on the right....looks like a damn stairway or something.UberCryxic 03:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the lead is not long at all, especially considering the subject at hand. Nor is it misleading. Nonetheless, I would like to hear what specific complaints you have. What exactly is misleading?UberCryxic 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The "lede", pronounced "lead" but spelled, "lede" is too long compared to other political articles and yes it is not factual nor npov, with regard to less government and more taxes. Oxymoron to me. Have to run for now, just consider the changes, thanks take care.--Scribner 03:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Lede" is not a word in the English dictionary. I have no idea where you came up with that one. To convince yourself that I am referring to the right thing, just check out WP:LEAD, which starts off:

The lead section (lead paragraph or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first headline.

Anyway, that aside, classical liberalism did advocate, stringently I might add, for as little government intervention as possible. This is a strain that continues to prevail in and influence modern liberal thought, though obviously in different contexts and in different ways. Modern liberalism is different from classical liberalism, and that distinction is drawn in the article, but when speaking about liberalism "broadly," as the lead does, the statements are more than appropriate.UberCryxic 03:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Common misspellings for lede=lead, Uber-minor, I agree. Sorry, really have to run--Jasper23, comment before reverting.--Scribner 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did comment in my edit summary before you made your fourth unilateral revert. Please be civil in our future exchanges. There is no need to try and "call me out" All that does is build bad blood. Thanks. Jasper23 05:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In all likelihood it is a neologism or an inside word amongst journalists. I can't find that word in dictionary.com or in Webster. So....something's gotta give here.UberCryxic 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed that statement again so it had something to do with reality. Let's not try and change reality. Okay? Doctors without suspenders 22:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to change reality, so I think you won't have any worries there. The laws of physics are beyond human intervention (hopefully). You probably meant perceptions of reality, which is a whole other area for discussion. Anyway, a few days ago I removed the word "contemporary" to make the statement appropriate. There is nothing wrong with what it says now. Liberalism, at large, really does seek a lesser role for government; that is, in fact, an essential aspect of the spirit of liberalism.UberCryxic 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Lede" is a journalists' term—quite a time-honored one, I might add—and refers only to the very opening lines of an article, basically intended to suck the reader in. "Lead section" is also a perfectly valid term, referring to a larger portion of the start of an article, usually down to the first section header or other similar break. - Jmabel | Talk 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You should understand that I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just that none of these dictionaries are picking it up. Seems like a ghost word.UberCryxic 23:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lede BryanBessette 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Generous?

In Studies in Words, C. S. Lewis described the root meaning as "free, not a slave" and the term as acquiring the meaning "generous" from the use of it to indicate behavior appropriate to the free. Wiktionary agrees with him about the root. (Check under lower-case "liberal".) Are there references to substantiate the "generous" origin? Goldfritha 02:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the OED backs C. S. Lewis all the way. The first sense of the word, chronologically, is ‘worthy of a free man’, as opposed to servile or mechanical. The second sense, arising out of it and documented from 1387, is "free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, open-hearted", as in "In fighting he was strong, in giving liberal" (1387). The political meaning, defined by OED as "favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy" isn't documented until 1801. Bishonen | talk 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Featured article?

Are we ready to improve this article towards featured status? __earth ^(Talk) 09:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, the article needs many more citations and a light copyedit.UberCryxic 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it alright if I nominate this article for CotW? __earth ^(Talk) 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd recommend nominating it for good article status first. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this: we try to win the Collaboration of the Week first. Once won, we'll try good article. Once we've gotten that, we'll shoot for FA. Deal? __earth ^(Talk) 02:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the articlefor COTW/AID. Please support to improve the article by casting your vote there. __earth ^(Talk) 03:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

User User:Jackbirdsong has deleted the following, due to opposition to the existence of criticism section:

“ Criticism and defense of Liberalism

Collectivist opponents of liberalism reject its emphasis on individual rights, and instead emphasize the collective or the community to a degree where the rights of the individual are either diminished or abolished. Collectivism can be found both to the right and to the left of liberalism. On the left, the collective that tends to be enhanced is the state, often in the form of state socialism. On the right, conservative and religious opponents argue that individual freedom in the non-economic sphere can lead to indifference, selfishness, and immorality. The liberal answer to this is that it is not the purpose of the law to legislate morality, but to protect the citizen from harm. However, conservatives often see the legislation of morality as an essential aspect of protecting citizens from harm.

Anti-statist critiques of liberalism, such as anarchism, assert the illegitimacy of the state for any purposes.

A softer critique of liberalism can be found in communitarianism, which emphasizes a return to communities without necessarily denigrating individual rights.

Beyond these clear theoretical differences, some liberal principles can be disputed in a piecemeal fashion, with some portions kept and others abandoned (see Liberal democracy and Neoliberalism.) This ongoing process - where putatively liberal agents accept some traditionally liberal values and reject others - causes some critics to question whether or not the word "liberal" has any useful meaning at all.

In terms of international politics, the universal claims of human rights which liberalism tends to endorse are disputed by rigid adherents of non-interventionism, since intervention in the interests of human rights can conflict with the sovereignty of nations. By contrast, World federalists criticize liberalism for its adherence to the doctrine of sovereign nation-states, which the World federalists believe is not helpful in the face of genocide and other mass human rights abuses.

Left-leaning opponents of economic liberalism reject the view that the private sector can act for the collective benefit, citing the harm done to those individuals who lose out in competition. They oppose the use of the state to impose market principles, usually through an enforced market mechanism in a previously non-market sector. They argue that the dominance of liberal principles in economy and society has contributed to inequality among states, and inequality within states. They argue that liberal societies are characterised by long-term poverty, and by ethnic and class differentials in health, by (infant) mortality and lower life expectancy. Some would even say they have much higher unemployment than centrally planned economies.

A response to these claims is that liberal states tend to be wealthier than less free states, that the poor in liberal states are better off than the average citizen in non-liberal states, and that inequality is a necessary spur to the hard work that produces prosperity. Throughout history, poverty has been the common lot of mankind, and it is only the progress of science and the rise of the modern industrial state that has brought prosperity to large numbers of people.

”

Though I agree the criticism section is unnecessary, I do think the section has good points and we should try to spead out the point throughout the article without having a section specially created for criticism against liberalism. __earth ^(Talk) 03:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the deletion of this section, despite being an ardent liberal. I have reverted his edits. Large-scale changes such as these should be discussed here first, and they should be discussed ad nauseum at that. There is criticism of liberalism and that section gets some of them well; just because it lacks citations does not give us reason to delete it entirely.UberCryxic 05:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with UberCryxic here. I too am quite liberal and believe that a criticism section definitely has a place here. I do find it odd, though, that Conservatism has no criticism section...that should probably be corrected. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.----Comment by Jimbo Wales

• Hello Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs}. Assuming you read the above statement and understand what is means, what are you saying? One more time:

... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.----Comment by Jimbo Wales--Scribner 06:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A little bit of history. Criticism sections appear in many articles. There was one in the article on conservatism, but it was deleted so often that the material there was incorporated throughout the article. That might be a good idea here, as well, but not wholesale deletion. Rick Norwood 13:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

All-right then Scribner, how about we change that section to a coherent set of criticisms, rather than random ones?UberCryxic 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion was ridiculous, criticism is appropriate. Moreover, the section was wholly "coherant"; each point has been associated with an established view, and as far as I can tell, each view is not internally contradictory. If we want to follow Jimbo's will to the letter, then fine, spread the material across the sections. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of someone with a hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail. There was nothing wrong with this section. It was a reasonable statement of the critiques of liberalism from various other points on the political spectrum. There is no evidence that it was functioning as a "troll magnet". I think it was fine the way it was. - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What did this say before??

"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.

Broadly speaking, liberalism is stupid and emphasizes stupidity. It seeks a society characterized by much stupidity by individuals, limitations on what is boogers, especially of government and farts, the rule of idiocy, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected"

This is right at the begining of the article and seems to be obvious vandalism. I'm not sure what the wording was before to change it back. Rachelfk 21:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Rachel

The problem has now been fixed, but fyi: To revert obvious vandalism such as this 1) click on the "history" tab. Then click on the last post before the vandalism. Then click on "edit this page". Type "rv v" (revert vandalism) in the Edit Summary. Finally click on "Save page". Rick Norwood 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Earth's edit

Good edit, Earth! I would almost say, good, down to Earth, edit. Rick Norwood 14:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rick. I wanted to do more edit but I unfortunately am a little busy right now. =( Anyway, Liberalism needs one more vote to survive Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive for another week. Please vote for it =). __earth ^(Talk) 12:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Forza Italia Liberal?

I am no expert and have been reading this page in a quest to better understand the difference between Liberal and Libertarian. On the basis of what I understand so far, I was suprised to see Forza Italia listed as a Liberal party (I live in Italy and know the party well), I would have said they were Libertarian.

Forza Italia's constitution states they are liberal, but it actually states a multitude of positions. Forza Italia(FI) have never run the country on thier own, they have led what is considered to be a right wing coalition. The other parties in the coalition are generally opposed to Libertarian concepts, and I suspect that in many cases they have watered down Libertarian proposals into liberal laws. Here are some actions which suggest to me that FI is a Libertarian party:

1)FI proposed, and obtained, a complete abolition of inherentence tax and tax on donations.

2)Tax evasion was declassified from a criminal offence to a civil offence.

3)FI proposed to sell off public land such as beaches and mountain areas (as well as public monuments) on a Freehold basis. This was watered down to leasehold agreements by allies.

4)FI has been behind some deregulation of commercial and economic activity.

On the other hand some of FI's activities seem to fly in the face of Libertarianism (or liberalism for that matter):

1)FI do not have a very good record on free speech, during the period 2001-2006 when FI led the governing coalition, Italy slipped down to the bottom of press liberty ratings (for example Freedom House). FI's leader suprised everbody when he was hackled (non obscenely) by a reporter at the exit of a court proceeding; he orderd the police to take the person's details.

2) The coalition of which FI is a part has a very conservative standpoint on issues such as gay relationships and immigration. Undoubtly this is in part due to the very conservative stance of other parties in the coalition, but FI never appears to oppose htese conservative viewpoints.

So just how should one classify a party such as Forza Italia? Allthougth I live in Italy I am an English citizen, and I am also well familier with the UK liberal democrat party. These two parties appear to me as different as chalk and cheese, are they really both liberal?

Well, FI is a party with many factions, but they are generally liberal-conservative, that is, they support some free trade and deregulation but also hold more conservative views on social and religious issues (and no, it's not just because of "allies", it's mainly because a large part of the old Christian Democrats are now in Foza Italia, forming the core of its conservative faction). The LibDems, on the other hand, are social-liberal, that is, they are liberal on social issues but not so much on the economy. Indeed, liberal-conservatism and social-liberalism do not go well together. In fact, the American visceral fight between "conservatives" and "liberals" is a dispute between liberal-conservatism and social-liberalism (in European terms). And although there are some factions within Forza Italia that are both socially AND economically liberal, they certainly don't go so far (on both aspects) as to be called "libertarians".Justice III 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians are primarily interested in preserving private property, and in favor of low taxes and little government regulation. Most people want the government to step in to give them what they want, and so a libertarian party is always a minority party. Libertarians split with the liberals and joined the conservatives when the liberals began to favor a progressive income tax. But it is a marriage of convenience.

I know nothing about Forza, but from what you say, they are a libertarian party run by people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. For people in power, power is often the only thing that matters. Thus, many American libertarians are willing to vote for constitutional ammendments against gay marriage or flag burning, certainly anti-libertarian laws, in exchange for low taxes, which is the big issue for them.

In any case, you need to classify a political party by its platform, not by what the clowns in office actually do. In that case, Forza is a libertarian party. But like most libertarian parties, in practice they are willing to trade freedom for money.

American politics at the highest level is almost entirely about money, though there are still a few politicians who actually care about the country. In most cases, the slogans are for the rubes. Rick Norwood 14:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

All the liberal thinkers of this planet should join hands

It's high time that all the liberal thinking persons of this world join hands to fight extremism, neo-cons, terrorists and other narrow-minded ideologies. The world is in danger because the neo-cons are getting stronger in the west, while the huge majority of Islamic world is under the direct threat of mullahs or Islamic extremists. Realton 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Many neocons are also liberals, if by "neocon" is meant "interventionist". In any case, this isn't the right venue for pamphleteering. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A little bit idealistic Realton, but amen nonetheless. The French Revolution did, after all, promise liberal values to everyone around the world, not just the privileged few. In that sense, however, you'll note that George W. Bush has been quite the little (or big) liberal, at least in the rhetoric that relates to the Middle East.UberCryxic 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I partly agree with lucidish that yup this page is not for pamphleteering but my intention was just to share my views with others. Anywayz Can Bush be considered liberal coz he has not liberated the middle east n we all know what he has done to that region. Also sometimes I feel confused as what are the limits of liberalism and human rights approach. I mean the people who believe in peace and granting of human rights and and equality are real liberal or just everyone believing in a certain ideololgy but his/her deeds are contrary to it, like the neo-cons???? Realton 16:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be sort of complicated, since there are a lot of distinctions that float around out there. So your confusion is both understandable (and shared).

Human rights are a rigid part of the modern liberal approach, that's for sure; all modern liberals believe in human rights. But it's conceivable that a person could endorse human rights and not be a modern liberal. For example, a libertarian might support some (though not all) human rights. (To use an analogy: all cats are animals, but not all animals are cats.)

The Washington defence guys may or may not be neocons, depending on what their plans are / were. I take "neocon" to mean "someone who believes that we should invade other countries on the basis of some moral reasons". If we assume that the Washington bunch really did want Hussein out of power because he was a dictator, then we could call them neocons. But if we say that they just did it for Halliburton (say), then they wouldn't even seem to deserve the name of "neocon". They might instead be called "neoliberal".

(I don't make up these names, but I know how silly they sound.) { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No soapboxing. But all liberal thinkers of the world should try to improve this article to FA status! =p __earth ^(Talk) 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

When I typed Liberalism in the search box, I got a page that said "liberals are a bunch of shit eaters, we should kill them all." Does anybody else think this should be changed?--Jml4000 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Such vandalism is usually reverted within 15 minutes. Rick Norwood 13:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

When I first read this article it was fine, then five minutes later some idiot vandalized the entire article with gay bashing. I thought I would take the time to fix it, but less than five minutes later the same nonsense was inserted back in. Is there a way to find out who is responsible. Someone with more time may need to fix the entire article. Too bad.Herra-08 00:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)herra-08

• We finds 'em, and we warns 'em. If the same IP address keeps on hurling feces, we block them. If it's a named account, we do the same. Such is the nature of cooperative editing, I'm afraid. The better question is whether the page should be protected against anonymous editing. It needs to be more solid and better before that would even be imaginable. Geogre 14:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

At the beginning of the text appears the rather surprising (and revisionist) affirmation:

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes the communist agenda. It seeks a society characterized by government rule over individuals..."

However, later towards the end appears the more correct statement: "Collectivist opponents of liberalism reject its emphasis on individual rights..."

Mws06 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism. __earth ^(Talk) 01:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

not very neutral

At the end of the intro is the statement:

All Libs are idiots. they believe in murder, and they love muslims. they are what cause the people in 9/11 to suffer.

Obviously someone was acting out of immaturity and added it to be negative. I feel it should be removed but didn't know if it needed to be discussed first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.237.220 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree this is a biased ignorant clearly American statement that needs to be removed immediately.

Unfortunately Liberalism is a much vandalized page. It has been reverted (=vandalism has been removed) several times since your report. Please feel free to remove obvious vandalism! There is no need to discuss it first. You'd be helping Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that it's ironic that the person above wrote that the biased, ignorant statement was obviously American; it shows their own anti-American bias. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be locked?

It gets tiring removing the same crap / vandalism virtually every day. JMLofficier 09:40, 24 December 2006

I'll semi-protect, let's see how that goes. - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)