Talk:Liberalism

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:

citations

Sa.vakilian has requested citations for a number of facts that can be easily found in any good history book on the period in question. I suppose more citations are better than fewer, but I wonder if we really need to cite references for commonly known historical events, such as the English Civil War. Doesn't it make more sense just to link to the article on that subject, where numerous references can be found? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly right. The user is requesting citations for things like the Consulate replacing the Directory in 1799 or the US Constitution establishing a republic. I'm sorry but if you can't see why that's borderline insane, perhaps you shouldn't have taken the task upon yourself to review this article. You can try to hassle with the reviewer if you want Rick, but I doubt you'll get very far. I've given up hope on any GA or FA ambitions for this article, but you're more than welcome to press ahead yourself if you so wish.UBER ^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the article could better explain the significance of these events to liberalism, which requires sources. TFD (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Addition of a "Psychology" Section

Since Wikipedia is NPOV, I assume that it's just as acceptable to have a psychology here as it is in the "Conservatism" article. It will therefore be interesting to see how swiftly it gets deleted from the "Liberalism" article. Hanxu9 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to read this article and see whether your entry is appropriate. Your 1976 study[1] was conducted in the US and draws a distinction between American liberals and conservatives, while this article includes both groups as part of liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, please read up on some Wikipedia policies, like this one. You can't justify a bad decision in one article by looking at a bad decision in another article. These psychology sections are way too cryptic and liable to POV for these political articles, so I support their removal categorically.UBER ^(talk) 18:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, you shouldread some of the huge amount of research that his been done on the topic. It is essential for understanding the appeal of conservative politics. The main determinant for how people vote is socio-economic status, people vote for the party that they believe will provide them with the best economic outcome. (You certainly would not complain about using this type of data inarticles.) But if that were the sole determinant of voting behavior, Tory parties would have disappeared as the franchise was widened. Hence the need for additional theories to explain conservative support. TFD (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I kind of think these sections, if 1) well referenced 2) non-selective and 3) careful about the relevant operational definitions of liberalism, etc being used by the respective studies, are appropriate. Per TFD. de Bivort 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My reading suggests that the main determinant for how people vote is not socio-economic status but mutli-cultural environment vs. homogeneous environment. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not read anything claiming that and would like to know what those sources are. A recent book American government & politics today (2008), shows income as a major determinant in the US.[2] Of course one would expect the connection to be weaker in the US than other countries. But look at the UK election map - Labour won the inner cities, while Tories won the leafy suburbs.[3] TFD (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I remembered the source. (I wish my brain came with footnotes.) It was during the 2008 election and probably came from Slate.com. But note that inner cities tend to be mixed cultures, with a Black neighborhood and a Korean neighborhood chock-a-block, while leafy suburbs tend to be culturally homogeneous. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to mentioning these things in passing, but I strongly oppose including separate sections for them. We have a limited amount of space and it could be used on much more important topics related to liberalism or to any other ideology.UBER ^(talk) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism and Conservatism

On the one hand, there is no point in trying to appease people who think Wikipedia favors one of these philosophies over the other. Each article should be correct and unbiased. On the other hand, there is the principle of style that parallel ideas should use parallel construction, so there is an advantage in having a similar structure in the two articles. I'm currently trying to accomplish parallel structure in the articles ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola (without much success). Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you recommend changing this article or the one on conservatism? The parallel nature is not entirely accurate. Liberalism has been far more influential, has a more reasoned body of literature and has been better defined. TFD (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rick, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but if it's about that scuffle a few days ago over where the box should be placed, then my reasoning was purely aesthetic. The article just looks better this way, or so I think. No Wikipedia policies are being violated regardless of where we position it, although it would be incorrect to argue that the style guidelines in this article have to follow those used in the article on conservatism (per WP:OTHERSTUFF). That's mainly what I was objecting to. In terms of what content and material the articles emphasize, I agree that the two should be fairly similar.UBER ^(talk) 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

revert and lock please

can someone who knows WP protocol (or whatever) revert the page to a version where the introduction doesn't read like psycho-babble and then lock it from being randomly edited? ...I'm not sure if someone was trying to vandalize it, or what...but it's unintelligible.

Liberalism in America

It is incorrect to suggest that those who currently call themselves liberal are doing so in the classical sense. Franklin Roosevelt was a progressive, a philosophy very different from classical liberalism and from which the modern liberal derives. After "progressive" fell into disrepute it continued under the name liberal. Recently however, the label progressive has come back into favor and is used interchangeably with liberal (in the modern sense). Ironically, it is the Buckley conservatives who adhered strictly to liberalism in its classic form. Most conservatives still do. The progressive seeks a strong centralized government to manage all aspects of private and public life. A strong departure from John Locke. Meanwhile, the Buckley conservative prefers limiting the powers of government to provide for more freedom and liberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.86.246 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is about liberalism, not liberalism in the U. S. TFD (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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.