Talk:Liberalism/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Vandal IP log

• 18:54, 26 November 2010 67.234.3.94 | Embarq Corporation,Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
• 18:54, 26 November 2010 67.234.3.94 | Embarq Corporation, Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
• 15:38, 2 November 2010 198.82.12.222 | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
• 02:50, 4 October 2010 69.178.194.13 | daktel.com, Carrington, North Dakota, United States

--Sfiga (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

fair trade vs. free trade

The phrase "free trade" is tossed around a lot these days. The original meaning was a reduction in tariffs, leading to greater trade and thus to greater wealth for both parties. Today, tariffs are no longer the most important source of revenue, and so questions arise about situations in which tariffs may be appropriate. Should there be free trade between a state with slave labor and a state with free labor? Should there be free trade between a state with government subsidies and a state with no government subsidies?

Another problem with "free trade" here is that it has become a code word for unrestrained capitalism, which most liberals do not support, on the grounds that it leads to monopoly, and the subjugation of the workers by the rich. Most liberals support "fair trade", which is a moderation of free trade in the interest of greater freedom and equality. If the editor who continues to replace "fair trade" by "free trade" thinks otherwise, he or she should provide sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the problem with an unsourced lead, especially when the term "fair trade" appears no where else in the article. It seems to me that we have neither fair trade nor free trade. TFD (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is your reference for "fair trade" being a concept promoted by liberals? Free trade (whatever that means in different times and places and to different people) has been a fundamental aspect of liberal philosophy for some 200 years. Fair trade is a much more recent concept. I quote from the Wikipedia article on free trade (which I think suffices as a reference). You might also want to refer to sections II:1 and IV:d of the 1947 Oxford Manifesto:

--- Many classical liberals, especially in 19th and early 20th century Britain (e.g. John Stuart Mill) and in the United States for much of the 20th century (e.g. Cordell Hull), believed that free trade promoted peace. The British economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) was brought up on this belief, which underpinned his criticism of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 for the damage it did to the interdependent European economy. After a brief flirtation with protectionism in the early 1930s, he came again to favour free trade so long as it was combined with internationally coordinated domestic economic policies to promote high levels of employment, and international economic institutions that meant that the interests of countries were not pitted against each other. In these circumstances, 'the wisdom of Adam Smith' again applied, he said. ---

Fair trade is not as you state a "moderation of free trade", it is a specific recently-developed niche trading practise in which consumers are encouraged to pay more than the market price for a product with the promise that the producer of the good (usually farmers in the developing world) will then get paid more than market price for their products. I suggest you refer to the link provided within wikipedia. Of course in a free market, consumers are free to choose to pay more than they have to, and in a free society people are free to undertake charitable acts (which "fair trade" essentially is) if they see fit. However, mandating it (or indeed banning it) would be diametrically opposed to the foundation of liberalism, namely maximising free individual choice. Mandating charity, or claiming to know that the price agreed for a good between the parties to the exchange is somehow "wrong" is obviously illiberal.

If you really require more references please read the wikipedia article on economic liberalism. You might take the view that capitalism leads to monopoly and subjugation of the workers by the rich, but most (European) liberals take exactly the opposite view. Indeed, free trade has been very much a "working class" issue since at least the Peterloo protests against the British corn laws. 07:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.177.2 (talk)

References should be to outside sources, not to Wikipedia, but the quote you give above seems to support my view. Your quote: "favour free trade so long as it was combined with internationally coordinated domestic economic policies to promote high levels of employment." In other words, free trade modified by other values. Given your own quote, your claim that "fair trade" is a recent development strikes me as strange. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs more Mill, Bentham, Payne and Jefferson?

My instinct is that the article is a tad light on the enlightenment-era liberal thinkers, such as the four I have named in the title of this topic, including the links to Utilitarianism and women's/universal sufferage. However I am aware that this instinct is coloured by my own Millsian tendencies, so before I start drafting content would like some input from others as to 1) wheter I am right that more is needed on enlightenment development of the ideology; 2) Who should be included as significant (aware of the risk of becoming just a long name-check of how well read I think I am); 3)what aspects of their work people think would be most significant to mention.A Pedant (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Of the four, the current article only mentions Mill. But you need to be careful -- there is a whole article on American Liberalism. This article is on world liberalism. Certainly Jefferson is a major figure in world liberalism and needs to be mentioned. And I have no objection to a mention and a link to the other two, in some context that shows how their ideas shaped, not just echoed, the ideas of liberal thinkers who went before. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (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. —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

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)

Symbolism

Can I suggest that we have a section in the article for the symbolism for liberalism, or perhaps another page entirely as there are for ideologies such as communism and anarchism. I believe it is necessary to have this recorded in the encyclopaedia. Liberalism is one of the oldest and most important ideologies in history and does have its corresponding symbols, we should mention them --Matt Downey (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What are those symbols? HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A good symbol of liberalism is two raised hands, with the chain between them broken. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

An example ia the 1985 Bussa Emancipation Statue in Barbados.[3] Are there any earlier examples of this? TFD (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Another example, on a US stamp, can be seen here: http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS389US389&q=US+Postage+Stamp+Emancipation+Proclomation&biw=1020&bih=532 Rick Norwood (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Etymology but no definition

Section Etymology and definition contains no definition. The intro does. Add definitions, maybe ...? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"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)

A representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. The electoral system of the United States is based on a representative democracy, but the system of government itself is NOT a representative democracy. The basis of a constitutional republic is that it contains laws and principles that are NOT subject to majority votes, whether these be representative or direct. Certain laws and principles that protect minority rights are NOT democratic. In other words, whether the vote is direct or representative, it does not change the fact that majority vote cannot violate these laws and principles. The United States is NOT a democracy, whether it be a direct democracy or a representative democracy, because certain laws and principles are not subject to majority votes. The United States is a constitutional republic with democratic principles.

CyberKarl (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the fact that there is a way for the Constitution to be ammended. In any case, according to standard references, the US is a democracy, so your use of the word to apply only to governments with unrestricted majority rule is not standard usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

=========

Maybe in questioning whether a government is a democracy or not we should be focusing less on differences in definitions and more on the degree to which the reality of how the democracy functions reflects the way it is purported to. i.e. to what extent to extra-democratic forces hinder the functioning of democratic government, whatever the form and despite appearances.

I would also comment on the notion of enforced outcomes. While enforced outcomes may not be liberal in nature, they may be championed by those who, misguided or not, seek solutions to deficits in the liberal status of society. For example barriers to opportunity whether institutional or informal, or any sort of class related gradient.

Anyway the reason I stopped by the talk page page was because, on the subject of misuse of the term liberalism, immediately upon reading the article I get the impression that liberalism is the thinking associated with modern liberals or the "left" and while there may be a connection here, I think the wikipedia article liberalism should reference the subject in political philosophy with more devotion, especially since their is some debate over whether modern "liberals" truly embody liberalism.

See.nature.hear.music (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is not right

I have a trouble accepting the article as being biased and presenting a whig history all the same presenting an image of liberalism development characterized by presentism. I think (based on my university book "Politiska ideologier i vår tid" by Docent Reidar Larsson ISBN 91-44-00294-7) that the liberals after the French revolution was anti-Napoleonide and/or against representative democracy, while before the French revolution there was no coherent liberalism, just a myriad of enlightenment freedom thoughts. The present self-conception within liberalism is that liberalism single-handedly invented democracy and reformed all governments to democracy, I think the reality is that social liberalism, not liberalism per se, developed democratic ideas in sort of uneasy truce with social democracy (the reformist branch) and collaborated to introduce it in society to avoid otherwise inevitable popular convulsions. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Another note: the article is biased towards American comparatively left liberalism, i.e. social liberalism. I get the impression that there is some underlying confusion between the historical development of USA and liberalism, a most disputable notion, at least from an US republicans perspective and a European historicians perspective. US is some kind of enlightenment creation, an antithesis to the tyrrannical monarchies of Europe at the time, but not a liberal creation. In Europe the niche of the social liberals is also occupied by social democrats and partially by christian democrats, therefore rightists tend to attain a liberal reasoning, most notably the neo-liberals, who translated to a US context would maybe be regarded as some liberalish speaking republicans, or Ayn-Randists, who are generally rejected among liberals as some kind of not-really democratic fringe. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

While some scholars believe that the term "liberal" should only be applied to the liberalism that emerged in the 19th century, that is really an argument over semantics. The article does not pretend that 19th century liberalism developed in the 1600s. I am having trouble following your comments on democracy. Universal adult suffrage (for white people anyway) was first advanced by radicals, who predated social democrats and social liberals, and was implemented before the emergence of social liberalism. While some articles provide too much emphasis on the U.S., the development of liberalism in the United States is important to the topic, and the U.S. ranks with England and France as one of the three most important examples of the development of liberalism. TFD (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. My comment abt Ayn-Randists was confusing even myself. I don't understand what that has to do with anything. I think your picture is correct. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty as symbol of liberalism

A newly registered user keeps adding the Statue of Liberty as a lead image in the article, and in early edits, stated that it was a "symbol of liberalism." The source provided doesn't mention the word "liberalism." Yes, liberty part of the broad concept of liberalism, but liberalism != liberty. I'd rather avoid the appearance of edit-warring with this individual, even though it seems like a clear case of lack of sources to me. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Liberalism has so many different meanings around the world that something equivalent to what the Statue of Liberty represents is bound to be right somewhere. But you're right. It does seem a particular narrow POV to me too. I will join the game. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Libertycloseup.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Libertycloseup.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)