Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:08, 26 October 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Liberalism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 23, 2008 Peer review Reviewed March 5, 2010 Peer review Reviewed March 6, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 9, 2010 Peer review Reviewed April 30, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed July 12, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article candidate

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:Vital article

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

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

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

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Concerning edits done on liberalism outside the western sphere

The concept of liberalism is heavily associated with the Era of Enlightenment, Christianity and Europe. I do not think that liberalism outside the context of Europe, and maybe the Western world, has much place on this article beyond text under a different subheading about its progressive spread across the world.

Any concepts of reform/liberalism that have been developed in other societies/cultures that were not derived from European liberalism should be written in a different article under the local terminology for such political movements; you would not write about Christianity under "liberalism" because it happened to be a reformist movement in ancient Israel.

I want to remove all references to Islam and the Middle East from the opening. Please feel free to add information on the spread of liberalism from Europe to other parts of the world in a separate subheading.

Homoeuropeeans (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Homoeuropeeans (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The nom de Wiki "Homoeuropeeans" is suggestive. The claim that liberalism does not really exist outside the context of Europe is unacceptable. The most well-known example is the Young Turks, but there are others. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Homoeuropeeans, this reformist movements in ancient Israel are influenced by, or related to liberalism or were liberals, all in a notable way? If you have reliable academic sources that state this, they totally could be added here. In fact I encourage it. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

To be sure, the historical Jesus supported a liberal morality (love your neighbor, tolerance, less severe punishments, repentance as an individually freely chosen path) but in other respects he was a theocratic monarchist and economically he tended to be a commie. He had nothing to do with liberal democracy, nor with free market economics: these ideas were totally foreign to his mind. Ancient Jews had indeed markets, but they did not have Adam Smith. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Young Turks were inspired by liberal philosophy in France Flameoguy (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Liberalism does not include free-market economics. Please remove all reference to this. 2601:282:700:6040:797E:D145:819A:5F59 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 23:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This assertion is entirely incorrect and is following the ignorant conflation of classical liberalism (liberalism) with the indirect contemporary term "liberalism" which is actually progressivism. This entire page juxtaposes them as if the modern form is borne of the former. The opposite is true. They are conflicting and a FREE market is the is entirely in line with liberalism in its correct usage which can be boiled down to the concept of freedom.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could the first lead sentence please include the non-American (rest of world) understanding of liberalism, whch is "commitment to limited government". This is substantiated in the article body as follows '... in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies). Thank you.81.131.171.183 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that is an over-simplification. Certainly in some countries the term is popularly used to refer to certain types of liberalism, but the meaning of the term can change according to context. TFD (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Over time, the moderates displaced the progressives as the main guardians of continental European liberalism."

This line has no citation and seems out of place in the intro area. It shouldn't be there, I feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.182.85.53 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The citation precedes the sentence, I've moved it to follow the sentence. Here is the quote, from page 3 of Kirchner. "However, liberalism's continental version, deeply divided as it was between moderates and progressives, was -- finally -- almost completely taken over by the moderate group." Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

" Ridiculous Lexicon Of Liberalism As Conservatism "

The principles of libertarianism stipulate non aggression principles and negative wrights to establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government ) , however negative wrights do not establish non aggression principles or negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) , which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government by positive wrights .

EDITORIAL NOTE : The contemporary lexicon applies the term " liberalism " with a false equivalence that positive wrights to establish non aggression principles and negative liberties be extrapolated to include positive liberties , as positive liberties are entirely a conservative precept ( conservation of government ) that is logically disjunct from non aggression principles and negative liberties .

GeMiJa (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

None of those are WP:RS. Besides, US conservatism means classical liberalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

My issue is that US liberalism and conservatism represent significant deviations from a consistent application of the terminology , and I therefore agree only in part with a technical assertion that us conservatism means classical liberalism ( see contradiction and doublespeak ). I understand the wikipedia establishes documentation and would not elaborate on such pet peeves without a reference compliant with its policies . My issue is that the inconsistencies represent a political science travesty which allows individuals and parties to feign one creed while acting completely contrary with it .

From https://en.wikipedia.org/Liberalism : "Before 1920, the main ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism then faced major ideological challenges from new opponents: fascism and communism." " " Consequently, in the United States the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought and are key components of American conservatism." GeMiJa (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes-- Clinton Rossiter called it the "Great Train Robbery." Misplaced Pages's job is to tell what happened --Please use Facebook to complain about how history happened. Rjensen (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What changes do you think the article should make? TFD (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking TFD . In general , negative liberties are founded from principles of non aggression , whether those negative liberties arise from laws phrased as negative wrights or as positive wrights . The wiki article - https://en.wikipedia.org/Negative_and_positive_rights is emphatically false in its depiction of negative and positive wrights , which obtain meaning from the method of phraseology applied in a law , where the former stipulates a phrase of law stipulating actions a government shall not take and the latter stipulates a phrase of law stipulating actions a government shall take . Consequently , negative and positive liberties arise from applying laws phrased as negative or positive wrights . As such , negative wrights always establish negative liberties with respect to government but negative wrights do not necessarily establish negative liberties between individuals ( non government ) . Alternatively , positive wrights may establish negative liberties between individuals ; in addition , positive wrights may also establish positive liberties for individuals within a social system . Whether a negative liberty or a positive liberty arises from a law phrased as a positive wright , an authoritarian or positive action of government is remanded through the policy as law .

The reason the distinction between wrights and liberties is being stressed is because " equal wrights " has become an absurd premise , because negative liberties establish protections , while positive liberties establish endowments . Such is another reason why limiting the term " liberal " to negative liberties and founded upon non aggression principles is relevant , as while extolling that equal wrights denotes equal protections is valid , extolling that equal wrights denotes equal endowments is an obvious absurdity .

Reference from https://en.wikipedia.org/Negative_and_positive_rights : Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, and freedom from slavery. Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, internet access, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations. GeMiJa (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

References

1. https://politicalhotwire.com/threads/liberal-versus-conservative-paradigm-is-intellectual-buffoonery.69367/
2. http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/political-science-terminology-negative-positive-wrights-liberties-protections-endowments.707820
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Classical_liberalism

Obviously, classical liberalism plays a role in modern conservatism in the US. But it is not a large roll. For example, conservative presidents tend to go deeply in debt, and classical liberals put up with it, presumably because conservatives lower taxes for the world's richest corporations. (I've seen estimates that about 17% of modern conservatives are classical liberals, but I do not consider that figure reliable enough to put in the article.) Much more important to modern conservatives everywhere is fear of foreigners and support for laws making certain religious beliefs compulsory, especially laws forbidding abortion. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The classical liberals who drafted the US Constitution believed in slavery and that women cannot vote. Things have changed a lot. It used to be a radical, revolutionary, left-wing stance, now classical liberalism is considered right-wing, since many political currents appeared to the left of classical liberalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• High-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English