Talk:Liberalism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

equality or equal rights

Does liberalism mean "equality", in the sense of "social equality" (when Adam delved and Eve span, who then was a gentleman?) or "equal rights" (I have a right to treat you with contempt, and you have an equal right to treat me with contempt). There is, obviously, more going on here than can be summed up in one word, and that's what the rest of the article is about. But the sources, many of them, say "freedom and equality", and the lead cannot put all the details into the first sentence. At the time "...that all men are created equal..." addressed the question of social equality, at a time when the European norm was the the nobility was born to rule, the peasant born to serve. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The major sources on liberalism say "equality", not "equal rights". Equal rights is a more limited concept, because it applies to citizens of a state, while liberalism holds that all men are equal. TFD (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

LiamFitzgilbert's edit

LiamFitzgilbert made a number of good edits to the article, but his change in the history section contradicts the lead and is not supported by sources. He wrote:

"The history of liberalism as a formal doctrine dates to the 19th century, however its roots are much older. The opposition to the absolutism of the sovereign in modern Europe was largely developed during the Enlightenment, with the French-language Philosophes such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as well as such thinkers as John Locke. However the earlier scholasticism of Spanish and Portuguese theologians of the School of Salamanca during the 16th century, also espoused what would later be regarded as "liberal" ideas, such as claiming it a moral obligation of the sovereign to respect certain fundamental rights of human beings. Even earlier precedents can be cited along similar lines, including various medieval charters (such as the Magna Carta), some advocates of Thomistic philosophy, going all the way back to principles of "natural justice" advocated by Aristotle."

Most people date the history of liberalism as a formal doctrine to John Locke, who lived in the 17th century. The lead mentions the Enlightment of the 18th century. Rousseau became an enemy of the Philosophes and is not usually included in their number.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics says of "liberalism" that "...it emerged from the conjunction of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the political revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries." The same source says of Rousseau, "Rousseau provided a Romantic alternative to Enlightenment optimism". On John Locke (1632-1704), it says "widely regarded as one of the fathers of the Enlightenment and as a key figure in the development of liberalism."

The history section undoubtedly needs work, but it should not argue with the lead and the rest of the article.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood is right. The lede should summarize the article and should not introduce new material (in this case very dubious history). Rjensen (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The source provided is the Introduction to "The making of modern liberalism". However I do not find that this source supports the claims. TFD (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, my bad. I was too lazy to actually go and find some sources and paste them in. I'll go ahead and do it now. Just to speak in my own favor though, as a student of history, I've noticed a problem with many Wikipedia articles (aside from what one might call a kind of "Anglo-centrism", which I was initially trying to redress), is a lack of historical perspective. A kind of reductionist schoolbook version of history, where, in this case for example, "liberalism" just appears out of nowhere in the pure creative mind of say, John Locke. It's kind of like an article on Socialism saying Karl Marx "invented" socialism in the 1800s. Liberalism, like socialism, or conservatism, or idealism, or what have you, has a long history of development. And any "history of" section should reflect that. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember that at one point the history section began with a quote about freedom by Marcus Aurelius. I'm not sure when that was removed. However, while certainly liberalism is a part of human thought from ancient times, it only began to take hold after the industrial revolution. City people tend to be liberal, farmers tend to be conservative. Between the time of the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, more than 90% of the human race were farmers. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well, but a "History of Liberalism" should certainly include references to the liberal thinkers in history - both economic and sociopolitical liberals - should it not? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In this brief article we are supposed to capture the major points that one would expect to find in a "schoolbook version of history". The source you use for this edit,[1] is from Murray Rothbard's book, Economic thought before Adam Smith: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Volume I.[2] As he clearly states in the "Introduction", he is challenging the mainstream view of the history of economics. We cannot therefore replace the mainstream view with this view and considering that he also says that the views he expresses are a minority within the Austrian school, there is no reason to report it. TFD (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you've found grounds to challenge one piece of information I've included there - why then did you revert the whole section? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Now another user has reverted without any discussion.... is it really preferable to have an unsourced (and inaccurate, although I just removed that minor inaccuracy), superficial, and vague paragraph? Really? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it is the lede of the history section it does not need to be sourced, merely reflect summarize what is in the section, which your version did not. The view that the scholastics were protoliberals and your removal of the French Revolution seem non-mainstream and you are the presenting opinions of a non-mainstream writer as factual. My advice is do not look for sources for what you think should be in the article. Look for good sources then present what they say. TFD (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-mainstream? One can find references to the School of Salamanca in the history of liberalism (both political and economic) in countless scholarly journals (not to mention the other language Wiki articles on liberalism). I merely gave a sample (I am surprised four references does not satisfy you). Moreover, your response doesn't address why you deleted the rest of the information (Montesquieu, Aristotle, Medieval antecedents, etc). If your justification is, you want to keep the "lede" simple, then fine, say that (for example, I totally overlooked the fact that I had deleted reference to the French revolution, an obvious mistake). But you make yourself look rather silly when you challenge what is, I'm afraid, "mainstream historiography". LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In Liberalism (2nd ed.), p. 12, John N. Gray wrote, "the School of Salmanaca had anticipated some of the thems of the classical liberals of the Scottish Enlightenment when they argued that, against certain background conditions, the just price of any commodity was the market price. For the most part, however, this contribution, like the contribution of various medieval nominalists, was soon lost and had little influence on the liberal intellectual tradition...." That does not justify inclusion. I note that most of the books that mention the School are by Austrians. It may be that they consider them important but the mainstream does not. TFD (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I see, Austrians couldn't possibly be a part of the mainstream now could they? And the Americans and French writers that mention Salmanaca - how do you propose to explain away that? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard said that he represents a minority in the Austrian school. The Austrian school itself is not considered the mainstream economic school and Rothbard was not an historian. The theory of value proposed by the Thomists was not accepted by classical liberals, who supported the labor theory of value. TFD (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored the mention of the English Civil War, which you had removed, because you are trying to show that liberalism has a longer history, which is what we are now discussing and you have not obtained support for this view. BTW, you should not mark edits as minor unless they are truly minor, e.g., spelling and grammar. TFD (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just being spiteful. If you can find me one modern, mainstream, scholarly article or book that states "liberalism began with the English Civil War" (!!!!) then I'll eat my hat. I mean, do you actually believe that, that liberalism began with the War of the Three Kingdoms????!! LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

See James L. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms, p. 20, "For some historians, liberalism does not emerge until the eighteenth century; more precisely, their narratives begin with the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 and the publication in 1690 of John Locke's Two Treatises on Civil Government.... It has been argued convincingly, however, that political movements propounding liberal values first appeared in the mid-seventeenth century, when characteristic liberal themes and debates were articulated in the English Revolution."[3] TFD (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I expected as much. You don't know the differece between the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. I'll take that as my queue to cease trying to engage with you on a reasonable level. With that kind of [a lack of] knowledge of history and the topicl, there's clearly no way your efforts can be constructive here. Let's just leave the article as it is then, with a glaring mistake, shall we? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(I have replied below.) TFD (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

LiamFitzGilbert: I think you did the right thing when you self-reverted. People are really not reverting just to be reverting. We are all trying to improve the article according to our best understanding of the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment Rick, but if you look at TFD's above comment, you can see that he evidently was - he reverted without even being aware of what the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution (a mere four decades later!) were. Pity the fool (me) who actually tried to engage with him in this talk page. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

By the "mid-seventeenth century...revolution", Richardson is clearly referring to the English Revolution of 1640-1660, not the late century Glorious Revolution of 1688. Note the sources he provides in footnotes. The first one, Harold J. Laski's The Rise of European Liberalism (1936), p. 96, says, "In the seventeenth century, that is to say, there were, effectively, two revolutions. The first, of which the great protagonist was Cromwell...."[4] The second source, Arblaster, calls the 1640-1660 revolution "The English Revolution", while the third source calls it the "first English revolution".[5] TFD (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. You've lost all credibility here, until you can admit that you made a grievous mistake, there's no point me trying to have a meaningful discussion with you on this issue. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

LiamFitzGilbert: Stop engaging in person attacks. The quote says what TFD says it says. Your personal attacks diminish your credibility as a serious editor, not his. Let's end this discussion and move on. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Rick, yes "the quote says what TFD says it says", but it doesn't say what the article says. You really think someone who can't distinguish between the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution has any business edit-warring over content that relates directly to said subject matter? No mainstream scholarly source will say that "liberalism began with the English Civil War". The best TFD was able to find, after furiously Googling to cover his mistake, was reference in a non-specialist, non-authoritative publication available on Google Books, to a "debate" on the "origins" of the "ideas" associated with liberalism, dating back to the Civil War. Which was, ironically, precisely what I was trying to introduce into the article in the first place! Namely, historical precedents preceding the formal philosophical formulation of liberal ideas prior to the Enlightenment. But as the admin said, you guys saw fit you revert me and delete any such references. Much ado about nothing. But I will not engage with TFD until he admits his mistake. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The confusion is yours, not his. The personal attacks are your, not his. Time to move on. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The confusion is mine? Pray tell, how? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, my material is well-sourced and historically correct. If you believe there are any "contradictions" why don't you raise them here on the talk page? If you are challenging any of the sources, why don't you state which ones here on the talk page? That's three times you've reverted without any actually meaningful discussion. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed this extensively here, and have not reverted without waiting for others to weigh in. There is universal agreement among the other editors that your material is not supported by your sources. You are wasting your time and ours. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is your "extensive discussion"??? What material is "not supported" by my sources? They are practically direct quotes! Did you check them? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have used this source a lot for the history of liberalism. Richardson's article is the best source I have found for explaining how historians view this subject and I brought it to the reliable sources noticeboard three years ago. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 45#''Contending liberalisms''. TFD (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. Relevance? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You impeached the source when you wrote, "The best TFD was able to find, after furiously Googling to cover his mistake, was reference in a non-specialist, non-authoritative publication available on Google Books." In response, I provided a link to where I brought this source to the reliable sources noticeboard several years ago. Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power (2001) by Professor emeritus James L. Richardson was published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, an independent scholarly and textbook publishing firm that publishes in the fields of international studies and comparative politics in relation to the world. The chapter used as a source previously appeared in an earlier book by Richardson and was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997). A Google Scholar search returns 217 hits[6] and the article has been used as part of university political science courses. It is the type of source you should be using. TFD (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a more emphatic statement from Gray's book. After explaining that the School of Salamanca "had little influence on the liberal intellectual tradition", he writes, "It is in the period of Whig ascendancy following the Glorious Revolution, in the debates during the English Civil War and, most importantly, in John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, that the central elements of the liberal outlook crystallized for the first time into a coherent intellectual tradition expressed in a powerful, if often divided and conflicted political movement." TFD (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's all very well, but I can find you dozens of sources that do mention the effect of Salamanca. "Little" influence, is still influence. But you seem to want to deny any history of liberal thought beyond your own arbitrary time limit. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the 8 sources I already provided for my edits, I would like to draw attention to a couple more here.

Chandran Kukathas, writing on the "Origins of Liberalism", is worth quoting in full:

"So it may be best to start with an account of how liberalism arose. This may turn out to be no less controversial, since liberalism is a broad tradition encompassing the ideas of a great diversity of thinkers, from Locke to Tocqueville to Rawls... And because the noun liberal did not become commonly used until the nineteenth century there is also a problem of anachronism in any endeavor to identify liberalism's origins.

An important clue lies in the origins of the political label, "liberal" in the Spanish Cortes of 1810. The 'Liberales' were members of a parliament rebelling against absolutism... But, as Merquior notes, liberalism the thing is older than liberalism the name, for these ideas had their roots in older questions and disputes..."

"But we can probably go back a little further [than the Glorious Revolution of 1688] in European history to find the beginnings of liberal thinking. The Wars of Religion of the sixteenth century, in France in particular, generated some of the most important work on the idea of religious toleration, notably in the thought of Pierre Bayle. But even earlier, the conquest of the Americas by Spain had raised the issue of the rights of the Indians against the colonizing power. The writings of Francisco de Vitoria of the School of Salamanca, defending the claims of Indians... put forward political doctrines which were strikingly liberal in character, inasmuch as they asserted the rights of the individual conscience against the claims of political power."

"Liberal ideas... arose out of conflict and disagreement - particularly over religious questions."

- this is found in The Liberal Tradition in Focus: Problems and New Perspectives, Lexington Books, 2000. (p. 99) Edited by João Carlos Espada, Marc F. Plattner, Adam Wolfson.

Alan Macfarlane has written at length on the history of the development of capitalism and liberalism in Europe... "The roots of Capitalism, the research of Alan Macfarlane has shown, lie in....early Medieval Europe... Still, systematic reflection on economic development awaited the late 18th century. Drawing on Medieval works such as those of Salamanca," (p. 96), Michael Novak, "Free persons and the common good", Madison Books, 1989.

Jeffery L. Irvin, in "Paradigm and Praxis: Seventeenth-century Mercantilism and the Age of Liberalism" (2008) discusses the role Natural Law in Aristotle, Aquinas, and the School of Salamanca in the development of liberal ideas, with a focus on the economic dimension. (p. 36-40)

A good article is found in the French-language journal, Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, entitled: "The Political Economy of the Just Price: What the School of Salamanca Has To Say in the Age of Corruption", 2000, abstract can be found here: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jeeh.2000.10.2/jeeh.2000.10.2.1148/jeeh.2000.10.2.1148.xml

As does Ralph Raico: "The last flowering of this natural law tradition was in Late Scholasticism, commonly associated with the school of Salamanca, whose key theoretical importance is coming to be appreciated (Rothbard, 1995c, 1:81-88, 99-131; Chafuen 1986)." "Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School", Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012.

LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You left out part of Chandran Kukathas's comments. He wrote, "Merquior traces liberalism's origins to the Glorious Revolution, and to the century of struggles for political liberty which culminated in the overthrow of James II in 1688, and out of which came religious toleration and constitutional government. But we can probably go back a little further [than the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688]...." (p. 99)[7] So essentially this adds nothing to support your re-write. I notice that you re-instated it despite not obtaining support. TFD (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you possibly come to that conclusion? This particular excerpt, from that particularly book, states exactly what I have been saying. And yet, you've just read it and said black is white and white is black? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The writer mentions the standard view that liberalism originated with the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution 40 years later, then presents his personal opinion that its origins are earlier. TFD (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"The standard view"? The standard view that doesn't exist, anywhere, in anyone's words except yours? He mentions what Merquior said. That is all. There is no distinction between "standard" and "personal" - which would be a ridiculous approach to righting a scholarly book. You can read into these works whatever you want, but that is your own interpretation. These writers words speak for themselves. You can quote them directly, or you can summarize what they say - but you are not allowed to insert your own timelines or definitive statements in their voice.

There is only one issue that is relevant here. What grounds do you have for rejecting any of the dozen+ sources that I have provided? Given that you've only provided one, which doesn't even contradict anything I've added? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

LiamFitzGilbert: The problem with your rewrite is that it changes the emphasis of your source, ignores the many sources that stress that liberalism as an idea began before liberalism as a word, and contradicts the lead which says that liberalism as an idea began during the Enlightenment. The section on the History of Liberalism should begin with what most major sources begin with: Locke, The American Revolution, The French Revolution. It should include a brief mention of earlier influences. The religious wars of the sixteenth century could be a part of this. It can certainly mention that the word "liberalism" didn't come into use until a later date. You seem so wedded to your own words that you ignore what everybody else is saying. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finally choosing to engage Rick Norwood, after 2 days worth of reverts and no comment. So now you say the problem is with emphasis. Fine, I can work with that. Does that mean, as a starting point, I can take it that you don't wish to challenge any of the historical facts stated, or the usefulness of any of the sources offered? Just emphasis, right? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If we mention earlier influences, we need to ensure that scholars agree on them and their significance. LiamFitzGilbert is drawing on sources that present a very small group within scholarship. Rather than liberalism being in opposition to historical Catholic and Aristotelian orthodoxy, the Austrian School historians see it as a continuation. Paradoxically they also claim that liberalism only began in the 19th century. Surely their views deserve attention, but probably not in this article. The mainstream view however is that liberalism is the ideology of modernity, not antiquity or the Middle Ages, and could only have developed in the modern world. TFD (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Once again I am astounded by your lack of historical knowledge. That's some nice little theories you have there, butot of the 14 sources I have provided, only 4 are of the Austrian School. You'll note the author I quoted at length above, isn't. "The mainstream view however is that liberalism is the ideology of modernity, not antiquity or the Middle Ages, and could only have developed in the modern world." Again, you do a fantastic job of discrediting yourself. Aside from that simply not being the way that history works, you seem to be totally unaware of the fact that "modernity" is traditionally dated to the 16th century - precisely the time period in which de Vitoria (of the School of Salamanca) was writing... hence all the business about defending the native Americans' rights to their property, etc. Care to revise your statement? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

All I'm arguing for is that the forerunners to the likes of John Locke merit a mention. Even the sources that you try and use against my case, still mention Salamanca, if only to minimize its significance. But when you have 1) eminent scholars in their field (Polanyi, Hayek, Rothbard, Nemo); 2) Scholarly books put out by academic presses (Cambridge University Press, University of Arizona Press, Cornell University Press, Central European University Press); and 3) peer-reviewed journals (Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, 2000)....... then I'm afraid your case for omission looks pretty weak. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kukathas is an adjunct scholar at the CATO Institute and has written for Stephan Kinsella's Libertarian Papers. It is certainly correct that while liberalism developed in the 17th century that it had 16th century influences, in particular Machiavelli, the Reformation, and advances in commerce and science. The Puritan movement that led the English Revolution of 1640-1660 was also founded in the 16th century. It could also be that the School of Salamanca's theories were an example of modernity or a precursor to liberalism, however most scholars ignore their influence on liberalism and those that do not say it was insignificant. But Austrian historiography goes much further, and moves the base to scholasticism in general, which of course originated before the modern era. TFD (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So you've managed to challenge one of the sources, on the grounds that the author, in addition to holding a chair at the London School of Economics (LSE), is also associated with CATO? Is that a wiki policy? Anyone associated with CATO is an unreliable source, despite their qualifications, and despite who is publishing their work? Again, I have to say, very weak argumentation here.... LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No I did not challenge the source, as you are well aware. TFD (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead

Several editors removed an unsourced section in the lead comparing classical and social liberalism. I notice that references have now been provided. However it appears to use numerous sources in order to provide an interpretation not found in any of the sources. I notice that the first reference used is not supported by the source. Also, there is still not a source for the statement that "social liberalism is associated with communism". The purpose of the lead is to present a summary of the text in the article and this appears to be undue weight. I will therefore remove it. TFD (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"social liberalism is associated with communism" - This is not a good faith edit IMO. --MeUser42 (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

MeUser42's edit

I've rewritten parts of MeUser42's recent edit, in part for style, in part to bring them closer to the sources.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of politicians

I have removed the pictures of U.S. President Barrack Obama and Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg from the article. They do not stand out as particularly liberal among their peers. Practically every politician in the UK and the USA is a liberal. Why would we choose to include these two over others?--178.167.145.43 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

An argument could be made that Clegg is relevant to the U.K. section because he is currently leader of their liberal party, while Obama is relevant to the the U.S. because he is currently their president. TFD (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

But the liberal democrats isn't the only liberal party in the UK. Why aren't pictures of David Cameron or Ed Milliband included, who are leaders of larger liberal parties?--31.200.187.221 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

While all major political parties are influenced by liberalism, the academic consensus is that the Conservative and Labour parties are conservative and socialist respectively. TFD (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'academic consensus' such as this at all. 129.78.32.97 (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing photos of example politicians under the justification that they aren't the only examples of liberals seems highly illogical to me. de Bivort 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

President Obama is the leading liberal in the world today. The excuse for removing his picture seems to be that a) he's not a liberal and b) all US and UK politicians are liberals. That doesn't seem like a good reason. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What rubbish. Obama is not a liberal, let alone 'the leading liberal in the world today'.129.78.32.97 (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if Obama is defeated in the election this year or if re-elected by January 2017 when Obama's second and last legal term in office expires and a new President is inaugurated, Obama will not be a leading liberal in the world. I made the mistake on the Marxism-Leninism article in 2011 of posting Kim Jong-Il as a modern example of a Marxist-Leninist head of state, he died months later after I posted it and the picture had to be taken down. There is no need for pictures of specific present-day leaders because they change all the time.--R-41 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We can take the picture down Jan 20, 2013 or 2017. TFD (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's pointless to pick the flavour of the year of politicians, the article should just show pictures of historical liberal figures who are regarded as important to the development of the ideology. I.e. John Locke, Adam Smith (for classical liberalism), Thomas Paine, Georges Danton, David Lloyd George (for social liberalism), John Maynard Keynes (for social liberalism), and perhaps Bill Clinton for Third Way liberalism.--R-41 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What lasting impact Obama will have on Liberalism remains to be seen, but he has had a major impact already. Your objection to his picture does not seem to me well-founded. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with RN. No reason at all that, as R-41 suggests, we should only illustrate founders of liberalism. de Bivort 15:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Also agree with RN. Including Obama and Clegg smacks strongly of Wikipedia:Recentism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Make two entries for liberalism, one for the European meaning and one for the American meaning

I second earlier suggestions for making two different entries for liberalism, one for the European understanding of the term, and one for the American understanding of the term. "Liberalism" simply means different things in these places, and it is a hopeless cause to try to squeeze them into one article just because they have the name in common. The liberal parties in say Germany or Switzerland have very little in common with the American Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.163.15 (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In Europe the term liberalism usually refers to economic liberalism, we already have that article. We also have two articles about Liberalism in the United States. This article is about liberalism globally, and includes the various strands of liberalism. TFD (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

While I undestand the anonymous, I also undestand The Four Deuces. However, this article is not explicit enough and does need quite a bit of revision, which is possibly better then a simple splity. Would you agree TFD? (I'll try and make time for it). --MeUser42 (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly a problem with at least two distinct meanings for liberalism, but I must also add that there is more to the world than Europe and America. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

While all articles can improved, you need to provide sources that show the subject treated differently. I think that some editors may place too much emphasis on the divisions within liberalism and ignore the difference between liberal and non-liberal ideology. Where liberalism is the dominant ideology then we see an ocean of difference between competing views of liberalism. But when liberalism is faced with fascism or communism or both, these differences appear minor. TFD (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is right to equate liberalism as an ideology to political liberalism, even though the latter historically emerged from the former. Conservatives and social democrats embrace political liberalism these days, but they don't embrace the ideology of liberalism. It is possible to be for political liberalism yet oppose liberal ideals like free trade. Historically liberals in Europe did advocate strongly for free trade, and it is due to accommodating to the American meaning of the word that this got removed from the main article I suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.163.15 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean one for American meaning and one for actual meaning. 129.78.32.97 (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

School of Salamanca

This was discussed before but an editor has chosen to bring back the neoscholastic School of Salamanca into the introduction to the history section. I oppose the addition because it places undue emphasis on a minor detail, and introductions are supposed to summarize sections. Very few sources on liberalism mention the school. TFD (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A minor detail mentioned by at least 16 eminent sources I have provided. On the Request for Comment on the History of Liberalism I got support from a neutral for its inclusion, you did not.

Additional sources i've included not in the edit.

In addition to the 8 sources I already provided for my edits, I would like to draw attention to a couple more here.

Chandran Kukathas, writing on the "Origins of Liberalism", is worth quoting in full:

"So it may be best to start with an account of how liberalism arose. This may turn out to be no less controversial, since liberalism is a broad tradition encompassing the ideas of a great diversity of thinkers, from Locke to Tocqueville to Rawls... And because the noun liberal did not become commonly used until the nineteenth century there is also a problem of anachronism in any endeavor to identify liberalism's origins.

An important clue lies in the origins of the political label, "liberal" in the Spanish Cortes of 1810. The 'Liberales' were members of a parliament rebelling against absolutism... But, as Merquior notes, liberalism the thing is older than liberalism the name, for these ideas had their roots in older questions and disputes..."

"But we can probably go back a little further [than the Glorious Revolution of 1688] in European history to find the beginnings of liberal thinking. The Wars of Religion of the sixteenth century, in France in particular, generated some of the most important work on the idea of religious toleration, notably in the thought of Pierre Bayle. But even earlier, the conquest of the Americas by Spain had raised the issue of the rights of the Indians against the colonizing power. The writings of Francisco de Vitoria of the School of Salamanca, defending the claims of Indians... put forward political doctrines which were strikingly liberal in character, inasmuch as they asserted the rights of the individual conscience against the claims of political power."

"Liberal ideas... arose out of conflict and disagreement - particularly over religious questions."

- this is found in The Liberal Tradition in Focus: Problems and New Perspectives, Lexington Books, 2000. (p. 99) Edited by João Carlos Espada, Marc F. Plattner, Adam Wolfson.

Alan Macfarlane has written at length on the history of the development of capitalism and liberalism in Europe... "The roots of Capitalism, the research of Alan Macfarlane has shown, lie in....early Medieval Europe... Still, systematic reflection on economic development awaited the late 18th century. Drawing on Medieval works such as those of Salamanca," (p. 96), Michael Novak, "Free persons and the common good", Madison Books, 1989.

Jeffery L. Irvin, in "Paradigm and Praxis: Seventeenth-century Mercantilism and the Age of Liberalism" (2008) discusses the role Natural Law in Aristotle, Aquinas, and the School of Salamanca in the development of liberal ideas, with a focus on the economic dimension. (p. 36-40)

A good article is found in the French-language journal, Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, entitled: "The Political Economy of the Just Price: What the School of Salamanca Has To Say in the Age of Corruption", 2000, abstract can be found here: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jeeh.2000.10.2/jeeh.2000.10.2.1148/jeeh.2000.10.2.1148.xml

As does Ralph Raico: "The last flowering of this natural law tradition was in Late Scholasticism, commonly associated with the school of Salamanca, whose key theoretical importance is coming to be appreciated (Rothbard, 1995c, 1:81-88, 99-131; Chafuen 1986)." "Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School", Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to the inclusion of the School of Salamanca. Certainly, the Roman Catholics who fought for the native Americans against those who would exploit them were admirable. Thomas Acquinas is a less likely candidate. Why Acquinas rather than Lucretius? Why the stoics but not Marcus Arelius? But let that be. My question is, do you have any source not connected with the Ludwig von Mises Institute? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's in the introduction of the history section which is proper. It might be stated more consicely, but the Salmanca school was a big influence on the physiocrats and later the classical school of economics, and is well place there. --MeUser42 (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Their influence on the "classical school of economics" is less clear. Weren't the Catholic plantations in South American where the Native Americans had freedom from economic exploitation essentially communist? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that some writers mention the School, saying that it anticipated some views that would later be considered liberal, even if it was not an influence. Usually it is ignored. But one can always search for "Liberalism+[one's favorite pre-liberal writer]" and get hits. What is important is that we reflect the weight provided in sources. BTW many of your sources are about Rothbard's theory that the School influenced the Austrian School's marginal revolution (not the classical economists). That may explain the interest among Austrian economists.

BTW the view that accepting Indians as "subjects" was liberal is bizarre. See for example, Making of the American West, p. 48: "The Spaniards believed that Indians who converted to Catholicism could become part of Spanish society. By contrast, the British followed a policy best described as a "frontier of exclusion".... In Spanish society, Indians were expected to become loyal subjects, willing laborers, and potential mates, in return for the "salvation of their souls."[8] If they refused to convert, they would be deprived of their property and freedom. The British recognized Indians as subjects under the Royal Proclamation of 1763, thereby triggering the American Revolution. American Indians would not become citizens until 1920. Canadian Indians would be excluded from the country's first citizenship act in 1947 (by a Liberal government), even though they were British subjects. Being a subject is a medieval concept which implies rights and obligations specific to one's class. Natives and slaves could become subjects because it did not grant them equality, they were merely absorbed into the lowest classes.

TFD (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Chandran Kukathas's "Origins of Liberty". The quote above omitted the following, "Merquior traces liberalism's origins back to the Glorious Revolution, and to the century of struggles for political liberty which culminated in the overthrow of James II in 1688, and out of which came religious toleration and constitutional government."[9] That is the mainstream view, even if a few Austrian writers oppose it. TFD (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines

"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving right along

The article still needs work. In particular, the history section says that "Classical Liberalism" dominated liberalism after the French Revolution. The Classical Liberalism article says that Classical Liberalism dates from the 19th century, not the 18th. I'll research the question. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Classical Liberalism" is a neologism, it "dates from" whenever the likes of Hayek say it dates from. There weren't two concurrent "liberalisms" in the 18th and 19th century. As my introduction says, the term "liberalism" to refer to a political ideology didn't even exist until the 19th century. When the American and French revolutions took place, they didn't refer to themselves as "liberals". But you go ahead and "research the question", using Google, no doubt. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Different writers use the term differently. Richardson, for example, says that classical liberalism emerged in the 19th century. Some sources claim that it is historically inaccurate to refer to anything before the 19th century as liberalism. Clearly a distinct version of liberalism emerged in the early 19th century, whatever we choose to call it. Another source of confusion is that some neoclassical liberals call themselves classical liberals, even though they reject major tenets of 19th century liberalism. TFD (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"The idea of liberalism came before the word liberalism." The lead says, "Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment". LiamFitzGilbert wants the history section to begin: "The history of the term liberalism to refer to a formal doctrine dates to the 19th century". In other words, he wants the history section to begin with the etemology of the word rather than the history of the idea. But the etemology of the word is already discussed in the section on etemology. I, as several other editors, think the history section should being with the history of the idea. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Rick Norwood (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to look up the meaning (and spelling) of the word "etymology". LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I know the meaning. Thank you for correcting my spelling. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you know the meaning, why are you using it? There is no etymology at all in my introduction. My introduction contains the first use of the word "liberalism" to refer to "liberalism", not the linguistic origin (etymology) of the world "liberalism" or "liberal". LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

John Milton? Marcus Aurelius? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here... LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're in the history zone. Marcus Aurelius wrote (Meditations 1.14) "government founded on equity and freedom of speech, and of a monarchy which values above all things the freedom of the subject". Milton is famous for writing against government censorship in Areopagita. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Got any historians of liberalism who point to the importance of Auerlius and Milton to the history of liberal thought? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed mentioning of Marcus Aurelius and John Milton both here and in History of liberalism on account of a lack of sources connecting them with liberalism. I have added a citation needed on the repeated attribution of John Locke as the sole founder of liberalism. He was no doubt important in the development of the concept, but he was far from the only thinker at the time championing liberal ideas. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You were correct to do so, as was LiamFitzGilbert. Also, people should understand that "new liberalism" links to a book here, so for wikilinks use "social liberalism" instead. Those who are suggesting that John Locke is the sole founder either need to come up with a reliable peer reviewed source saying so or stop reverting your and LiamFitzGilbert's productive work. —Cupco 19:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note Cupco has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Dualas [10]. --TFD (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that Locke was the sole founder of liberalism. Instead, we are suggesting following mainstream historiography as described in John N. Gray's Liberalism (2nd ed.), p. 13. "It is in the period of Whig ascendancy following the Glorious Revolution, in the debates during the English Civil War and, most importantly, in John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, that the central elements of the liberal outlook crystallized for the first time into a coherent intellectual tradition expressed in a powerful, if often divided and conflicted political movement." TFD (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a far cry from "generally credited". —Cupco 19:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I will change the text to reflect Gray's writing. BTW, the sentence reading, "A twenty-first century development is an emerging new liberalism..." should not have an internal link, because there is no article about it. "Modern liberalism" links to an article about the new liberalism that emerged in the beginning of the last century. TFD (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we have a hagiography of John Locke, which you mentioned in your edit summary. It is whether liberalism was developed by the medieval Catholic church and traces its origins to Aristotle and Jesus Christ. The consensus of historians is that liberalism is modern and that the Spanish Inquisition etc. was not liberal. TFD (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The writings of two theologians are neither the Catholic Church or its inquisition. What source reports this consensus you claim that the roots of liberalism stretch no further than Locke? —Cupco 06:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that liberalism stretches back no further than Locke. The source used says that it stretches back to the English Civil War. Locke collected views that had developed by mid-century. However, as Gray wrote, ""the School of Salmanaca had anticipated some of the thems of the classical liberals of the Scottish Enlightenment when they argued that, against certain background conditions, the just price of any commodity was the market price. For the most part, however, this contribution, like the contribution of various medieval nominalists, was soon lost and had little influence on the liberal intellectual tradition...." (p. 13) Most historians ignore them entirely, and if they do trace the influences on the emergence of liberalism, look to Machiavelli, the Protestant Revolution, and the English constitution. The School of Salamanca was a neoscholastic part of the Catholic Church located in Spain, which was then under control of the Spanish Inquisition. What source reports this consensus you claim that the roots of liberalism lay in scholasticism? TFD (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard and Hayek are the principal proponents, and there is no shortage of secondary support in Spain on which they base their opinion. —Cupco 20:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) Your source says, "the Austrian School of economics...should be traced back to the works of the Spanish Scholastics.... In 1974, the great Austrian scholar Murray N. Rothbard first developed the thesis that the Austrian School is of Spanish origin.... Indeed, I think the greatest merit of the founder of the Austrian School, Carl Menger, was to rediscover and take up this continental Catholic tradition of Spanish scholastic thought, which was almost forgotten due to the negative influence of Adam Smith and his followers of the British Classical School." Obviously the author is writing about the influence of the Scholastics on the Austrian School which was founded in 1871, not its influence on pre-Austrian liberalism. BTW the "no shortage of secondary support in Spain" refers to a meeting in Spain of supporters of Austrian economics, reported on an Austrian economics website. TFD (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your only strategy in trying to "edit out" what esteemed scholars have written about the history of liberalism, is to attack them as somehow being biased (and create strawmans regarding the Catholic Church and the Inquisition). This is not an effective tactic. You may not like what they have to say, but they have said it - in eminent publications, in peer-reviewed journals, and over several decades.

What's more, it appears that you are now editing against "consensus" (or what you have previously defined as "consensus" - namely, 2 editors against 1). FYI, I just placed a RfC on the "History of Liberalism" article. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there are other editors here who agree that your particular edit to the history section is not well-written or to the point, finding someone who agrees with you hardly establishes a consensus. More troubling is your unwillingness to respond substantively to the objections to your edit, and to fall back on personal attacks. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please point to one specific "objection" you have made to my edits? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Liberalism#LiamFitzgilbert's edit, this discussion thread, and summaries used when your edit was reversed. No need to ask editors to repeat comments they have already made. TFD (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

TFD and Rick, is there any statement to the effect that writers prior to Locke espoused liberal ideals that you would not object to? Can you suggest such an edit to which you would agree? —Cupco 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed LiamFitzGilbert's edit, "Liberalism originated in the 17th century with ideas expressed by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government" to "Liberalism originated in the 17th century with ideas expressed during the English Civil War, the period following the Glorious Revolution and with the views expressed in John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government".[11] TFD (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but is there anything prior to that about which you would not object? —Cupco 19:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You must be more specific and provide sources. Note also that this is a brief section, and we should not provide details that one would not expect to find in a brief history. TFD (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Manent doesn't get to Locke until Chapter 4. How would you feel about Hobbes? —Cupco 21:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Again you need to be specific. Hobbes (chapter III) of course was "in the debates during the English Civil War", to quote Gray, although ironically he supported the royalist based on liberal principles. He is already mentioned in the article. I already mentioned Machiavelli's influence (Chapter II). I notice your source does not mention the School of Salamanca which I thought was your main concern. TFD (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather, Wikipedia is based upon what reliable sources say - you don't get to cast aside sources for your own (ideological?) reasons. All you've been able to provide to justify your wholesale removal of a massive amount of sourced content, is a book by an English writer called John N. Gray, writing in a book published by the "Open University Press", in a chapter entitled "Seventeenth Century England". Gray refers to "debates" on dating liberalism in England back to the 18th century, or Glorious Revolution, or the English Civil War (saying such-and-such has been "argued convincingly", and refers to the Levellers, etc). Nowhere does he say he is making definitive historical statements of consensus, nowhere does he dismiss the significance or even mention of the Wars of Religion, or the physiocrats, or the philosophes, or the School of Salamanca, or Aristotle, et al. You're demanding that your very specific interpretation of one very specific paragraph of a relatively unimportant writer in a relatively unimportant book, serve as the sole basis of the historiography of liberalism. Whereas I have provided 14+ sources, from the most eminent academic presses, including some of the most highly regarded contemporary liberal thinkers (and articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals), for a much broader and deeper history on the origins of liberalism. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everything in Wikipedia should be supported by a reliable source. But not everything in a reliable source belongs in Wikipedia. There are also questions of relevance and importance, as well as just plain good prose and well-structured paragraphs.

It will help the discussion move forward if you identify which person you are addressing and if you also assume good will. Since I have never read Gray, my edits, which you keep reverting, are clearly not based on Gray. Also, my only motivation is to see a good Wikipedia article. In dealing with liberalism before Locke, I think the Glorious Revolution is a bad example, because it was essentially anti-Roman Catholic, and therefore not liberal. I also think the English Civil War is a bad example because, while it overthrew the monarchy, it replaced it with Puritanism, and Puritanism is not usually considered liberal. Therefore, even though liberal ideas were expressed at the time, I would prefer other examples. I suggested Marcus Aurelius and John Milton. Other editors objected to those examples. Let's try to find examples supported by most standard sources. As I said before, I agree with most of the sources you cited. I just don't think your current version is a balanced summary of what those sources say. I'm willing to work with you if you will refrain from accusing me of ideological bias. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What you've written there warms my heart Rick! :-) LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You are defining liberalism too narrowly. The English Revolutions brought about the supremacy of parliament, guaranteed rights of the individual, including protection of private property and freedom of religion, even the right to bear arms. Puritans were archetypal liberals. In New England they established government through a social contract, and held that laws represented the will of the people, not the monarch, allowed individuals to own property, and recognized equality before the law. Some aspects of early liberalism offend modern liberals, including religious extremism, slavery and genocide of aboriginal people, and some people attempt to identify them with medieval concepts such as the established church and vassalage. However the Puritans defended all these aspects in strictly liberal rather than conservative terms. Of course they had to, because the logic of conservatism was that Indians and slaves would be subjects of the Crown, land would be held at the leisure of the Crown and their own religion would be considered heretical. In any case, that is how it is normally described. Confusion occurs however with the American usage of the terms conservative and liberal to refer to older and newer forms of liberalism. TFD (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Puritans were archetypal liberals." Where do you get this stuff, seriously? Cromwell established a theocratic dictatorial state, with his son as heir. The Whig interpretation of history famously cites him as a forebear, but that is an utterly narrow and parochial interpretation of history and liberalism, utterly rejected by contemporary scholars. I think you're problem is you're confusing what you read as a boy perhaps in school, with solid scholarly history. The two are very often not the same.

I think what you mean to say here, is that the main (only?) aspect of liberalism that is important is the the strengthening of the role of parliament. That's obviously not true, but even if it were, then the obvious consequence would be that the Ekklesia of ancient Athens was the beginning of liberalism (followed by the Roman Republic). Certainly not Cromwell and the puritans for god's sake! LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you found my comments heart-warming, LiamFitzGilbert. I agree that Puritanism was anti-liberal. I wish you had stopped there, and not gone on to insult TFD personally. The more we focus on what people say, and avoid speculating on their motives, the more progress we can make. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

John Milton and Andrew Marvell both wrote what could be seen as defences of liberalism. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the US, Switzerland is the most libertarian country in Europe, while the Netherlands is the most culturally liberal. Sources describe Puritanism as an early form of liberalism. Puritans became Whigs became Liberals. Royalists became Tories became Conservatives. Individualism, private property, republicanism, anti-church, equality, meritocricy - all liberal values. (Liam - Austrians agree.) TFD (talk)

Amazing. I mean, that's some cool theories you have there bro. But this talk page is about the article (liberalism), and specifically it's history - not on your own personal theories as to the connection between puritanism (*giggle*) and liberalism.

But I think just to help you on your way with your own theorizing.... in Switzerland and the Netherlands, the Catholic church is the largest religious denomination. And I'm guessing you're not American, as most Americans know that Massachusetts is famous for being a Catholic state. (but neither is it the most liberal, you would have to drive a little ways north to Maine and New Hampshire... but then you're getting into partly French Catholic territory, and I suppose you don't like them much either! ;-)) The closest thing "puritans" have to a state church or dominant church, is the CoS in Scotland. So I'd stick with Alba if I was trying to go down that route. Here to help. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your prose is very interesting, but the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. BTW both Swizerland and the Netherlands are predominantly Calvinist. BTW it is offensive to question my nationality. Your username does not sound very American, but I have not questioned it. TFD (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You really are quite a confusing chap. Offensive to question your nationality? So you're saying you are American? Or that I shouldn't think about your nationality? My username doesn't sound very American? Who said I was American? And then your first sentence.... that's exactly what I said! You may have your own personal theories about puritanism, but they're not relevant to the article. Following that statement, I was just trying to help you out: check your stats again, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest denomination in the Netherlands and Switzerland, sorry to burst your bubble. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic church is not predominant in either country. Liberalism in both countries developed because of protestantism, catholicism is antagonistic towards liberalism. You said, "I'm guessing you're not American". It is offensive to question one's nationality. TFD (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, very illuminating. Thanks for revealing exactly why you don't want any mention of the School of Salamanca in the article on liberalism. Those darn Papists, what are they like! LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Religious prejudice is just as offensive as nationalist prejudice. However we need to reflect what sources say. Liberalism did not develop out of medieval Catholic theology. TFD (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Never said it did. I only said what the sources said - that Salamanca was a precedent. One of many precedents going all the way back to Aristotle. But you seem to want to ignore what the 14 scholars I have quoted say, and stick to your one book by a minor figure. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

TFD: LiamFitzGilbert is being deliberately rude to you. I won't speculate on his motives, but it is best to ignore people who use rudeness in place of rational and informed discussion. LiamFitzGilbert: The World Almanac 2012: Switzerland: 42% Roman Catholic, a plurality but not a predominant majority. Netherlands: No religion: 42%, Roman Catholic: 30%. In both countries, Roman Catholicism is the largest religion, but not predominant. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I said. The RC Church is the largest religious denomination in both countries. TFD countered that both countries were "predominantly Calvinist". He was wrong. I was right. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In all three states the dominant religion was calvinism and it was associated with the introduction of liberalism. Liberalism lead to secularism, leading to the decline of calvinism. In Massachusetts, late 19th century immigration changed the religious composition. But Catholic immigrants became liberal, they did not usually bring it with them. TFD (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh right, because all those Irish Republicans that arrived in the 1800s, they were all right-wing authoritarians weren't they? :-D Again, this is not a forum for your own (bizarre) politico-religious ruminations. Please keep on topic. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice the adverb "usually". TFD (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

History

All the sources provided have indicated that liberalism developed during the 17th century, with the two English revolutions. While liberalism is in the Western rational tradition, the selection of certain precursors is POV. The ideas of inalienable rights and equality before the law for example did not exist. While the School of Salamanca anticipated the marginal revolution of 1871, it had no influence on early liberal thought. No explanation btw has been provided as to how Aristotle and Thomas advocated liberal ideas. TFD (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My own example of Marcus Aureleus was challenged because, even though what he said sounded liberal, I didn't have a source that said it was liberal. We need similar sources for Aristotle. I've read a fair amount of Aristotle, and nothing in his writing struck me as particularly liberal, so I would appreciate a source. As for Thomas, note that the reference is now changed from Thomas himself, who was about as illiberal as they come, to later Thomists. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is always possible to find some text somewhere that makes such claims. But I do not think that most writers would accept it. Here is a link to Michael Novak's webpage where you can find out why he believes what he does. America's founding father's were deeply religious men, influenced by Aquinas, not the Enlightenment. Guido De Ruggiero's introduction to the History of European Liberalism has a lengthy explanation of the difference between liberalism and pre-liberal ideology. Pre-liberal rights were not seen as inalienable or natural and individuals were only equal within their own class. TFD (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. A webpage is not a reliable academic source. I wonder if Michael Novak has ever read Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or Tom Payne. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

LiamFitzGilbert: You keep claiming you have cited a large number of reliable sources for, for example, Aristotle being a major influence on liberal thought. The only source you have cited that mentions Aristotle is a dissertation by Jeffrey L. Irvin, Jr. Unless the material in a dissertation is later published in a refereed journal, a dissertation is not considered a major source of reliable information. Mr. Irvin's only other publication, as best I can tell, is the self-published "This Is the End: The Coming Apocalypse, the Culture of Fear, and the Fate of American Society". This does not inspire confidence. You have cited a lot of sources, but most are either published by the von Mises Institute or are, like Irvin, marginal. The views of the von Mises Institute are not mainstream views, and should not be given undue weight. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

READ: J. Budziszewski, The nearest coast of darkness: a vindication of the politics of virtues, Cornell University Press, 1988. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The main scholarship agrees that liberalism began with the English revolutions of the 17th century. LiamFitzgilbert has been able to show that a small minority of writers, all associated with either the Austrian School or American paleoconservatism, believe it to be older. However per weight, it does not belong in a brief section of this article. TFD (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, while I left it in, I do not see that the "relgious wars gripping Europe during the 16th and 17 centuries" should be left in. I assume that they are referring to the Protestant Reformation, the French Wars of Religion and the English Revolutions. While protestantism, or at least anti-clericalism, were components of liberalism, I do not see that mainstream sources trace it back that far. TFD (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

LiamFitzGilbert's edit

LiamFitzGilbert: No, you cannot cite a college dissertation as a reliable source and then demand that every editor either read the entire dissertation or else accept it as a reliable source. There is no idea so bizarre but that somebody has written their dissertation on it. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants ideas included: you must cite a reliable academic source (not a dissertation) and, if challenged, provide a quote from that source supporting the idea you want included.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

College dissertation? Why don't you actually read the sources first, then pass judgmentItalic text. Is that such a novel request? You're challenging sources without even reading them. I'm sorry, but the burden is therefore on YOU, to explain why these eminent, mainstream sources are somehow unreliable or fringe. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Irvin's college dissertation is rs, but not of much use. We need to show that it supports the text, otherwise it is or, and that it is a mainstream view. The logical fallacy here is affirming the consequent. Natural law was recognized in the ancient world, therefore the ancient world was liberal. TFD (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, LiamFitzGilbert, it is a novel request to expect people to read entire books. Consider: suppose I said, "You're wrong; here's a reading list." That would obviously be inappropriate. Also your comment "College dissertation?" puzzles me. Are you saying the cited work by Irvin is not a college dissertation?

In your recent revert, you bring up "The nearest coast of darkness". It was published by Cornell University Press, so I am willing to accept that it is a reliable source. But it is 24 years old and out of print. Please quote the passages that support the idea that early liberalism is based on Aristotle. I have no objection to the idea if there is a reliable source. But also note that Wikipedia stresses the use of the preponderance of evidence. Do most major writers on the subject trace Liberalism to Aristotle. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your approach here is "I havene't heard of X, therefore I will delete X, without checking the sources for X". Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

Thank heavens I just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources which states: "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. In fact, many great sources are only available offline. Don't let that fact scare you away from using them as a source in Wikipedia."

Now, even if I was in my home country right now, or in a location in the world where I could access a public library that would contain the books I need, I would hardly go to all that effort just to please someone I know only as "Rick Norwood".

The Salamanca and Thomist inclusions are markedly more "controversial" than the mention of Aristotle. There has been literally millions of words written concerning Aristotle's ethics (both Virtue and Natural Rights) being a precursor to modern citizenship, liberalism, constitutionalism, and of course human rights. If you don't like the source I have cited because you can't find it online, then you can simply choose any of the dozens that you can find on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=LT1V8Xgz1EUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=aristotle+natural+rights+liberalism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6LOJUPaRDqS-0AGHl4HgBA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=liberalism&f=false LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The correct approach for deciding what to include is to identify sources about liberalism and see what they say, not to decide what to say, then find sources. However, a quick glance of the first four sources does not support your views they explain how different liberalism is from Aristotle's philosophy. TFD (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing you've just written there is relevant to the dispute me and Rick are having, or to any justification you might have for repeatedly removing well-sourced information. Please stay on topic. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

LiamFitzGilbert: Please show me where I rejected a source because I had not heard of it before. Please show me were I have ever rejected a source because it was on-line. Failing that, please stop tell me what I say. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

For those who missed it: Request for Comment

I believe an article on the history of liberalism should include the history of liberal ideas prior to the 17th century. Two other editors disagree. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed a problem with many Wikipedia articles is a lack of historical perspective, on important ideological, political and religious topics. What is too common, is a kind of reductionist "schoolbook" version of history, where, in this case for example, "liberalism" just appears out of nowhere in the pure creative mind of say, John Locke. It's kind of like having an article on Socialism saying Karl Marx "invented" socialism in the 1800s. It's highly misleading. Liberalism, like socialism, or conservatism, or idealism, or what have you, has a long history of development. And any "history of" section/article should reflect that. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I've seen this dispute at Liberalism#History. LiamFitzGilbert's reputable sources enjoy plenty of scholarly corroboration that there is more to the roots of liberalism prior to the work of John Locke. Scrubbing scholastic. Christian, and Greek thought in support of the ideals of individual liberty as if it never occurred is absurd. —Cupco 09:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This request is entirely off topic. The problem with your edit, LiamFitzGilbert, has nothing to do with whether or not liberal ideas before the 17th century should be included. The version you keep removing referenced liberal ideas before the 17th century, too. It is a question of emphasis, and of the mainstream over against writers on special topics. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back to the conversation. If the problem was merely one of emphasis, why didn't you edit what I had included, by adding such things as "according to some scholars", or "X writes that" - instead of deleting the whole paragraph and all my references wholesale? (repeatedly, and without any discussion, I might add). LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is a misleading RfC. The entire dispute has been about a single, poorly sourced edit. TFD (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC) The dispute is about the significance of the School of Salamanca. Austrians, both in scholarly sources and also popular writing, have said that Murray Rothbard claimed they were an influence on the Austrian School which was founded in 1871. The say that the error of earlier liberalism (and Marxism too) was to adopt a labor theory of value, while the School had anticipated the market theory of value in the 1500s. That seems clear that they were not an influence on early liberalism and that conclusion is clear in the few sources that mention the School, such as Gray's Liberalism (2nd ed.), p.12. This article does not mention the Austrian economists at all, and editors could spend their time better in correcting that omission. TFD (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say the edit in question is poorly sourced? —Cupco 16:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That edit is from a different article. TFD (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it not the identical dispute? If not, please provide the diff of the edit you are referring to and why you believe it is insufficiently sourced. —Cupco 17:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have re-phrased my comments above. TFD (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment TFD, From what I gather, Wikipedia is based upon what reliable sources say - you don't get to cast aside sources for your own (ideological?) reasons. All you've been able to provide to justify your wholesale removal of a massive amount of sourced content, is a book by an English writer called John N. Gray, writing in a book published by the "Open University Press", in a chapter entitled "Seventeenth Century England". Gray refers to "debates" on dating liberalism in England back to the 18th century, or Glorious Revolution, or the English Civil War (saying such-and-such has been "argued convincingly", and refers to the Levellers, etc). Nowhere does he say he is making definitive historical statements of consensus, nowhere does he dismiss the significance or even mention of the Wars of Religion, or the Physiocrats, or the Philosophes, or the School of Salamanca, or Aristotle, et al. You're demanding that your very specific interpretation of one very specific paragraph of a relatively unimportant writer in a relatively unimportant book, serve as the sole basis of the historiography of liberalism. Whereas I have provided 14+ sources, from the most eminent academic presses, including some of the most highly regarded contemporary liberal thinkers (and articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals), for a much broader and deeper history on the origins of liberalism. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reluctant to work with you, LiamFitzGilbert, instead of just deleting your unacceptable edit, because you keep saying things like "without any discussion" even though I tried originally to discuss the topic with you and you responded with insults.Rick Norwood (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Gray is one of the foremost scholars on Liberalism and the Open University Press is considered scholarly. It is appropriate to use advanced level textbooks to determine the relative weight of different views. The chapter btw does not is not called "Seventeenth Century England", but "Liberalism in the early modern period". Gray does not "refer[] to "debates" on dating liberalism in England. The debates to which he refers were "the debates during the English Civil War" and he is talking about liberalism as a whole not just in England. And while liberalism did not develop in an intellectual vacuum, it had influences and precursors, it makes no sense to refer to people as liberals before the ideology developed. TFD (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Gray is one of the foremost scholars on Liberalism" - No, he isn't. People aren't taught "Gray" at university. They are however, taught Hayek, Rothbard, and Polanyi at higher levels.

Ok, the subsection of the chapter is entitled "Seventeenth Century England".

"it makes no sense to refer to people as liberals before the ideology developed." - Then we'll have to cut out all mention of John Locke or Montesquieu then. As liberalism wasn't developed as an ideology until the 19th century. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to people who are still alive and writing today. Gray's Hayek on Liberty is used as a textbook in courses about Hayek, and his writings on Hayek are recommended by numerous libertarian thinktanks. TFD (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for confirming my argument. Hayek is an authority, Gray isn't. And yet you want to cite Gray as someone's whose writings trump Hayek (to give just one example). Your position makes no sense at all. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a strange comment. Rothbard was an admirer of Gray and had him review his manuscript for The Ethics of Liberty before its publication in 1982, and includes Gray's writing on Hayek in the bibliography. Besides you have presented nothing from Hayek except a letter he sent to Rothbard agreeing that the School of Salamanca had been an influence on the Austrian School, which was founded in 1871. Yet this article does not even mention the Austrian School, which is a major omission. TFD (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Since those of us who disagree with you read this and commented on it, copying it here is a form of shouting. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I may be shouting, but I am still right. You, Cupco, and myself agreed to include pre-17th century precedents, only TFD didn't. That's 3-1. And yet he continues to revert relentlessly. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

LiamFitzGilbert: Shouting "I'm right!" is still rude. You and I and TFD all agree that there are pre-17th century precursers of Liberalism. What we disagree about is who they were. Instead of shouting, all you need to do is provide evidence for your views. I've explained, patiently, I think, why the evidence you have offered so far is not sufficient. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In chapter 1 of his Liberalism (pp. 3-9)[12], Gray outlines how various writers have seen pre-modern writers as anticipating liberalism, although they do not agree on this. For example Benjamin Constant pointed out that while some of the same words were used, their meanings were different. While we could mention this in the article, the claim that some ancients advocated liberal views is POV. User:Cupco btw is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor and his views therefore are irrelevant. TFD (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Referenced ideas.

The book cited by LaimFitzGilbert only uses the word "liberalism" twice. Neither of those uses support the inclusion of Aristotle as a major influence on Liberalism. Of course, Leo Strauss wrote a great deal about Aristotle. Maybe in another book he credited Aristotle as a major influence on liberalism. But we have not seen such a citation, yet. This endless revert war could easily be ended if editors avoided personalities and provided citations. I'm going to edit, but not revert, LiamFitzGilbert's most recent edit, in hopes of resolving this issue. I have also corrected two typographical errors in the quotation used in the citation. Now please, let's move forward, instead of reverting to the version with the typos. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What book are you talking about? Several of the sources I have cited in the article and on this Talk page, mention Aristotle and the Stoics. You keep doing the same thing over and over again: namely, deleting information claiming it's not sourced, before even bothering to check if it's in the sources provided! "This endless revert war could easily be ended if editors avoided personalities and provided citations." I have given sixteen citations, that more than cover the off-hand references to the figures included in the article. Rick you have to read the sources before deciding what is or isn't in them. I can't believe how many times I've had to repeated myself here. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wnen one clicks the link you provided above for "aristotle+natural+rights+liberalism" it actually leads to a 1950 book by the neoconserative writer Leo Strauss, not a list of books.[13] Strauss claimed that liberals rejected natural rights, and believed in relativism. Indeed the books one finds mention Aristotle and liberalism, but do not make your connection. Ironically the second hit is Gray's book, which we discussed earlier. TFD (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

LiamFitzGilbert: You are apparently willing to keep repeating that you have sixteen books that agree with your view, but you don't provide any quotes from any books that cite Aristotle as a major influence on Liberalism, and even if there are such books, most books on Liberalism don't mention Aristotle. The books that I have checked do not say what you claim they say. It is unreasonable for you to demand that I read sixteen books from cover to cover to make sure that none of them say what you claim. You must provide quotes to be taken seriously. I gather that you are away from your library. I sympathise. But listing minor books in support of major claims and listing as supporting references books that do not support your claims have not increased your credibility.

Somebody coming on this article without knowing what the discussion is about might be surprised to hear that the entire controversy, which has gone on for too long, has to do with just three points: 1) Is Aristotle a major influence on Liberalism? 2) Are the followers of Thomas Aquinas a major or minor influence on Liberalism? 3) Is the School of Salamanca a major or minor influence on Liberalism? You have yet to provide any evidence for 1. The evidence you provide for 2 and 3 has led me to include it in the article, but not in the lead. Your insistance that you are entirely in the right and that anyone who disagrees with you is entirely in the wrong, and your clearly false statements about what I personally have said, make it very difficult to work with you. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Classical and Social Liberalism both need to be explained. They are philosophically (not geographically) disparate.

I'm a little disturbed that some editors seem to think they own the page. Obviously this is a significant political page so there may be a lot of contention but I think the way some editors have deleted multiple contributions has severely impacted the validity of the page. I looked up earlier discussions and it seems like the same editors (particularly The Four Deuces) have obfuscated huge issues.

The most simple way to solve this problem is to clarify and briefly explain the difference between classical and social liberalism. Even given editors obvious political clash their existence(!!!) shouldn't be contentious given that both ideologies have their respective Wikipedia pages. (I'm baffled how editors were routinely able to just delete my paragraph that points out something so integral). If we're concerned with the truth and giving Wikipedia validity this shouldn't have been such a large problem.

I've been looking at the history of this discussion. It looks like the editors attempting to add classical liberal material had to react to overzealous moderators. They tried obfuscating the issue by attempting to distinguish between European and American liberalism. The suggestion is that in America "liberal" refers to social liberalism while in Europe it refers to classical liberalism. This is an invalid distinction. In some European countries such as France liberalism means classical liberalism. Period. In England however we are slightly more aware of the American usage but we also have classical liberal think tanks such as the Cobden centre which advertises themselves as liberal. (Even though he has a think tank named after him, I think if I had tried to add material as advanced as Richard Cobden it obviously would have been censured). Not only that, we also have a history of classical liberalism in England called "Manchesterism" which some of us learn in schools simply as liberalism, however in Scotland liberalism is mostly taken to mean social liberalism, so there's clearly a distinction. Even if this page only applied to Europe the distinction between classical and social liberalism would still need to be made. But this distinction also suggests that the meaning of liberalism is ubiquitous in America. It isn't. In America liberal is used as common parlance for social liberalism, but you also currently have a huge movement that includes radical classical liberal doctrinaires (some of them anarcho-capitalist) that calls itself openly The Liberty Movement. In addition to this you also have multiple schools of economics that support classical liberal policies. From the Chicago School is notably Milton Friedman who many Americans may consider conservative but in an interview with Charlie Rose he denounced the term and called himself a liberal. Even more radically America is home to more Austrian economists than any other country in the world, all of them part of a continuing classical liberal tradition. This school of economics is called Austrian because the first four generations were born in Austria but during the political and ideological crisis of the Second World War the remainder fled to America. The most notable of these is Ludwig von Mises who wrote Liberalism a book burned in Austria by the National Socialists. (All this information has a place in the article and is crucial to distinguish between classical and social liberalism btw). This issue is also made more complex by the fact that English and American (but not continental) advocates of Keynesian policy also call themselves liberal. Paul Krugman being a notable example.

Quite frankly I think the clear prejudice of editors like The Four Deuces to dominate this page with the common American usage may be well meaning but it is completely invalid and is in effect nationalistic. The distinction between classical and social liberalism needs to be made right from the first line. Previous to the crisis of the first and second world war liberalism and it's history internationally referred to classical liberalism. Period. Now in America and some other countries it's unquestionable that being Liberal refers to social liberalism and is associated with the left wing progressivism. It is an egalitarian movement. Hence the very first line should read: "liberalism is a political philosophy classically concerned with liberty and progressively concerned with equality."

Now, I've included a very short paragraph which explains this distinction. I'm not going to bother changing the definition because I think it would cause too much grief, but my addition is fully cited with references to eminent historians and the most important economists of the 19th and 20th centuries. If people are concerned with the validity of this page I can also make other contributions as there is actually a reason for the confusion stemming from the philosophical history. Important figures such as James and John Stewart Stuart Mill (who I don't think are even mentioned in the article!) and many of the members of the British classical school for example could actually be described as social liberals. There is a complex historical relationship between classical and social liberalism that includes figures such as Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, David Ricardo, Carl Menger, Karl Marx, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Alfred Marshall, Joseph Schumpeter, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek and Murray N. Rothbard. I fully recognise the right of everyone to contribute but I am a scholar on this exact subject and I would appreciate it if editors talked with me before simply deleting large contributions that I took the time to add. As it stands I think there is a clear and unqualified bias by editors only familiar with social liberalism and its really damaging the validly of the page. Social liberalism after all has only existed as liberalism in the last hundred years or so, so naturally this article is very confused. The whole history of liberalism up into the mid 19th century is a history primarily of classical liberalism, and if this article is valid it should reflect that. At the very least it should point out the proper reason for the distinction. For the past week editors have been deleting my references to the separate established Wikipedia pages. I don't see how this could be done unless the editors are deliberately trying to damage the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Jake Rothbardanswer (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you summarize this very briefly for me? --MeUser42 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I neglected to sign my above subject "Classical and Social Liberalism both need to be explained. They are philosophically (not geographically) disparate". Always happy to chew out any problems. :) Jake. Rothbardanswer (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

First, the lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". It should not provide a lengthy discussion which is better placed in the body of the article, merely mention it.

Also, the suggested text is an over-simplification. The Austrian School is more accurately called "neo-classical liberal", because they rejected the classical liberal orthodoxy of the time. Note that Rothbard was dismissive of Adam Smith. And very few liberals are Austrians.

The description of American liberalism as social liberalism an overstatement. While it has accepted more social liberal policies than have conservatives, it rejected the views of John Dewey, America's most famous social liberal.

The neoliberalism of Milton Friedman and the New Right also is not a return to classical liberalism, merely a rollback of some social liberal programs. The welfare state has not been abolished, merely scaled back.

There are other distinctions between different types of liberalism, particularly between the liberalism of business elites and professionals.

Your reference for the first sentence (Mises) does not support the text. Mises was merely saying that liberalism meant something different in 20th century America and the UK than it did in the 19th century. I question also why you are using highly polemical sources rather than textbooks and academic papers. The source says, "In England the term "liberal" is mostly used to signify a program that only in detail differs from the totalitarianism of the socialists." That does not appear to be generally accepted, and is against neutrality.

TFD (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Note too it is correct that "classical liberalism became less popular and gave way to social democracy and social liberalism". The Liberal Party of the UK for example was replaced by the Labour Party as one of the two dominant parties. Similarly liberal parties throughout Western Europe were reduced to minor party status, as social democrats became major parties. TFD (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. I wrote it, and i can't be blamed for such a bias... --MeUser42 (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Friedman is philosophically squarely in the classical liberal tradition, and his support of a negative income tax ext. does not exclude him. Not all classical liberal thinkers where minarchists. Friedman also saw himself as a classical liberal (preferring the term to libertarian). The only place where he distinctly differs is his embrace of neo-classical economic methodology, but this is not related to his political philosophy IMO. The term "neo-liberalism" is not clearly defined in academic literature, btw, and should be avoided where it is possible.--MeUser42 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

All the terms to use the varieties of liberalism are unfortunately ambiguous. However it is very clear that Friedman's beliefs are distinct from the early 19th century orthodoxy. He does not speak for example about utilitarianism, Malthus, Ricardo's iron law of wages, etc. Basically he rejected the social liberal reformulation of classical liberalism but did not return to classical liberalism as understood in 1848. Hence nothing about workhouses, opposition to universal suffrage, or the belief that capitalism leads to subsistence wages. Indeed the term "neoliberal" only came into fashion in the 1990s, but the belief that the classical orthodoxy was outdated goes back to 1848, and the ideas of Mill, in his 1848 Principles of Political Economy, Menger in his 1871 Principles of Economics and the Mont Pelerin Society's meetings from the 1930s are all attempts to reformulate classical liberalism and are often called neoclassical liberalism. Even if you prefer that it is called classical liberalism, you must accept that it is a different topic and therefore is a different article. TFD (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of what you said about Friedman is wrong, and some of what you said about what characterizes 19th century liberals is not indicative nor common (at all). But this is not a forum, and not really relevant currently, so I'll spare myself fetching all the references, writing all the messages ext, if that's ok :-). --MeUser42 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is very easy to say "you are wrong", but if you wish to change the article, you need to provide sources. If you believe that Friedman intended to set up workhouses, etc., then find the sources and we can put it in. TFD (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

TFD, are we arguing over a change? please re-read my comment. --MeUser42 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion thread was set up to discuss Rothbardanswer's proposed edit here. My writing was in reponse to his explanation for his edit which you considered to be too long to read. I have re-read your comments and do not understand their relevance to this discussion. What specifically do you think we should say about Friedman? TFD (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to use the classical definition of Liberal: Someone who wishes to extend freedom to the most number of people. Hopefully that will stand the test of time, whereas politicians will misuse term.--MeUser42 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.168.25 (talk)