Talk:Liberalism in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Liberalism in the United States: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
Priority 2  


Contents

[edit] Page move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move of the article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Move.

Someone put a {{moveto}} template on the article to move the article to Liberalism in the United States. What are some thoughts on this? It seems like a good idea to me (support). I'm not sure what the editor's reasoning was, but I know that many people from the Americas outside the US consider "America" to encompass both continents, not just the US, so it might make more sense to have the article named Liberalism in the United States, as the article deals exclusively with liberalism in the States. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. It would fit the format of other liberalism articles (e.i. Liberalism in the United Kingdom). Wigren 16:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This article gets moved all over the place, spun off, split, rejoined, removed, restored. If it is moved to Liberalism in the United States, you can be reasonably sure it will be moved back to American Liberalism within a month. Enough already! Rick Norwood 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I say move it, but please take to WP:RM, so we don't have to go through all this again. -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Posted there. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The question, of course, is the name of the second largest country on the North American continent. Technically, the article should be titled Liberalism in the United States of America. America could be misread as "the Americas" (but never is). The United States could be misread as "The United States of Mexico" (but never is). In fact, "America" has come to mean "The United States of America" just as "the United Kingdom" has come to mean "England, Scotland, etc." dispite the fact that there are many other united kingdoms in the world. Similarly, Paris is understood to mean Paris, France and not Paris, Texas.

Just to clarify, it's not "The United States of Mexico," it's "The United Mexican States." Quite different. Additionally, there has not been another country with "United Kingdom" in its title since 1905, and Paris, France was the originator of all other cities which are named Paris. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind we are all from the States, so of course we wouldn't confuse "America" with the continents. However, someone from outside the US may not feel the same way. Recently, I spoke with a Venezuelan woman, who took "America" to mean what we would call the "Americas." Granted, she wasn't a native speaker of English, but it still shows that not everyone automatically associates America with the US. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are enough people who really want to retitle this article, then it should be retitled "Liberalism in the United States of America" and every other article that uses "America" to mean "The United States of America" should be similarly retitled, including but not limited to "American Conservatism" and "Modern American Liberalism". Then, whoever moves all of the articles, must also change all of the links to all of these articles. I would estimate, conservatively, that we are talking about at least ten to twenty hours of hard, painstaking work. Who volunteers? Rick Norwood 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly make the changes to the other articles and change the wikilinks. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support votes

  1. Support as nominated. It makes more sense and is consistent with how many other country specific philosophies are labeled. 205.157.110.11 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support --Yath 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support as nominated. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per my comments above. -Patstuarttalk|edits 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per above and nominated --SeanMcG 00:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per comments above. Wigren 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I do not think there is any reasonable chance that literate readers of English will actually expect this title to cover the Liberalism of, say, Peru, so the support arguments do not move me; but the oppose arguments do. If this move does anything to dispell the partisan nonsense that American liberalism is not descended from Bentham and Mill, it will have paid for itself. "Freedom plus groceries" is not opposite to freedom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    You should vote what is best for Wikipedia, not to get back at some user. Rick Norwood 13:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    Where has he indicated that he is voting against because of some vendetta against another editor?
  8. Support. As Septentrionalis says. john k 02:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose votes

  1. I Oppose the move because, as i see it, the two terms don't mean the same thing. "Liberalism in the United States" implies that there is some generic 'liberalism' and we're going to talk about its presence in the U.S. "American Liberalism" implies a distinct belief system, a different type of liberalism. 2nd Piston Honda 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    I think it's pretty clear that it refers to the United States brand of liberalism. The other countries' respective articles on liberalism are titled as "Liberalism in Country X", so if only for consistancy's sake, we should do the same for this article. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    It's not clear because the two obviously have different meanings. Accuracy supercedes consistency. If you want consistency, I'd suggest changing the names of the other articles. 2nd Piston Honda 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Referring to my nomination, I already gave my reasons for which the proposed name would be more accurate. To some people from other countries in the two American continents, the adjective "American" describes a person from either of those continents, not simply a person from the USA. This view that "America means the USA and nothing else" is ignorant and USA-centric. Why is it that American is a disambiguation page which first lists "A person or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the Western Hemisphere," whereas United States is the title of the article for the USA? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as needlessly wordy, unnecessary, and less likely to be searched on, leading to needless redirects. I appreciate Cielomobile's offer to take on the hard work involved, but note that you need to get a consensus, not only here, but also in "American Conservatism", "Modern American Liberalism", and all the other articles that use "American" to mean "United Statesian". Rick Norwood 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    I will post on those talk pages also, then. There is no consensus here yet, and I don't know if there will be, but I will try to bring editors from those other pages into the discussion. Also, if there is consensus to keep the page named "American liberalism," then all the articles titled "Liberalism in Country X" (i.e. Liberalism in the United Kingdom, Liberalism and radicalism in France) should be changed to fit the model (i.e. change them to British liberalism, French liberalism and radicalism). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    In theory, at least, I agree with you -- parallel articles should have parallel titles. In Wikipedia, I'm not sure that is possible. Someone would need to have an overview of the entire encyclopedia, otherwise we are going to have title A changed to conform with title B and then somebody is going to change title B to conform with title C, leaving A out on a limb. And so on, ad infinitum. That makes this a meta-question, one for the Wikipedia gods to decide. Rick Norwood 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps, yes. I am not too concerned with the other articles, though; my reasoning for this particular move is the US-centric view that we are America; which is untrue and may be offensiive to those from the continent outside the US. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your point, but others believe that to call the United States of America "the United States" is offensive to other countries with the phrase "United States" in their name. As a practical matter, somebody is going to be offended no matter what. In fact, just about everybody -- friends, enemies, and neutrals alike -- calls the country "America", probably because it is easy to turn into an adjective, "American", while "the United States" is hard to turn into an adjective. To attempt to prevent this by now almost universal usage is Quixotic. Rick Norwood 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    I've never heard of anyone being upset or confused because of someone calling the USA simply the US. There hasn't been a country other than the USA titled the "United States of X" since 1968, when Brazil changed its offical name from the "Republic of the United States of Brazil" to its current form. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"USA" is British usage (instead of "US"). It is therefore also common among people who speak English as a second language. Perhaps they want to avoid confusion with USB. :-) Kauffner 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Also, there is the problem that United States does not have any handy adjective form. But mainly, it is a lot of work and I'm afraid it will be done badly. Maybe we should just rename the country. Rick Norwood 13:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    This translates to "United Mexican States," not "United States of Mexico." Hurray for placement of adjectives in other languages. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. oppose It's well known that because of historical reasons, liberalism in Europe (and elsewhere) is akin to conservatism in America. The change will mean this article will have to be about supporters of Hoover and Goldwater, not Roosevelt and LBJ. Now that would be true confusion. Rjensen 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think you quite understand what I'm proposing. I'm proposing to move this article (American liberalism) to Liberalism in the United States, seeing as "United States" refers specifically to the USA, whereas "American" can refer more generally to the Americas as a whole. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    "Liberalism in the United States" is a poor title because it indicates it's related to European/Aisan/etc liberalism, but it's just the opposite. The word "American" solves the problem and leads to no confusion whatever. No reader will think it means "Liberalism in Mexico" (which by the way resembles conservatism in the USA). Rjensen 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    How does it indicate thet it's related to European/Asian/etc. liberalism? The use of the form "A in B" is no different from the form "adjective decribing B A." Neither is any clearer in that sense. The issue at hand is not so much one of clarity, as the first sentence in the article specifically states that it deals with liberalism in the US, but rather one of political correctness. It is politically incorrect to consider "America" to encompass the USA only and not both North America and South America. Ask anyone from Latin America. Would you call the article Black people "Negro people" instead? No, because it is not politically correct. The two are equally clear, but one is less offensive. It is the same situation with this article. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ask anyone from Latin America and they will tell you that this article is not about Liberalism at all. Let's not invent imaginary experts who don't exist. Rjensen 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Even more reason to specify in the article title that it is about liberalism in the US. I really don't understand why you oppose this move. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I oppose the move because 1) it is motivate by POV motivated attack on "American" (which is perfectly well understood--despite mystery Latin Americans who protest somewhere but not here.) 2) the change is seriously misleading because it suggests US liberalism is part of world liberalism. Suggestion: instead of "liberalism" try "football" and see what happens. Rjensen 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
US liberalism is a part of world liberalism. The policies which it encompasses may be more akin to conservatism in many other countries, but what we mean by liberalism is really "left-wing political ideology." I think we can all agree that "Left-wing political ideology in the United States" would be a bit awkward, though. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There is an article on Left-wing politics. The big difference between "liberal" and "left-wing" is that, in the US at least, liberals usually support private ownership of property, while left-wingers in general do not. Also, left-wing usually suggests more government control, nationalization of industries, etc., while liberals usually favor more personal freedom, with just enough government control to protect the environment and the rights of minorities. Rick Norwood 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Left-wing just means left-of-center; it derives from French parliament, when the liberals sat to the left of the president, and conservatives sat to the right. You are correct, though, that liberals generally support private ownership of property, but it is not necessarily true that left-wingers do not. "Left-wing" is a pretty broad term and includes everything from slightly left-of-center ideology (like the Third Way) to the most extreme end of the spectrum (like Communism). But I digress; I do not want to move the article to left-wing politics or anything. The move has nothing to do with any of this. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finalizing decision

It has been over a week since I posted this at WP:RM, and according to the rules there, a decision should be made in five days. Since there are seven supports but only three opposes, and I feel that I have adequately defended my position, I am going to move the article and the associated articles of Modern American liberalism and American conservatism. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A seven to three vote is hardly a consensus. Move the article if you must, but expect that to provoke an edit war that will keep idle hands busy for months and leave things in worse shape than they were before. Break a leg. Rick Norwood 18:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles like Kiss (band) were moved with much less of a consensus; a 70% consensus is pretty good. But it seems I need an administrator to complete this action, seeing as there is already a redirect page at Liberalism in the United States. Maybe I can be a little creative. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've completed the move, but I didn't do it conventionally, so please let me know if I botched any part of it. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've patched up the history, so all of the contributions are in the same place, which as I type this, is Liberalism in the United States. If the article needs to move again from this title, please follow the procedure as indicated at WP:RM. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] This page is a giant mess

This page confuses "liberalism" in the "world" sense -- that is "classical liberalism" and the belief in limited government and individual rights -- with "American Liberalism" as in "Michael Dukakis was a liberal senator," which is more aptly considered a light version of socialism, itself an illiberal ideology.

this wouldn't itself be a problem, however the distinguishing comments at the top of the page say that this article is about the history of classical liberal thought in the united states, as opposed to "modern liberalism" (ie, the Dukakis kind). As such all the business about "the liberal consensus" and the elector maps showing the red state/blue state divide are irrelevant, given that both the Republican and Democratic parties claim the mantle of liberalism in the classical sense. 66.57.229.78 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classical liberalism

User:Rjensen has decided that the United States was not founded on principles on classical liberalism. This has been brought up before (see Talk:American_liberalism#POV_tag), but the editor who thought as Rjensen did seemed to drop it.

No one is arguing that the US was founded on modern liberal principles (i.e. aiding the poor through welfare, environmentalism, etc.), but it most certainly was founded on classical liberal principles, such as laissez-faire economic theory, natural rights, civil liberties, etc.. Conservatives hate to use the word "liberal," but this is not liberal in the sense that we use the word today. In fact, it resembles today's conservative ideology just as much as it resembles today's liberal ideology. The Federalist Papers support this quite well, and they are cited in the article. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myths about "American"

There seems to be notions afloat that "American" is a bad term because 1) some people will think it refers to places like Mexico, Chile, Canada, or 2) that scholars from other countries love the term "American" and want to apply it to their countries, not just USA or 3) some people dislike America and the term "American" and don't want Americans to use it. I think #3 is the POV problem we have here. Rjensen 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't personally attack me by accusing me of disliking America. Argue about the issues, not the people. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This is only really a problem for non-English speakers. It is understood in all English speaking countries that Americans are people from the USA. When people are talking about the continent as a whole it is referred to as "The Americas" not "America".--Jayson Virissimo 01:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Issues

There was a clear consensus (70%) reached during the discussion that the article would be moved. The new name of the article is definnitely not a valid reason to tag it with POV; the POV template is not a proper way to dispute the move. However, I'm not going to violate the 3RR, so I'll let another editor remove the tag. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem as was repoeatedly pointed out is that the article has a different meaning with its new title. That has to be incorporated first--and the whole article rewritten to reflect the role in USA versus other countries. Rjensen 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, you are making the article much worse than it previously was, and you have now violated the WP:3RR. The article does not have a different meaning with the new title, and you're the only person who thinks that. Rick seemed to oppose the move for entirely different reasons. You're editing the article as if it was Modern American liberalism, please take your POV nonsense there. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I have just now figured out what Rjensen has been trying to tell us. "Liberalism in the United States" refers to the role of ordinary "liberalism" in a particular place, while "American Liberalism" refers to a specific brand of liberalism. The article has the former title but is about the latter. Oh, I see you've moved Modern American liberalism to Modern liberalism in the United States. We have a mess on our hands now. --Yath 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is precisely the argument which should be discussed in this article. Both positions have been held; one is defensible only by a narrow view of non-U.S. liberalism (for example, many South American Liberales have been anti-clerical, rather than motivated by a particular economic view). Neither should be in the article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The article should discuss the development of liberalism, as it is known throughout the world, in the United States, how it is both similar to and different from other forms of liberalism in the world. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The changes you've now made to the article, Rjensen, are unnacceptable POV nonsense. However, I do not want to violate the 3RR, so I'll either wait until I have not made three reverts in the past 24 hours or until another user reverts your changes. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what i was telling you guys. The two terms don't mean the same thing, and if you change the content of this article to match the title, then there will no longer be an article about the former subject and it'll need to be made (and with what title? lol). "Modern liberalism in the United States"? What a mess indeed. 2nd Piston Honda 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

The following passages, one, I gather, from each side, sum up what is wrong with this article.

"Liberalism" outside the United States is comparable to Libertarianism in the U.S. American liberalism has an entirely different history and tradition from the European and Latin American "ism" of the same name

Unsourced partisan blather; go tell it to the Liberal Party (Canada) or indeed to the British Liberal Democrats.

The United States was founded on classical liberal republican principles. <:ref> Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Clinton Rossiter, Charles R. Kesler, The Federalist Papers, Signet Classics, 2003, ISBN 0-451-52881-6 <:/ref>

A private, and unsourced, interpretation of a primary source. Even as a view, it should be represented as one view among many, and not in Wikipedia's voice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the Federalist Papers are not the best source. I'll try to find a better one and phrase it to not be an absolute. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Even continental liberalism isn't really very much like Libertarianism. The latter is a lot more dogmatic and extreme than the latter. john k 02:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note to Rjensen

I understand the points you are trying to make, but the article really has not changed just because a different shorter version of The United States of America is used in the title. Would the title "Liberalism in the United States of America" suit you better? Rick Norwood 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's now hidden from lots of potential users who use Google and other search engines. Rjensen 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The redirect page still comes up as the top result on google. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel to "American Conservatism" page

In looking over these two pages (American Conservatism and American Liberalism), I am struck by the "Criticism" section on the ...Conservatism page and the lack thereof on the ...Liberalism page. In my opinion to present a true NPOV for both of these, each should have, or each should not have, that section. K012957 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A bit of Wikihistory. There were at one time "criticism" sections in many articles. These caused constant wrangling and revert wars and were troll magnets. Someone suggested that criticisms should be incorporated into articles rather than set aside in separate sections, following the Wikipedia guideline that all points of view be represented. This was done in the article then titled American Conservatism, now (last time I looked) titled Conservatism in the United States. But somebody just couldn't resist putting a criticism section back in. The current criticism section is lame, and should be deleted. Rick Norwood 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template: Lib

I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal consensus POV flag

The information in the Liberal consensus section looks correct to me, but needs references on the first three sections. Can someone provide the needed references? Rick Norwood 12:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a regular contributor to this page, but I wonder if the tag refered to the final paragraph, which is wildly inappropriate. I've removed most of it and copied it here:
"In 21st century American politics, there is considerable confusion over the meaning of the term "liberal". Beginning in the early 1990s, Republicans have made a concerted effort to change the meaning of the term through the process of framing. [1] Instead of arguing against liberal beliefs, framing changes the meaning of the word in the public consciousness, so that a belief in equal rights for all Americans is framed as "special rights for homosexuals", a belief in the rights of those accused of crimes is framed as "soft on crime", and a belief in freedom of religion is framed as "hatred of Christians". [2] This has been successful to such an extent that the term "liberal" has become stigmatized and is now generally avoided by those running for office; "progressive" is now often used instead of "liberal". Although the two are related, they are really distinct political ideologies. [3][4]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fishal (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you find inappropriate about the paragraph. It is accurate and referenced. Rick Norwood 12:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I kept the sourced material as well as the link to the term framing. The material that I removed is, in fact, very strongly biased toward the liberal point of view. It implies that American conservatives are objectively wrong about the issues of gay rights, the rights of the accused, and church & state. Many, many people legitimately believe that liberals truly are "soft on crime," "anti-Christian," and looking to give homosexuals "special rights." It is not up to Wikipedia to say that the conservatives are wrong. While you say that the removed content is "accurate," that is only true in your point of view; it would be hard to prove or disprove it. The removed content gives only the liberal perspective and strays from a purely objective discussion of the terms, so it violates everything about WP:NPOV. Fishal 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as sources go, the sentence using the term "framing" cites a New York Times article or column. The sentence using the term "progressive" cites an essay written by an intern on a political website aimed at young activists: not quite the same level of reliable source as the NYT article, but still, a reasonably good essay talking about how the word progressive is used in political discourse today. The other source cited appears to be a blog, which I would think is not a reliable source.
The other reference which I want to remove cites an Ann Coulter book without giving any page number. It comes after the sentences which I feel are inapproprately biased. I feel that the reference to Coulter is also inappropriate, and this is why: after making the claim that conservatives inappropriately label liberal beliefs, it cites Coulter, not as an authority to back up the statement, but as an example. It says, "Conservatives are always denouncing the great things that liberals do. Just check out Ann Coulter and you'll see an example of a conservative doing just that." It uses Coulter as a primary source used to illustrate a thesis, which is original research as well as POV. Fishal 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And just so we have a clearer idea of what it is we're discussing, I've copied the verion that I wrote (since reverted):


"Beginning in the early 1990s, many American conservatives have made an effort to frame the word liberal as a perjorative term. [5] Because of the stigma often attached to the term, many American liberals prefer to describe themselves as "progressive," a term with a somewhat different history from liberal. [6][7]"



And I just had a thought. Under NPOV as well as the attribution guideline, it would be OK to present the info which I am challenging... as long as it is presented as describing the liberal POV rather than the objective truth. So it could sound something like, "Conservatives have stigmatized the term liberal by accusing liberals of opposing Christianity. Liberals, however, say that their support of religious tolerance and the separation of church and state does not mean that they oppose Christianity."
Of course, statements like that need to be sourced much better than the paragraph as it now stands. Fishal 19:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Another possibility which occurred to me is using the title of Coulter's book as a very clear example of framing the word "liberal" as meaning the same thing as "godless." That might be worth a try. Fishal 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Logical distinctions are important. Fishal wrote, "The material that I removed is, in fact, very strongly biased toward the liberal point of view. It implies that American conservatives are objectively wrong about the issues of gay rights, the rights of the accused, and church & state." No, it implies that American conservatives are objectively wrong about their assertions as to what liberals believe. The distinction is between "I believe x." and "I believe that you believe x." Since, for example, most Americans are Christian and half of all Americans are liberal, so the belief that most liberals are, in Fishal's words, "anti-Christian," is objectively wrong. Rick Norwood 18:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. Wikipedia is not the place to declare that conservatives-- a very large, diverse, and influential lot-- are objectively wrong about anything. Wikipedia can cite information that suggests the contrary, such as a sourced statement about the large, diverse, influential community of liberal Christians (such as my hero Jim Wallis, although he doesn't like to be called a liberal). But while the article may present heaps of contrary evidence, it may not come out and choose a side. Look at the Ann Coulter article for some very good examples. The article presents statistics, quotations, and viewpoints that cast doubt on much of what Coulter has said about various things. And yet, the article never comes out and says, "Coulter is wrong," or "Coulter is a berely-literate reactionist," or anything to that effect. In the true spirit of NPOV, the article presents facts and lets the readers make up their own minds. Fishal 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The Creationism article and relatied articles are also pretty good in this regard. The Creationism article presents plenty of info suggesting that the position has a flimsy basis, but it never refutes creationism outright. Fishal 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You still miss my point. I am not saying that conservatives are objectively wrong. I'm saying that you are objectively wrong, if you assert that "liberals hate Christians", because, in the US at least, most liberals are Christians. If you say "Conservatives say that liberals hate Christians", that is something else entirely. The first statement is a statement about liberals. The second statement is a statement about conservatives. If conservatives really believe that liberals hate Christians, the article should say so, with examples. Rick Norwood 00:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)-
I wish you hadn't invoked my own beliefs here, but you have definitely misinterpreted them. I'm arguing for neutrality. The article should not choose a side. However, I do think that we should be frank about our personal points of view. If you go to my user page, I've indicated that politically I identify most strongly with the Consistent Life Ethic and the Green political concept. I personally believe that it is self-evident that being a Christian should not automatically make you a conservative; however, many people disagree with me. More liberally-minded people like you and I must not use Wikipedia to reinforce our points of view. Please: don't assume that by insisting that this article give conservatism a fair voice, I am trying to push some kind of right-wing agenda. Wikipedia must present all sides of each issue without declaring a winner. Fishal 12:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe we're talking at cross purposes. Let's take a time out, and if it seems good, return to this at a later date. I'm going to be out of the country for a while in any case. Rick Norwood 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the tag so it is right next to the paragraph in question. The rest of the section does not appear to be disputed. Fishal 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal demographics

This recent addition to the article is unclear:

"[Liberals are] Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000). - Pew Research Center".

Is it saying that 34% of liberals live in the western half of the country or that 34% of the people in the Western half of the country are liberals. A note to this quote should make that explicit where it is ambiguous. Rick Norwood 13:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confusing sentence, unsupported

"Libertarianism is often said to be generally resembling, though not necessarily identical to, American classical liberalism, which advocates the laissez-faire doctrines of political and economic liberalism, equality before the law, individual freedom and self-reliance, which is in contrast but not necessarily in contradiction to social liberalism's concern with state-provided equality of opportunity."

I'm not sure what the second "which" refers to. self-reliance? American classical liberalism? Libertarianism?

The flow seems to be "Libertarianism is American classical liberalism is self-reliance is not in contradiction to state provided equal opportunity". Since "state provided equal opportunity" can extend to every facet of life, it seems these ideals are quite likely in contradiction, in fact, it is inevitable.

[edit] Some or many?

"Modern liberalism, which favors government intervention in some cases..."

or

"Modern liberalism, which favors government intervention in many cases..."

Of course, the distinction here is more one of connotation than of denotation. "Some" could mean thousands of cases; "Many could mean more than three cases. Still, "some" suggests a reluctance to turn to government for the protection of freedom, while "many" suggests a proclivity to turn to government for the protection of freedom. I think the former better expresses liberal opinion -- liberals often say that the government that governs least governs best, and they turn to the government for protection only when organized interests attempt to thwart individual freedom, as with segregation in the South before the civil rights movement. Of course, libertarians see almost any attempt by the government to interfere as bad, so from a libertarian view "some" is "many", too many.

If "many" is a better word, it should be possible to find major liberal thinkers who see government intervention as a positive good rather than a reluctant necessity where rights are denied. Rick Norwood 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Political Primer for Europeans

Needed because the article says: "Liberalism in the United States of America is a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty"

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/03/american-political-primer-for-europeans/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article. Thanks for the reference. What impressed me most is the extent to which an obviously thoughtful writer has uncritically accepted the rhetoric of the right, with, for example, his reference to "extreme man-hating feminists" and "cringe-faced Hillary". Clearly, when the writer thinks of freedom, he unconsciously thinks for freedom for men, and feels threatened by freedom for "man-hating" and "cringe-faced" women. And yet, he is an intelligent man. He writes, "Regardless of how much freedom we have lost in recent decades..." I've lived through the same decades he has, an everywhere I look there is more freedom, not less. I am free to go almost anywhere in the world, say almost anything I want, read almost anything I choose, believe or not believe in any God as seems best to me -- certainly, my freedom has increased greatly in the past few decades. The only freedom he has lost is the freedom to not hear the voices of "extreme man-hating feminists" and "cringe-faced Hillary". Rick Norwood 13:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the more politically conservative one is in the American sense, the more their views will correspond to classic liberalism. Seriously? This kind of stuff makes me want to gouge my eyes out. john k 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is better to burn your hand off with a candle than to gouge your eyes out and curse the darkness. Rick Norwood 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] quotations

A quotation is a report of what another person said or wrote. It is never acceptable to, as a recent editor did, rewrite the quotation! Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal elite

What is wrong with the material added to this article under the heading, Liberal elite? First, it is unreferenced, while the article liberal elite is heavily referenced. Second, it seems to say that the liberal elite arises from populism, instead of saying that the concept of a "liberal elite" is used by populist politicians against liberalism. Third, it selectively removes material from the "liberal elite" article from its context, changing its meaning. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just, because you don't like the Liberal elite doesn't mean, it shouldn't be included. Dwilso 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article Liberal elite is very well done. My reasons for not wanting parts of the article selectively excerpted and stuck into another article are given above. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)