Talk:Liberalism/Archive 3

message: :I've got two simple, short comments.
:Firstly, you're hopping between current and past liberalism interchangeably - try and make it clear which parts are which, as I think we can both agree "indirectly starving Ireland" is not a policy of any current UKian party! (Well, maybe the BNP...) 
:Secondly... what liberals are these? See, I am a European, I cast my vote for a liberal party to go to Brussels and represent me. I like to think that I know who I'm voting for. I... simply don't recognise them in your above comments, which read as a laundry list of assertions. I don't particularly recognise your points looking at the overall liberal groupings there. Am I just missing a lot here? I suspect there is a simpler explanation... Shimgray | talk | 13:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shimgray's reply 

message: ::To take the points one at a time, 
::1. The article mentions that liberalism is the foundation of western democracy. 
::2. Certainly, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, communists, and fascists do not consider liberalism an unqualified benefit.  
::3.  To say that liberalism favors freedom of expression is not to say that freedom of expression is good.  As you point out, many religious people believe that freedom of expression is bad.  There was a letter in my Sunday paper this morning claiming that, "Freedom of speech does not include freedom to blaspheme against God".  
::4.  The article mentions that liberalism is opposed to communism, and therefore on the right rather than the left.  It is usually opponents of liberalism who characterize liberals as lefties.  Also, much of the article was written by Europeans.  
::5.  There is a current crisis in European liberalism, and that should be dealt with extensively in the article on European liberalism.  6.  The article mentions the roots of liberalism in the Enlightenment.  
::7.  The article makes no claims that non-liberals do not enjoy all of the rights that liberalism advocates.  In fact, a great deal of the backlash against liberalism comes from the idea that liberals are 'soft' on the 'so-called' rights of 'criminals', 'terrorists', 'atheists', and other 'undesirables'.  
::8.  The requirement for a market driven economy is NOT built into the constitutions of most liberal democracies.  Almost all liberal democracies -- all that I know of -- are a mixed economy, part free market, part socialism.  
::9.  I've heard liberalism blamed for a lot of things, but never before for the potato blight!  
::10.  This viewpoint is particularly strange, since I have never heard any liberal say anything in favor of abandoning the poor, though I suppose a person on the extreme libertarian fringe of liberalism would say so.  The article discusses libertarianism, and not in exclusively positive terms.  
::11.  If, in fact, European liberal parties are in favor of continuing to turn the Mediterranean sea into Europe's toilet bowl, then this should be discussed in the European liberalism article. Rick Norwood 15:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwood's take 

message: ::I wouldn't say that the liberal democracies are a mixed ecomomy, part free market, part socialism, but replace socialism by social democracy. For the rest I agree with Rick Norwood and with Shimgray. Furthermore, liberalism remains a pluriform ideology. The discussions at the last ELDR congress (sorry, but I was there, don't blaim me) made it clear that many liberals are not anti-immigration. What does abandonding the poor mean, abandoning poverty? Many liberals are convinced that a liberal economy is better in fighting poverty then socialism was. One can discuss that, but you cannot say that liberals favour poverty. The liberals took part in the European Constitution project, as did many chirstian democrats, social democrats and greens. So do not blaim liberalism for the European Constitution. Liberals accept, encourage others to take part in the political debate. It is not a major force in most countries, but most of the time the third force. Liberals do not like a non-market economy, and would oppose a move in that direction, but they would not opposed the right to choose a non-market economy. If the majority of the people elect a government that does want a non-market economy, then it will happen. Liberals will oppose it, but as democrats will accept that. That is the democratic process. etc. etc. etc. Some of us made clear what there political background is. May be more should do that. Electionworld 15:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electionworld's word 

message: : The grounds upon which this has been disputed have been dealt with numerous times. Moreover, the observation that they have been treated numerous times has been stated numerous times. I entreat the interested reader to examine the responses already made on this page. Rehashing them again would be pointless. Lucidish 17:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing: upon closer inspection, many of these claims are in want of substantiation. Cite your claims with respect to the text if you want to be taken seriously. Lucidish 20:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucidish's opine 

message: Ruzmanci wrong -
1.  Calculating a human toll because of liberalism is a ridiculous statement to make.  First the Irish famine was not the fault of fairly free trade or "hands off government" in fact the deaths were the result of hands on government where Victoria ordered the grains of England off the market for Irish people.  Second, England was not a true free market state.   Third, if england was  a true liberal state it would not have been running Ireland as a serfdom...which is certainly an ineffecient way of running an economy.  One can hardly blame liberalism for such outcomes when the government was not behaving or functioning liberally. (Finally, It would be logically fallacious of me to point out the human cost of illiberal governments like communism and fascism...which stands over 200 million dead in the 20th century alone...I won't point that out though). 
2.  Imperialism is not the result of free market liberalism.  It is the result of archaic mercantilist thinking.  The world's wealth is not a zero sum game which is exactly what causes Imperialism.
3.  Liberalism does treat certain features as absolutes, including many civil and political freedoms, specifically private property.  Liberalism stands directly opposed to moral relativists.  Liberals believe these absolutes to be available for anyone and everyone not just western society.
4.  Liberalism is not a "western" cultural aspect but rather something that can be achieved by any culture.  To argue otherwise is to argue that all other cultures are inferior to the west, which is not true.  The West achieved its great wealth and power through an increase in liberalism (economic freedom).  But one, like Ramy, should not blame liberalism for too much government interference and abuse in the world.  
5.  Ramy displays a great deal of ignorance to assume that liberalism created a society uncaring toward the poor.  In fact liberalism removed many from poverty.  Liberalism itself did not create more poverty but only a more visible poor.  During the so called time of hands off government and free markets private charities increased drastically, including hospitals, schools, money, food, clothing donations.  The more liberal a society has gotten the more wealth is created, the less poverty is seen.  The poor were not abandonned, stop making up facts.
6.  Ramy sees the world through relative gains glasses: An economically fallacious way of viewing the world.  Yes, liberalism produces inequality...a great deal of it.  The problem is, it does not make people worse off.  The poor may increase their wealth by 10% the rich may increase it by 200%...both have gotten better off!  Ramy only finds it a problem because he believes the world's wealth to be a zero sum game...no credible person believes that today.
7.  Liberalism is so controversial today because it argues that no or few government intervention is necessary to increase wealth, reduce poverty, and promote world peace.  Its opponents are anti-liberal, and subsequently anti-democratic groups like Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Islamists who which to impose unfree and tyrannical governments on their people.
8.	The more liberal (economically free) a country becomes the more civil and political freedoms it enjoys...they are more democratic.  Again, opponents of liberalism are anti-democratic anti-liberty.  That's not rhetoric that's empirical evidence.  See the 2005 Index of Economic Freedom for starters.  The Fraiser Institute also has its own index. 
9.  Ramy’s disapproval of the wiki page on liberalism is ideologically based not factually based and should be dismissed as the rantings of an angry “True believer” of big government.
10.  Ramy stated "8. Specifically, liberalism has theoretically, and in political practice, opposed the right to choose a non-market economy. That has a recent political expression in the attempt to make the free market economy compulsory in Europe, through the (now rejected) European Constitution. This principle has had enormous political and social consequences, and should be included in the article."  This so called "imposing" of free markets upon people is the result of fallacious reasoning which believes that free markets only work if everyone does them and no one behaves has a protectionist.  In fact, if the United States droped all barriers to trade and unilaterally became a free trade state Americans would be better off.  Nevertheless, the "Right to choose non market economies" means that states have the right to lie, cheat, steal, and exploit their own citizens.  Non-market oriented economies have not worked and will never work.  An understanding of the price system and the laws of supply and demand will help you understand that.
---------------------------
: Point 3. I don't know what you mean by "moral absolutes". I'm a liberal, and I see no reason to say there are any; and I suspect that my irritation with that term is not idiosyncratic in this day and age.
: I do believe there are rights, for example, and that these rights ought to be upheld in good faith by people without much care for issues of sovereignty. But does that mean I think they're "absolute"? It depends on what you mean by that. "Absolute" is an ambiguous term. I don't agree that there are unalienable rights, for instance, or that they are objectively true rights. Those are both "absolutes" in some sense. And I would agree that rights arise out of the real world, on the basis of particular contexts; and within some bounds, I think morality is up for debate; in both of those senses, I'd be a "relativist". So what's at issue really needs to be clarified here. 
: Point 6. That's an incredibly flippant dismissal of relative wealth comparisons backed by plausible theories of value, i.e. the labor theory of value, which (though appropriated by Marx) originates from Locke (!). Perhaps you disagree with it; it is not clear, however, that all liberals would.
: Point 7. It is not correct to label "socialism" as anti-democratic. IE: democratic socialism. And I must confess a confusion when it comes to the word "Islamism". Is that now a word that denotes only radical preachers of Islam? Seems a bit inappropriate to me.
:Lucidish 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous's take 

message: Ruzmanci asked to edit, not revert his edits. I started editing his edits, but that will take some time I do not have at this time. Will Ruzmanci also add a paragraph on contemporary North American, East Asian and African liberal policies? If not, does his text on contemporary european liberal policies belong in this text? And a small question: if somebody (who is Wil Aerts ?) posts a contrubution on liberales.be or fdp, does that mean that it is the contemporary liberal policy? 
At the moment under the present version, the totally disputed tag belongs in the article, due to the content of this paragraph. - Electionworld 11:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruzmanci should edit his own contributions.  However, after repeated requests, nobody has come forward who agrees with Ruzmanci, which suggests that his claims that liberals favor child labor and forced prostitution are without merit, and have no place in the article.  Ruzmanci, if I may address you directly, you have latched onto some extremely fringe views and now assert that these are mainstream liberalism.  You also repeatedly confuse liberalism with libertarianism.  The difference is that liberals favor three ideals: liberty, equality, and democracy, and recognize that there must be tradeoffs between the three.  Libertarianism, in contrast, favors only one ideal, individual liberty, and rejects all competing claims.  Thus, under libertarianism, as I understand it, child labor and prostitution are perfectly ok (though not forced child labor or forced prostitution).  Under libertarian ideals, the question of whether a woman should be forced into prostitution to get government help would never arise, because there would be no government help for anybody.  I might also mention that I've heard about an interview in which one of the founders of Wikipedia described libertarians as wingnuts. Rick Norwood 13:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've looked over Ruzmanci's changes as edited by Electionworld, and most of them seem fine to me, but the long section on European liberalism clearly does not belong here.  This article is already too long.  I've created a new article, "European liberalism", and moved it there. Rick Norwood 13:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I won't react to everything here. Only two remarks: 1. I have to remember the reader of my reaction to the prostitution case above. The sources used by Ruzmanci, made it clear that it is no policy to force anybody to work in prostitution. 2. I think we can delete the article on European Liberalism, since it was created to find a place to discuss the practical policies of European liberal parties. Since the text is now restored into Liberalism, we can delete it again. Electionworld 12:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you mean with 'surprising turns'? The present text of that article lacks accuracy and neutrality and needs many edits. First we have to find an agreement or a majority view on the question of this paragraph belongs in the article. When it is in this article. I will edit it here, if it in the other article, I will edit it there. Electionworld 14:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruzmanci's edit 

message: It seems to me that the "liberalism today" section has some good material in it, but is way too long.  I'm going to attempt to condense it, and make it more encyclopedic. Rick Norwood 14:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wait for your edits. I planned to edit this section later today. Electionworld 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your edits and made the remaining text less anti-liberal (European). Electionworld 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Your constant allegations of bad faith are getting tiresome. Please stop. Shimgray | talk | 19:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Shimgray, do I ask where Ruzamci gets his time from. Nobody else does my edits. BTW I didn't delete the list of practical European liberal policies, I wanted to edit it. Electionworld 20:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ruzmanci, I deleted your editorial on current European liberalism.  This is a general article on liberalism, and as you will note in the heading to the article, information about liberalism as it is understood in certain countries or regions belongs elsewhere. Rick Norwood 22:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism today  

message: *The place of the text on liberal violence is not logical, I moved it directly below the revolutions itself. 
*Text on neo-jacobinism doesn't belong in section on revolutions (historical order), now in paragaraph on liberal fundamentalism
*Paragraph on Foreign policy and regime change is not essential for liberalism. Liberal parties were divided about the regime change in Iraq. I deleted this paragraph (old text follows)
::From the mid 20th century, transitions from totalitarianism to liberalism (certainly to liberal democracy) have also been imposed by external force. The introduction of a liberal constitution and democratic pluralism in occupied western Germany by the western Allies, served as a model for later theories of regime change.
::During the Bosnian War in the 1990’s, Daniel Goldhagen and some other liberals suggested the military occupation of Serbia for this purpose, specifically citing the German experience. In the event, the model was first applied, controversially, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Liberals were strongly divided about the legitimacy of this invasion. The process of 'nation-building' under occupation , refers to concurrent regime change, democratisation and liberalisation. In this way, some liberal thinkers are called unilateralists, or "neoconservatives", as they see such externally-driven transitions as legitimate. They are to be contrasted with internationalism, which is historically part and parcel with liberal foreign policy.
::Internationalism has been harshly criticized by some neoconservative commentators like Christopher Hitchens, who note the poor responsiveness of international institutions like the United Nations in cases of human rights violations, and suggest that this must be replaced by unilateral interventions.
::Neoconservatism often appeals to Francis Fukuyama's end of history thesis for justification, by suggesting that a shift towards liberalism is historically inevitable. Other liberal thinkers, like L. T. Hobhouse in "Metaphysical Theory of the State: A Criticism", explicitly deny such hypotheses.
*Made some new division in sections
*added the opposition in the new section on the effect of liberalism.
*added a section on liberal fundamentalism.
Furthermore I merged the article European liberalism into Liberalism in Europe. That's all for now. I hope in this way the article is balanced. - Electionworld 18:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal violence and text on revolutions 

message: For clarification, most of these issues are there as qualifiers of claims about liberalism. If the article says that liberalism promotes free choice in religious matters, then it is a counter-example that Belgian and Dutch Liberal parties want to ban women from freely wearing a veil or burqa. The claim is inaccurate, and that is not region-specific, so dispatching the qualifier to another article is not acceptable. The other way to deal with this NPOV issue is not to make such braod claims, and to concede that liberalism does not advocate general freedoms, but typically specific and culturally limited freedoms.Ruzmanci 13:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberalism is not necessarily = actions of "liberal" parties. As said many times before. Read. Lucidish 17:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why list these issues anyway?

message: The stated goal of Wikipedia is to create a body of knowledge of lasting value.  This suggests that each chance be small, carefully thought out, carefully written, and fully discussed before the next change.  
I would like to suggest that those of us working on this article concentrate for the time being on getting the introduction short enough so that the table of contents is visible in most browsers in a full screen view of the top of the article.  It may be as easy as adding headings to parts of the introduction.  Rick Norwood 22:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed intro. The sections, however, seriously need to be revisited. Much of this is redundant material. Lucidish 00:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I did is adding small edits with a summary to make clear what I am doing. It was rebalancing the text and delete inaccuracies, and that meant a lot of edits. Sorry. Electionworld 05:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many edits in one day 

message: I think we are getting somewhere.  I've done a rewrite of the introduction, mainly for style, and to remove repetition.  I've tried to keep all more at least most of the ideas that were there, and still have the ToC peek out above the bottom of the screen. 
I've also removed the "totally disputed" flag, since I believe we have discussed here the major issues involved. Rick Norwood 19:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Keep the tag there indefinitely. It has no bearing on the truth of the matter. Lucidish 03:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  progress 

message: Regime change is advocated by prominent liberal thinkers, for the specific purpose of extending the reach of liberalism and liberal principles. It belongs for that reason. The other reason is that is it counters the claim to non-violence of modern liberalism, and shows that liberals are no different from others in this respect: they kill their opponents to further their ideology. Unless the claim to be non-violent is also removed, this is an NPOV and balance issue.Ruzmanci 10:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some do, some don't. So long as that's made clear, I don't care if it's in the article. Lucidish 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regime change and NPOV 

message: I added three sourced examples where liberals advocate discrimination against people on the basis of language, or deny to freedom to speak a chosen language. Here they are in case they are deleted:
:All nation states have similar policies: most have an official national language. From the perspective of the nation-state, immigration is a threat equal to separatism, since it too undermines national unity. With the collapse of the multicultural consensus in western Europe, most Liberal parties explicitly reject neutrality on culture and language issues, in most cases demanding official monolingualism and monoculturalism. For example, the Belgian Liberal (VLD) housing minister wants to refuse social housing, to those who do not speak Dutch.  The Dutch liberal minister for immigration considered a similar policy . In the Amsterdam borough De Baarsjes, the liberal VVD  punishes parents, if their children speak foreign languages in or near school. , , .
Like earlier (deleted) examples of liberal policy, there are abundant sources for the repressive nature of liberalism. Since they are counter-examples to the claims to neutrality and liberty under liberal thought, this is also an NPOV issue. I will add more of these examples, among others from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who seems to invent a new repressive measure every week.Ruzmanci 10:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, since generalizations and factual inaccuracies do not belong in either article. We have to work on a good criticism section. Electionworld 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language discrimination by liberals 

message: Ruzmanci -- you are going to have to decide. 
One option is for you to keep making huge rewrites every day, only to have them reverted.
Another option is for you to make smaller rewrites, and have some accepted and some reverted.
A third option is for you to abandon claims that are your private opinion, unsupported by any other source, keep claims that you can source, and put material that only applies to Liberalism in Europe in the appropriate article.
Rick Norwood 13:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The third option is just a way of moving the discussion. It will continue in that article, so I wouldn't favour that option. There is no homogenous European liberalism. Electionworld 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's somewhat moot what I would or wouldn't favor, since it's Ruz who decides. But it seems more appropriate to speak of idiosyncratic European liberal matters and infights in the Liberalism in Europe article than it does to speak of them here. This page, the Liberalism page, after all, is about the philosophy and goals, historically understood, complete with critiques. Regional pages have more room to discuss variations and the crazies who call themselves by the name "liberal". Lucidish 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't agree. Many things Ruzmanci wrote is about three or four parties. Let him add this criticism to the entries on these parties. These sub-articles are better places and then the discussion can be there. Electionworld 21:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing attempt to resolve dispute 

message: The section Liberalism#The_effect_of_liberalism_in_the_modern_world makes what seems to me a gratuitous swipe at Islamism, singling it out as an example of a present-day political ideology that doesn't accept liberal principles. While I would hardly say that Islamists as a group are generally liberal, from what I've seen, many Islamists (think, for example, of the reform factions in Iran) accept many, if perhaps not all of the principles of liberalism. Even the more conservative factions in Iran accept quite a few of them. Conversely, the governments of Burma, North Korea, and Belarus, none of them Islamic, seem to me much more firmly anti-liberal. And I could probably make a pretty good case that the Christian Right in the US is roughly comparable to the Islamists in these respects. So why are the Islamists being singled out here for what will generally be seen by most English-language readers as a negative? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Jmabel.  I've had a go at editing that.  See what you think.  Sunray 08:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which exactly are the principles of liberalism that are generally accepted by Islamists? - Nat Krause 14:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally? Perhaps none. But I think that is the wrong question. Are the principles of liberalism any less accepted by Islamists than by other theocrats, be they Protesant, Catholic, Jewish, or Hindu? This is an issue about theocracy in general, not about Islamism in particular, and it is wrong to single it out. On the more specific matter of Iran, my example above: Islamic Iran has had numerous reasonably free elections (less free than a genuinely liberal society, but more so than under the previous, secular regime of the Shah). They've been back and forth on freedom of the press and of artistic expression (certainly the reformist faction, also Islamist, is not notably bad -- or notably good -- on that issue). Women's rights are a matter of much struggle in Iran: again, the more radical Islamists are awful on this issue, but Iran (and likewise Pakistan) has been the source of some very interesting interpretations of Islam that take a very different view of the role of women from what has been traditional in Islam, all within an Islamist context. Islamism is a broad movement, and it has its (dare I say it) liberal wing. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While many Muslims are liberals and Islam is compatible with Liberalism, Islamism is a specific ideology that is inherently non-liberal. Ordinary Person 12:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratuitous swipe at Islamism 

message: neutrality doubted?
how about neutrality non-existent?
: How about justification for your remarks and informed, reasonable conversation on the relevant topics? Lucidish 21:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Let me continue to urge everyone to resist rewriting the whole article in a single day.  One section at a time seems reasonable. Rick Norwood 23:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of my newest edits are stylistic -- putting one section before or after another one. The only serious substantive (non-stylistic) change I made was to add a subsection called "political deviances" which can act as a grab-bag of complaints against ostensibly liberal regimes. I also included a larger disclaimer (italicized) to the subsection previous to that one. Lucidish 00:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest suggestion. 

message: Question: Does the article still need a disputed tag at the top?   I've looked over the previous objections and think that they have been addressed, where appropriate.  Sunray 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold!  Easy for you to say.  I have probably spent a hundred hours working on careful rewrites of this article, one section at a time.  My bold friends think nothing of doing what seems like a dozen rewrites a day.  "Slowly!" I cry.  They throw caution to the winds.  Why spend time carefully choosing the mot juste in one paragraph when everything is going to be totally rewritten before I can even catch my breath?  Let's wait until things calm down a bit.  Then it may be time to remove the "totally disputed" tag. Rick Norwood 23:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a patient man!  You also make some good points.  Let's hear from others on this, as well.  Sunray 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Just leave it in for now. Many of the points that Ruz has made have not been implemented in the slightest, because his/her points have been founded on misunderstanding. But they seem like a reasonable enough person, all things considered. Removal of the tag now wouldn't be appropriate unless one considered them a troll or vandal, but they're clearly not. Lucidish 03:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to rewrite a section and need some time for that, why don't you use the a variant of the inuse tag. I could imagine that we can place this tag also at the start of a section, so that after the moment the tag has been places, everybody waits to continue editing that section until the date mentioned in the tag (insert a date max. two days in advance). Electionworld 11:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The article has been revised since the tag was included. Critique was included. I think the moment has come to delete the tag. If somebody still disputes the neutrality of the article, a tag can be re-inserted. Electionworld 11:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need the "totally disputed" tag?

message: I added a paragraph Headlines of critique and a text on the international policy of liberals. Electionworld 14:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New texts 

message: Let me once again urge both care and brevity on the part of rewriters.  For example:
"Opponents of liberalism especially reject the view that the private sector is for collective benefit of the community, considering the har done to thoese individuals who lose out in competition." 
Let me suggest that you compose rewrites using a wordprocessor that has a spellchecker, and then cut and paste them into the article when they are in finished form. Rick Norwood 21:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Electionworld 11:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  And so it grows. 

message: A picture of Adam Smith was added. It might be nice to have pictures in the article. I would suggest to either add pictures of John Locke, Montesquieu and John Stuart Mill or to delete all pictures. Since there is an explanation about the role of thes people for liberalism, it is not necesary to add an explanation with the picture. So what do you think? Electionworld 11:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like pictures Lucidish 18:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: into Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism? (anonymous)
:No that wouldn't be a good split. I wouldn't favor any split, but if one: one about history and one about liberalism today. Electionworld 20:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. "Modern liberalism" is synonymous with "social liberalism". Most "liberal" parties today in Europe are definitely not "modern liberal". "Classical liberalism" is a trickier term. Some people (I'm one of them) are very hesitant to apply it to anyone after about 1860; the libertarians often claim that they are "classical" liberals, which is to say that they reject the turn that liberalism took with John Stuart Mill. However, there is a lack of any clear continuity from the 19th-century classical liberals to the libertarians, although certainly there is a strong influence. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with JMabel that it is not the same. I disagree that modern liberalism is globally synonymous with social liberalism (it might be synonymous in the US or UK). If we split the article, the division should be history and liberalism today. I do not think a split is necesary. Electionworld 08:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this article be split? 

message: I think the NPOV tag can be removed now. There was no argument the last 10 days that thius article is not neutral or accurate? If somebody doesn't agree, plase write down what in todays article is not neutral or accurate enough. Electionworld 11:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag