Talk:Liberalism/old version talk Liberalism

message: * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Liberalism, Gerald F. Gaus a comprehensive description of liberalism
/Talk
----
Fare: you've gotta limit yourself to specific, confirmable information. Also, remember that we don't have to have a discussion about confusion of terms or debate about the value of sociopolitical ideologies on every single page related to this topic. Such a discussion should appear once. --TheCunctator
----
Fare: I agree that there should be only one page with this discussion. Presumably under liberalism/different meanings, as with capitalism/different meanings. Maybe there ought to be a wikipedia-wide standard name for such subpages. I can use to do the same with anarchism, conservatism, and a wealth of ideological terms, that all have lots of different meanings, since they are often used as attractive or repulsive keywords by many different groups.
On a different note, your identification of libertarianism with minarchism is just plain wrong. They are different.
----
I'm trying to make this page into a dispatch page,
listing briefly the various usages of the word,
pointing to other pages for details,
and discussing the evolution of the meaning.
-- 80.65.225.191 02:25 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
----
It is wrong to define Liberalism as a ideology starting in the English and French revolution. For instance, the roots of the Whig party, which later became english liberal party did start with the english revolution, but did not take the name liberal until much later, and never had a fixed ideology. During the english revolution, the classical liberal "party" was the Levellers. Then, during the French revolution, we can distinguish at least two very different tendancies, and it was always the statist tendency that would crush by force the classical liberal tendency. The Girondins have been crushed by the Jacobins (and the socialist among them, the Montagnards). People like Benjamin Constant and Destutt de Tracy were always in the opposition. Yet, in the end, socialism left more scars than lasting positive results, whereas the liberal part of the revolution remained. In any case, what I meant is that while it would be interesting to have a page about the compared history of the many "liberalisms", it is wrong to try to summarize this history in an approximative date. You might as well say that the first known (classical) liberal thinker is Lao Tse. Finally, I've read somewhere that it is Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations that popularized (and even introduced?) the term Liberal in its classical ideological meaning. I ought to double-check before I include that in the article. -- Faré 09:27 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
----
We need more information about the Radicals.  The contributions of the Whigs and the Peelites to the Liberal Party is well documented, but the involvement of the Radicals is seldom talked about.
----
Look, can we really equate "social democracy" with "modern liberalism"? Of course, there's a lot of similarity in basic goals (targeted state-based provision of services without the need for radical restructure), but I always thought that the mark of distinction between a social democratic party and a "modern" or "small l" liberal party was affiliation (and i mean close ties, having an influence in policy development) with the trade union movement. Most liberals tend to support small business against unions, and some consider big unions as just as bothersome as big business.
Lacrimosus 22:56, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links and References 

message: I am planning to integrate the pages on political liberalism and on liberalism into one page, whereby I would try to integrate also the text of the talk page liberalism. I would also merge the talk pages.
Gangulf 11:06, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integration of the articles political liberalism and liberalism with their talk pages