Talk:Social liberalism

message: A number of parties have been added to the list of social liberal policies with either no sources provided, or sourced only to the parties' websites.  None of these websites claim that the parties are social liberal and would not be good sources in any case.  Several of the parties listed appear to be social democratic, for example the Social Democrat Radical Party of Chile, which is a member of the Socialist International.  Others may be nationalist or agrarian.  See WP:V:  "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed."  Please do not re-add without reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The SDP is not a social-liberal party, but in fact also the SFP might not be a social-liberal party—for opposite reasons. --Checco (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections to remove the SFP from the list of social-liberal parties?--Autospark (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know. In the SFP article's infobox there is a source for "social liberalism"... --Checco (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tricky one. There's definitely sources that indicate a social-liberal/liberal basis for the SFP, but also (primarily) it is an ethno-regionalist party too. It is often difficult categorising social-liberal parties, as unlike social-democratic parties (for example), there are a lot fewer of them, and they often have other ideologies or purposes as their basis.--Autospark (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally share your concerns and I leave the issue to users who happen to be more informed than me. --Checco (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social liberal parties 

message: The Four Deuces keeps deleting the parties I’ve added. The articles on the parties I’ve added, together with the weblinks I’ve provided, provide evidence that the parties I’ve added are socially liberal. The article on the People’s Justice Party does not state that the party is socially liberal, but I felt that the party’s centre-left policies, together with its status as an observer member of the Liberal International, make it a social liberal party. In addition, the Australian Democrats is described as a social liberal party. I don’t understand why that keeps getting deleted. 
I feel that liberal parties that champion state intervention to tackle social evils such as poverty (like the Orange Democratic movement of Kenya) are socially liberal, since tackling inequality is a key aim of social liberalism.
Also, I’m not sure whether D66 of the Netherlands can be described as a social liberal party. I say this because in its 2006 manifesto, which I read on the English language version of their site, it spoke out against state intervention, saying that government is not a “happiness factory” while also championing reductions in the welfare state. To me, that seems more like classical liberalism than social liberalism, since the latter champions expanded state welfare.
Finally, the Centre Party describes itself as a liberal party, as noted in that link I added.
User:zictor23 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have set up a discussion thread at WP:NORN#Social liberal parties because your edits violate WP:NOR.  Also parties may be "socially liberal" but not "social liberal" parties, while social liberal parties historically were not necessarily socially liberal.  TFD (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding my additions 

message: We need sources to include parties showing that they are generally considered to be social liberal parties.  An editor added back a number of unsourced additions, saying, "Added various parties Note: The Liberal Party of Canada is a predominantly centre-left liberal party, whic it supports, and has supported in the past, interventionist social policies. That makes it a social liberal party".  Curiously the last leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, who wrote a biography defending the views of Isaiah Berlin and books and articles defending the Bush administration's war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, targeted assassinations and indefinite detention of suspects, recently wrote, "The NDP are not liberals in a hurry, and we are not a party of the left. We are a free enterprise party, and they are big-government social democrats.... We’re not and never have been the party of big government."  TFD (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Liberal Party of Canada are more of a catch-all centrist party, certainly more so during the height of its powers, not a social-liberal party in itself objectively speaking. D66 would count as centrist social-liberal party by most indicactors.--Autospark (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:SYN:  "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  If one source says the United Democrats of Cyprus is a "liberal part[y] which support[s] interventionist policies to promote social equality" and another says a social liberal party is a "liberal part[y] which support[s] interventionist policies to promote social equality", one cannot say that the United Democrats of Cyprus is a social liberal party.  One needs a source that says "the United Democrats of Cyprus is a social liberal party".  The fact that no one who has written about the party or about social liberal parties has made the same conclusion you have makes your conclusion questionable.  TFD (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social liberal parties 

message: Generally we need to be very careful here, with this article: there haven't ever been that many social-liberal parties, whether currently active or historically speaking. The list of active liberal parties in this article is overflowing already with organisations that weren't wholly or explicitly social-liberal in character.--Autospark (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  We need a source that says which parties are social liberal, and explain the source.  TFD (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Also, centre-right liberal parties (such as the Swedish liberal parties, or Flemish Open VLD) which happen to have social-liberal factions or elements don't belong on the list.--Autospark (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it to be over-categorization.  While there is consensus about which parties are liberal, sub -categorization into conservative and social liberal parties does not have consensus, and parties may waver between the two.  It would be better to say "'x' says that a,, b, c, etc. are social liberal parties".  TFD (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on social liberal parties 

message: Just discovered that there is a print-on-demand book titled "Social Liberalism" that reprints this article and, apparently, consists entirely of reprinted Wikipedia articles. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Social Liberalism" the book 

message: I've been doing some reading about social liberalism, and it seems to be a popular term (the leading book with that title equates social liberalism with love of porn) rather than an academic term.  There is no article with that title in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics nor in Safire's Political Dictionary.  Everyone seems to agree that it means support of civil rights and the provision of government services, such as public schools and public health.  Beyond that, it is used by its supporters to mean a government that protects the weak and by its opponents to mean a government that hates the rich.  I think, especially in the lead, we should only include what is common to most sources, instead of the laundry list of things social liberals support.  "Solidarity"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It IS an academic term. Just one that is misused in popular speech as a synynom for social progressivism.--Autospark (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

text: The topic of this article has several names and each of these names can mean different things, although social liberalism is the most common one.  This book review provides a good brief definition.  The book reviewed, The Ethical State?: Social Liberalism in Australia, while primarily about Australia, provides a detailed explanation of the subject and could be used as a source.]  Unfortunately only the first 25 pages are available at Google Books.  I don't think that civil rights and solidarity are major components.  TFD (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is social liberalism? 

message: It seems like theirs no satisfactory defined set of beliefs regarding social liberalism. Earlier revisions claimed that it was liberalism with social justice but many assigned as social liberals never talked about or hint social justice. What about proclaimed social liberals who are skeptical of social justice? Many thinks assigned to social liberalism like an expansive welfare state, "civil rights" (whatever that means), government regulation, and intervention should be more assigned to progressiveism. Many early social liberals seemed more like classical liberals who thought things like workers rights, economic democracy and a basic social insurance would be a good combination to political and economic freedom.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.58.61 (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems a strange post.  You start by saying earlier versions equated social liberalism with an "expansive" welfare state, but go on to say in your opinion social liberalism believes in "basic social insurance".  But surely these are two extremes of the same belief, that the government should have a safety net for the disadvantaged.  And asking what "civil rights" means just shows you were not alive in the 1960s, or you wouldn't have to ask.  Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Your post is incoherent.  TFD (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the politicoeconomic factors of social liberalism? 

message: WP:SEEALSO says, "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."  Since the items listed under Social liberalism#See also appear mostly to duplicate links already in the article, I will remove the section unless any reason is found to keep it.  TFD (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: A user recently deleted (which I then brought back) a link to a liberal organisation which stated that social liberalism is also known as left liberalism. I'm not sure why that link was removed.
User:zictor23 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Left-liberalism is not a common term, and there are more common terms used as a synonym for social liberalism.  Also, left-liberalism is contextual.  Before the Second World War, left-liberals in Europe opposed the welfare state, which was a major policy for social liberals, while the right-wing National Liberals supported it. Mises and Hayek were prominent "left-liberals".  TFD (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social liberalism and left liberalism: one and the same? 

message: This section contains a large amount of inaccurate party choices (parties that are centre-right liberal), and should be pared down significantly. Ideally a section called "Active parties and organizations with social liberal factions", or similar, containing broader liberal parties that are proven to have social-liberals in them. I've said this before, but there aren't, or weren't ever, many political parties that were wholly social-liberal parties. I'd struggle to cite a dozen legitimately, in all honesty.--Autospark (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Active social liberal parties and organizations" section 

message: : Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include a social foundation.
Which is trivially true because liberalism, or any of its negations, is meaningless in the absence of society.  Could this sentence be made to look less vacuous? —Tamfang (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, "Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should support the general welfare of society."? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  a sentence ought to have at least a little bit of content 

message: See the part of original source. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't write on the Justice Party here unless they regard themselves as a socially liberal political party. For now, they regard themselves as a social democratic political party. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is your private opinion. See the Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations section. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

text:  Saenuri Party is center-right party, sir. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Justice Party (South Korea)]]'s ideology: Social liberalism? 

message: When social liberalism is mentioned by critics it is used to mean being liberal towards social matters (drugs, prostitution, promiscuity, abortion, assisted suicide, etc). Why is this use strenuously avoided in the article? To do so looks like a deliberate attempt at obfuscation, given how much the term is used in this manner. LeapUK (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberalism is belief in freedom and equality.  Economic liberalism, or classical liberalism, is a belief that economic freedom is more important than social equality.  Thus, some (nor all) economic liberals argue that the federal government had no right to abolish slavery, because the property rights of the slave owners trumped the right of the slave to be treated equally with the white man.  The big battles won by social liberals in the last 150 years include freedom for slaves, votes for former slaves, votes for women, the civil rights movement, the women's liberation movement, and the gay rights movement -- all examples of greater social equality.  The victories of economic liberals include lower tax rates for the rich, a cap on social security tax payments, the ruling that corporations are people, and a lifting of restrictions on the size of political contributions.  The issues you mention above combine personal freedom and economic freedom, and don't have much to do with equality, except for the right to abortion, which puts women in control of their bodies.  Some of this is already in the article.  If you think more should be included, just find a reliable source and include it. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't social liberalism. Please read and actually try to understand the article. Social liberalism is not the same thing as social progressivism or modern American liberalism.--Autospark (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this social liberalism really? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Social liberalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115064405/http://diarioeconomico.sapo.pt:80/edicion/diarioeconomico/opinion/columnistas/pt/desarrollo/1123500.html to http://diarioeconomico.sapo.pt/edicion/diarioeconomico/opinion/columnistas/pt/desarrollo/1123500.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This entire article does not describe social liberalism.... it describes Egalitarianism or Radicalism. The entire thing is wrong if you want to relate to the idea of "social liberalism". SOCIAL liberalism specifically relates to SOCIAL issue; it under no circumstances has anything to do with equal outcomes or anything with economics. Social liberalism is more correctly affiliated with Libertarianism.
::You need a source. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Article Name - Should be Egalitarianism. 

message: Currently the last sentence of the opening paragraph of the lead is
:It does so in allowing autonomy of the individual and products of the market economy unrestricted access with the goal to increase wellbeing for all.[2][3][4]
I can’t understand what this is intended to mean. Could someone more familiar with the topic rewrite the sentence? Thanks. Loraof (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: The article, despite mentioning several non-Western social liberal parties and movements, revolves around its history in the West. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In complete agreement to this. Moreover it deviates into American-specific definitions saying "in America..." but doesn't do that for any other country. I find it odd that the article is very American-focused. America should probably have it's own section instead, with more citations. Since I find the citations for this artical very lacking 92.7.176.44 (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize