Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:National liberalism

Merge with Liberalism?

I strongly oppose any merger with Liberalism with thi page as a redirect. "National liberalism" is a specific brand of "liberalism" and there are pleny of sources to testify that. The article needs to be improved, but definitely "national liberalism" deserves a separate article. --Checco (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly provide one source that "National liberalism" is a specific brand of "liberalism" as opposed to a name used by some liberal parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, which needs to be improved (on this we can agree), has plenty of sources, some even very specific, so please stop deleting the page by redirecting it. As you know there are different brands of liberalism (as also conservatism and other ideologies have) and this is one of them. The term "national liberalism" reflects a brand of liberalism, present especially in German-speaking countries, that has some "national" flavour. It has its own history and deserves a separate article. --Checco (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again could you please provide a single source supporting that view. It appears to be original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion threat at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard questioning the only source used to define this article's subject.[1]. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces, there is a new AfD, your comment will be appreciated. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Rupert loup

@User:Rupert loup: in respknse to this message of yours:

Information icon Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia guidelines and I have been active here for more than ten years. I thought it was better not to edit the article during the AfD. In fact, Wikipedia is based both on sources and consensus. The parts of the article you have been repeatedly removing have been there for years and thus form the established version of the article. Let's see what other users have to say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National liberalism (2017). --Checco (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checco, do not take it bad, but I don't care if you are here since 10 years or 5 minutes. Wikipedia's content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research WP:CCPOL. Put the sources and the content stays. If there is no sources it will be challenged. The AdF is irrelevant to that. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget consensus.
Don't take it bad, but it seems like you are totally not interested in seeking consensus.
--Checco (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR don't mention consensus. I won't going to sit by and let original research be added. The purposely addition of factual inaccuracies is vandalism WP:VANDALISM. Please, stop adding unsourced material. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding warnings like this to my talk page:

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Aren't we already discussing here?
Moreover, you are not the one can block me or, more importantly, what has to be part of this article and what not.
In fact, I received thanks for my edits by other users. Consensus, please! --Checco (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you stoped adding unsourced material. Thanks for listening. To take the content here was the correct. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I simply did not want to be dragged into an edit war by a edit-war- and not consensus-oriented guy like you. You should have taken your issues to talk page first, instead of massively deleting infos. I totally agree with User:E.M.Gregory, when he warned you to:

please revert your inappropriate deletions of significant WP:RS material [...] a series of edits that violate WP:DISRUPT not merely because they are unexplained (if you have a valid reason for deleting, take it to talk instead of edit-waring,) but because you made the deletions while the article was at AfD.

--Checco (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intro/definition

It seems like that User:Rupert loup is keen on total rollbacks. With my latest edit, which Rupert loup rollbacked on principle, without probably bothering to evaluating its content, I added a quite sensible definition of "national liberalism", a sort of summary of the article:

National liberalism (German: Nationalliberalismus; Swedish: nationell liberalism; Finnish: kansallin liberalismi) is a variety of liberalism, combining liberal policies with elements of nationalism, and/or a term used to describe a series of political parties whuch have been active in several European national contexts.

I think it can be considered an improvement and I do not see how it can be controversial–at all. I even fixed translations: a technical edit! Moreover, it is perfectly OK to have an intro summarising the article's content. It is unfortunately clear that User:Rupert loup edits without even considering to accept others' contibutions.

Additionally, I re-added a long-time feature of the article.

The roots of national liberalism are to be found in the 19th century, when conservative liberalism was the ideology of the political classes in most European countries and in particular those of Central Europe, then governed by monarchies. At their origin, national liberals, although pro-business, were not, however, Manchesterian free-traders, that is advocates of economic liberalism, like the mainstream liberals of the 19th century everywhere else in the world, favoring instead cooperation between the government and the national industry by moderate levels of protectionism, the establishment of preferential custom unions, subsidies for infant industry or companies considered of strategic importance for national development, and various forms of incipient industrial planning. In German-speaking countries, national liberals were also in favour of a more authoritarian or conservative political regime because of the multi-ethnic character or heterogeneous nature of countries like the Austrian Empire (later officially renamed Austria-Hungary) or the newly created Germany.

All this clearly need sources, but, as we are discussing the article's notabilty and rewriting it, I do not think it is a big deal for it to re-insert a long-time content, with a "citation needed" tag at its side. I was not the one who added these information to the article in the first place, but they seem interesting and should be part of our discussion. Finally, we should definitely take example and infos from de.Wiki and the other 21 Wikis featuring an article on "national liberalism": there are several sources and infos that can be added from those articles. I am sure User:E.M.Gregory and User:Autospark can do a great job. --Checco (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the articles from de.Wiki, fr.Wiki and da.Wiki, as well as their sources (e.g. http://www.danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/nationalliberalisme), include plenty of information that can be used in order to improve the current article. --Checco (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ps: Much more can be done, but thanks to User:E.M.Gregory for re-uploading the contents removed without conensus and expanding the article!
I expanded the article by moving content from several en.Wiki and other Wiki articles. There are still several "citation needed" tags and we should find out where those infos come from; I am sure they are not just original research. --Checco (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rupert loup continues with his/her typical style: total rollbacks. This version is opposed just by him/her, while being probably supported by User:E.M.Gregory and User:Autospark, who both improved it. I am going to ask the two to express their support for the version in this talk page and/or propose improvements. Total rollbacks and falsely intimidating messages in my talk (Rupert loup's style) do not help dialogue and consensus to emerge. --Checco (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ps: Please note that the first sentence of this edit is a perfectly sensible definition, the second part needs to be sourced but has been a feature of the article for years (better to leave it where it is, with a "citation needed" tag, instead of deleting it without consensus!), and finally this edit includes sourced material and a short summary of infos included below in the article. Almost uncontroversial stuff! I hope User:E.M.Gregory, User:Autospark and possibly other users will agree with me.

Oppose adition of unsourced content per WP:OR, the content deleted here is not in the source given and the opinion of the source about national liberalism is WP:PRIMARY. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear consensus now. A different consensus might be formed in the future, but as of now there is definitely no consensus for Rupert loup's rollbacks (total, as usual), that can be easily considered acts of vandalism. I am going to bring the previous consensual version back. --Checco (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any consensus to that, and I don't need consensus to revert vandalism. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People, Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, we don't make consensus by voting and we can't add original research because you just want the content in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

verification tags

Editor loup is misusing verification tags by pinning them on citations to a scholarly article in an academic journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tags "verification needed" is for verify that the content here is also there. Not to question the source. Why do you not want that the sources be verified? Rupert Loup (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assume anything. If there are easy to verify they will be verified. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read Checco's comment above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

I'm going to copy what I wrote in the AdF, Emil J. Kirchner in this source, that is used to source the content "Gordon Smith understands national liberalism as a political concept that lost popularity when the success of nationalist movements in creating nation states rendered it no longer necessary to specify that a liberal ideal, party or politician was "national."" Gordon never states that, if so please give the page in the Emil J. Kirchner's book, because I saw the source and it only use the term 3 times, and not to define it as "political concept". Then just use liberalism or nationalism. There is no sings of a specific ideology. And doesn't explain what are the ideals or philosophy of this so-called ideology. He use it to refer to the specific liberalism of Switzerland. In fact he states that "some are national based, other are regional parties". Rupert Loup (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems to be used as a synonymous of national liberalism, in the page 182 he state that "Outside the specific economic field, Liberal nationalism was also exhibited in their favouring a large standing army and the strengthening of Belgium's military fortifications." So we have national liberalism 3 times and Liberal nationalism once. Never explain if they are different or in what consists. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the main issue

I am happy that User:Rupert loup has been unblocked and that he/she can discuss with us again. At the same time I find quite bizarre that the current version of the leading parts of the article is the one preferred by Rupert loup (who was blocked for his edit warring), against the opinion and the will of three users (User:E.M.Gregory, User:Autospark and me). I perfectly know that Wikipedia is no democracy and that consensus should hand in hand with sources, but I also think that, when a controversy comes out on an article, the best way to avoid an edit war is to stick to the established version as long as a new, broader, better consensus is formed.

The following is the version supported by the majority of the users who took part to this talk page over the last week:

National liberalism (German: Nationalliberalismus; Danish: Nationalliberalisme; Finnish: Kansallin liberalismi; Swedish: Nationell liberalism; Romanian: Național-liberalism) is a variant of liberalism, combining liberal policies and issues with elements of nationalism, and/or a term used to describe a series of European political parties that have been active, especially in the 19th century, in several national contexts from Central Europe to the Nordic countries and Southeast Europe.

Definitions

National liberalism, whose goals where the pursuit of individual/economic freedom and national sovereignty,[1][verification needed] refers primarily to an ideology and a movement of the 19th century, but national-liberal parties exist today, for instance in Austria, where the ideology is one of the three country's traditional ideological strains, and Romania, where it is at the base of the oldest and second-largest political party of the country. József Antall, the first post-communist Prime Minister of Hungary, described national liberalism as "part and parcel of the emergence of the nation state" in 19th-century Europe.[2]

According to Oskar Mulej, "in terms of both ideologies and political party traditions it may be argued that in the Central European lands a distinct type of liberalism, peculiar to this region evolved through the nineteenth century"[3] and, citing Maciej Janowski, "the word 'national' acted as more or less synonymous with 'liberal'" ("'national' alone was sufficient to arouse suspicions of liberal associations").[4] Also according to Mulej, in Southeast Europe "'national liberals' also played visible if not central roles, but with rather different, region-specific characteristics, which to a considerable extent distinguished them from their Central European counterparts".[3][5][6]

In his book Up From Conservatism, Michael Lind defines "national liberalism" in a way that The Progressive describes as matching historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s use of the expression "Vital Center".[7] Lind himself defines "national liberalism" as uniting "moderate social conservatism with moderate economic liberalism."[8]

History

The roots of national liberalism are to be found in the 19th century, when conservative liberalism and/or classical liberalism was the ideology of the political classes in most European countries and in particular those of Central Europe, then governed by hereditary monarchies.

At their origin, national liberals, although pro-business, were not, however, Manchesterian free-traders, that is advocates of economic liberalism, like the mainstream liberals of the 19th century everywhere else in the world, favoring instead cooperation between the government and the national industry by moderate levels of protectionism, the establishment of preferential custom unions, subsidies for infant industry or companies considered of strategic importance for national development, and various forms of incipient industrial planning. In German-speaking countries, national liberals were also in favour of a more authoritarian or conservative political regime because of the multi-ethnic character or heterogeneous nature of countries like the Austrian Empire (later officially renamed Austria-Hungary) or the newly created Germany.[citation needed]

National liberalism was popular in a number of countries including Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Romania during the 19th century.[9][verification needed] In Germany, Austria and Romania, national liberals and/or "National Liberal" parties were long in government.[citation needed]

Gordon Smith understands national liberalism as a political concept that lost popularity when the success of nationalist movements in creating nation states rendered it no longer necessary to specify that a liberal ideal, party or politician was "national."[10][page needed]

The most controversial parts for User:Rupert loup are:

  • in the intro "National liberalism [...] is a variety of liberalism, combining liberal policies with elements of nationalism" — it is a mere summary of what the article is about and of what the article explains below, so it is not controversial at all;
  • a good deal of the "History" section — some of the infos included are just obvious considerations on 19th-century Europe, but there are also clearly unsourced infos, which have been part of the article for five years (see this), thus deleting them during an AfD is not a sensible idea.

As it is clear above, the deletion of the this content is supported by User:Rupert loup alone. I thus think that User:E.M.Gregory, User:Autospark and I are fully entitled to uploading the aforementioned sections. Improvements are welcome, but let's start from the most consensual version so far! --Checco (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ps/@User:Rupert loup: By reading User talk:Rupert loup#May 2017, I understand that you were unblocked by User:NeilN, who previously blocked you, by accepting the following "conditions": "undo your latest reverts and refrain from editing the article for the next 48 hours (you can use the talk page)". It would be wonderful if you were to really undo your latest reverts, which notably includes this one. As I said above, I can do it, but it is better if you do it.

The part that I deleted is unsourced, if you re add it without citation it won't change anything. It will still be original research. And this article is a WP:SYNTHESIS. As the policy says, you are "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If you read sources completely as a whole." None of these talk about an ideology. And putting selected quotes of some researchers won't make it a topic. I will put this in the AfD Rupert Loup (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear this from User:Rupert loup. We cannot be stopped just by his opposition, by the way. --Checco (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging the article's weakness on the question of defining the ideologies of national liberalism when we began to improve it, an issue flagged by both Rupert loup and TFD, I would like to propose 2 additions:

  • Sociologist James Alfred Aho describes 19th century national liberalism as “a mind set that measures all proposed domestic reforms in terms of the degree to which they will increase social order, social control, and thus the state’s ‘power value,’” describing Max Weber and Gustav von Schmoller as supporters of this ideology.[11]
  • Historian Michael John cautions against a “simple association of liberalism with… the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie.” He argues that within the pre-unification Germanies, commitment to liberal nationalism among the middle and property-owning class depended on local circumstance, with agricultural regions finding it less attractive than industrializing areas; Catholic areas being less drawn to it than Protestant ones; and those living under an autocrat like George V of Hanover strongly favoring liberal nationalism.[12]E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Robert Stuart of the University of Western Australia, in France, Maurice Barrès advocated a French ideology of national socialism that defined itself against both the national liberalism of Jules Ferry and against the Marxism of Jules Guesde.[13]E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are very good suggestions and I fully endorse them. However, it is not easy to work without editing the article. The best thing would be to upload the text that I copied above and, then, procede with further improvements, like the ones proposed by User:E.M.Gregory. --Checco (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ps: However, we should make sure not to confuse "national liberalism" with "liberal nationalism".
I agree. First half of the article by Michael John is a history of national liberalism (no caps) as a political movement before unification and the creation of the National Liberal Party (Germany) in 1867. It analyses the question of who was drawn to liberal nationalism. (post '67 it is about the who supports the National Liberal Party) I find it pertinent to this discussion because it responds to TDF's skepticism that there is no ideology, only political parties. This article looks at the roughly 20 years when non-Prussians were drawn to a liberal national ideology form which the formal Party would be formed in 1867.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, User:E.M.Gregory, I have seen your most recent proposed addition to the article. What are we going to do? Shall we edit the article or not? Any ideas from User:Autospark? --Checco (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problems or concerns with the additions suggested by User:E.M.Gregory, and agree that they would be positive additions to the article. I don't see how any of them are ambiguous or could be misconstrued as first-party sources.--Autospark (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Autospark this is not a democracy. You need to explain how my arguments are not valid in detalil. If not the content won't be added. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I also found more sources:
  • 1: "National Liberalism is a variant of Liberalism commonly found in several European countries in the 19th and 20th Century, which combines nationalism with policies mainly derived from Economic Liberalism" – this is a wonderful definition, which matches the one proposed above;
  • 2: other definitions of "national liberalism";
  • 3: "national liberalism" mentioned among variants of liberalism;
  • 4: "national liberalism" mentioned among "traditions of liberalism"
  • 5: "national liberalism" in Hungary;
  • 6: new "national liberalism"
  • 7: not sure on this, but it may be worth reading.
--Checco (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And one more... 8. --Checco (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, 9 is also quite interesting and consequential. What about improving the article again? --Checco (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read Paul Kelly (your source #7,) he, like many contemporary students of nationalism uses "national liberalism" and "liberal nationalism" interchangeably. I see support for this "national liberalism" as an idea, or "mind set" precisely where you have mostly found it: in the 19th century. There were a remarkabl;y large number of European thinkers and politicians committed to "national liberalism" as opposed to "liberalism" as a universal and universalizing ideology. The political parties they founded witness their commitment. After being in abeyance for a number of decades, national liberalism had a renaissance with József Antall, and elsewhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sociologist James Alfred Aho opinion is WP:PRIMARY and he "propose" use the term to refering a "mind set" not an ideology and states that "Weber, schomller, and the sociologist of conflict were in some ways significantly different from one another", these mind set is not a coherent system. What he do is use the term to refer the German liberalism and use the term only three times, later use nationalism or liberalism.
Historian Michael John is under a paywall, but E.M.Gregory comment don't state that is an ideology and talk about liberal nationalism. These is state in the tags of the Topics of the journal.
Maurice Barres "advocated a French ideology of national socialism that defined itself against both the national liberalism of Jules Ferry and against the Marxism of Jules Guesde" they use the term to define itself, not as an ideology, the ideology was socialism that it's not liberalism, there is not a cohesive ideology in any of the sources. Again, this clearly is a WP:SYNTHESIS. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't state that their not reliable. I don't know what you are takling about. And ther are not secondary, you are reading it wrong. "An author's own thinking based on primary sources". James Alfred Aho opinion is not based on any primary source and he don't state any primary source either, its just his opinion. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Checco sources, [2] this is a primary souce and not academic or reliable. In [3] Marcel Stoetzler refers to German liberalism and the National Liberal Party and doesn't explain nothing about the concept of the so-called ideology national liberalism. In [4] is only metioned once and I don't know if it's refering to a national variant of a country or a ideology, it don't explain nothing. [5] this is an opinion article, not a notable academic work, and don't explain the subject at all. [6] here is only metioned once, it talks about Hungarian liberalism and nationalism, instead of saying separately it use the term, not a distinct ideology. He later use nationalism and liberalism separetly. It doesn't explain nothing about what is national liberalism. [7] is a primary souce by the National Liberal Party (UK, 1999). It's how describe themselves, not a distinc ideology and not an academic work. [8] this source doesn't talk about national liberalism at all. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be very careful to verify the assertions you make. For example, Checco's source # 7 is a reliable scholarly source, a Chapter by Paul Kelly , Liberalism and Nationalism," published in The Cambridge Companion to Liberalism and made available online at the website of the London School of Economics. Your assertions and use of facts and sources throughout this discussion have been so far form even rudimentary understanding of the use of sources by scholars, and you ignorance of ordinary rules of editing (cf. you assertion above that a professor of sociology analyzing the work of 19th century politicians and thinkers is a PRIMARY source) so shocking in an editor with your years of regular editing that I can only assume that you are disingenuously trolling this discussion for reasons of you own.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 7th source appears valid in a scholarly manner. I would reject the 7th resource outright due to its self-published nature (and it does not seem relevant), and the 1st I am unsure of due to its (again) self-published nature (although the content of the site does look very precise and competent). However most of the sources I can see the benefit of for expanding the article content.--Autospark (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are incurring in harassment WP:HARASS. Please, take it back. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And where in the Paul Kelly's source talk about national liberalism? And I don't know why you keep talking about the reliability of the sources that you pointed, I never questioned such thing. You are clearly confused. Please take this time that User:NeilN gave us to cool down and think in what you were doing. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of demostrate this is on you. You stated that Kelly "uses "national liberalism" and "liberal nationalism" interchangeably." That's because the term can be used as a synonymous. This is because the term is not a real ideology and we can give the meaning that we want according with the circumstances. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this source presented by Checco, Göran B. Nilsson talks about national liberalism and compare it with cosmopolitan liberalism, again like in some of the other sources, he is talking about the regional variant in contrast with the worldwide variant. There is no a cohesive ideology with particulars dogmas. There isn't also a cosmopolitan liberalism per se. There are just terms. There are terms that researchers use to label the parties and academics of the time. Like the sources state there were liberals and nationalist, or that is how they describe themselves. Some were nationalist, liberal, libertarians or socialist. If they were nationalist and liberals then they called them national liberals. As James Alfred Aho states, they had very different ideas. He use the term "mind set" to talk about the ideas that German liberals had at the time. It's logical that they need to use the term so in that way the reader could understand of what they were talking about. Again, is not a distinct ideology is a term and the meaning vary with the circumstances in which is used as noted before. Sometimes is used to refer to the indigenous liberalism, other time as a synonymous, other to refer at the nationalism and liberalism of the time. No one agrees that it is an ideology or what it constitutes this ideology. There is no a scholarly consensus. And the term is used loosely. All the sources presented here use the term few times. Later use nationalism or liberalism. Is not a notable term by any means. Lastly, I want to hear the opinion of TFD about this. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of sources that describe the noun liberal with the adjective national, but no source that connects them. My argument for deletion is lack of notability, that is, that either no topic exists or there are inadequate sources for an article. If national liberal refers to many things, then each is a topic and requires its own article. The closest to a topic we seem to have is Oskar Mulej: "it may be argued that in the Central European lands a distinct type of liberalism." But we cannot connect that to the other authors because we don't know that they are talking about the same thing.
Compare with Social liberalism. Note that although it is brief, it defines the ideology, explains when and where it arose, identifies writers who initiated the ideology and parties that followed it, and uses sources that provide more than a passing mention. I realized too that the term has more than one meaning (in the US it means cultural liberalism). This article should do the same.
Questions: the article says, "the word 'national' acted as more or less synonymous with 'liberal'". Is that what it mean in the national liberalism Mulej wrote about? Also, it says it is one of three strains in Austria. Does that mean Austrian liberalism in general or is there a competing non-national liberalism? These are things that sources should provide.
Incidentally, Schlesinger would have identified with the National Liberal Party of Germany.
TFD (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we could have a source that tell us what are the tenets of national liberalism, who, when and where started the thing, we could work with that to make an article. Right now is a label that used some political parties, and a term that could be used to describe any liberal variant that have national tendencies, or vice versa. Also was used to describe a regional liberal variant. In the unsourced material it was said that Max Weber was a prominet national liberal. But in his wiki article, which is a good article, its never stated, if he founded this ideology there must be a source that state this and what are the tenets of this ideology. Also the sources must be secondary. Not primary opinions. Is a big statement that need reliable secondary sources. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also I made a mistake, about the source "Robert Stuart, 'Marxism and National Identity: Socialism, Nationalism, and National', SUNY Press, 2006", Stuart use the term as a synonymous of liberal nationalism as he states in the page 3, saying that "France, more than anywhere else on the earth at the time, embodied both the force and the frailty of liberal nationalism." and continues with "France of the belle epoque not only exemplified national liberalism". So clearly we have an clear ideology here, is liberal nationalism. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory That's correct, but you did understand me, Don't you? Have in mind that english is not my first language and I have dyslexia. So it's difficult to me not to make misspellings. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning to the topic at hand, TFD, I would be interested to hear you encounter the idea I raise above, that there was a moment, or, rather, a series of moments in many central European countries in the 19th century when national liberalism was an ideology; I source such a moment in Germany just before unification above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oskar Mulej use the term "national liberalism" as a synonymous of "liberal nationalism" in that source. Examples are in the page 68 and 70. And he cites "Liberty and the Search for Identity. Imperial Heritages and Liberal Nationalisms in a Comparative Perspective (Budapest and New York, 2006), 399–456." in the page 59. And he states that "One could therefore speak about traditions of ‘national liberalism’ as a common designation for a number of related ideologies and movements, distinctive for Central Europe". He never states that there is an ideology. I don't know were you get such thing. If there is an ideology is liberal nationalism. Term that he used as I said as a synonymous.
And finally, József Antall has been described as liberal nationalist, for example in this relaible source of the University of Michigan Press along with a nice definition of liberal nationalism or civic nationalism. Do you have a source with a definition like this about "national liberalism"? It is an honest question. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay, not a policy. TFD is pointing how a good article is made. With reliable sources that explain clearly the subject. Not a disorganised set of different opinions that differ one of another without any cohesion to try to pass it as a topic. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Autospark, nobody said nothing about that the source 7 is not reliable. I already state my argument. You need to explain where the sources talk about on how the diferent sources talk about a common subject, that is say there are conected one with another. That they are talking about an ideology. Because now any of the sources seems to talk about the same. And even less seem to talk about a particular ideology. So do the favor of explain to me this clearly. Again, WP:CONSENSUS is achived by reasoning not by voting. And also, add the sources to expand the article in what specifically manner? Impling something that is not stated in the sources is WP:POV. So please all you try to elaborate your argument. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not User:Autospark, but the fact is that you do not like any of the sources we find. Now you talk about "reasoning" and that is OK, but there is no real reason for you to oppose the inclusion (or, better, the reinstatement) of the aforementioned version. At least, that "national liberalism is a variant of liberalism, combining liberal policies and issues with elements of nationalism" is no longer unsourced as this source states "National Liberalism is a variant of Liberalism commonly found in several European countries in the 19th and 20th Century, which combines nationalism with policies mainly derived from Economic Liberalism". I think it is time to go back editing the article. --Checco (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checco Most of the sources that were presented are reliable. I alredy state that. Is the content the problem, I already state why. That source is a self published source. WP:SELFPUB The very same source state that in its faq "This website was created as a personal project by Luke Mastin. He has no official training in philosophy" [9] Rupert Loup (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checco, NeilN already told you that you can't add unsourced content WP:OR, I already told you that you can't put material that is not stated in the source. So unless that you have a source that state that it is and ideology and what are the tenets and who, when and where started the thing as already said, that content can't be added. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop re-inventing what other users said and please start seeking consensus, instead of just opposing. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checco where I re-inventing what other users said? I'm tring to achive consensus. I alredy state my arguments. I alredy told you why the sources don't state that. You are who need to prove the contrary. Please, continue with the discusion and assume good faith. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section's references

  1. ^ Lothar Gall und Dieter Langewiesche - Liberalismus und Region, München 1995, pp. 4–10.
  2. ^ Özsel, Doğancan (2011). Reflections on Conservatism. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 255. ISBN 1443833959. Retrieved 16 May 2017.
  3. ^ a b http://rcin.org.pl/Content/56895/WA303_77550_A295-APH-R-111_Mulej.pdf
  4. ^ Maciej Janowski, ‘ Wavering Friendship : liberal and national ideas in nineteenth century East-Central Europe’, Ab Imperio , 3–4 (2000), 69–90, 80.
  5. ^ http://www.iwm.at/publications/5-junior-visiting-fellows-conferences/vol-xxxiii/national-liberal-heirs-of-the-old-austria
  6. ^ http://www.worldebooklibrary.org/articles/Liberalism_in_Austria
  7. ^ Harvey, Kaye (October 1966). "Wobbling around the center". The Progressive. Retrieved 16 May 2017.
  8. ^ Lind, Michael (2013). Up from Conservatism. Simon and Schuster. p. 32. ISBN 1476761159. Retrieved 16 May 2017.
  9. ^ Kurunmaki, Jussi. “On the Difficulty of Being a National Liberal in Nineteenth-Century Finland.” Contributions to the History of Concepts, vol. 8, no. 2, 2013, pp. 83–95., http://www.jstor.org/stable/43610946.
  10. ^ Between Left and Right: The Ambivalence of European Liberalism," p. 18,[verification needed] in Liberal Parties in Western Europe, Emil J. Kirchner, ed., Cambridge University Press, 1988, ISBN 0521323940.
  11. ^ German Realpolitik and American Sociology: An Inquiry Into the Sources, James Alfred Aho, Bucknell University Press, 1975. P. 66.
  12. ^ John, Michael. "Liberalism and Society in Germany, 1850-1880: The Case of Hanover." The English Historical Review 102, no. 404 (1987): 579-98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/571885.
  13. ^ Robert Stuart, ‘’Marxism and National Identity: Socialism, Nationalism, and National, ‘’ SUNY Press, 2006. P. 4.

Expanding and updating for 2020

@Checco:@Rupert loup:@Autospark:@E.M.Gregory:

I believe that the questions of the legitimacy of this category, being National Liberalism, have been settled and we now have a consensus. However the article needs to be updated. National liberalism has, I contend, been seen as major force in European politics historically, and today. I am particularly thinking of recent contributions from:

It seems to be a phenomena in several countries, and I think we need to show where it is active, not just historically, but where it is influencing nations today. For that reason I think there needs to be a section on Poland and possibly on Australia too.

Thoughts? Contributions?

Erasmus Sydney (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you can do to improve the article is much welcome.
One thing about Australia: are you sure that "national liberalism" applies there? --Checco (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note and a query

  1. Name calling has continued. Stop it or there will be blocks levied.
  2. Is content unsourced or are the sources disputed? Please be concise in your answer and focus on the actual content.

--NeilN talk to me 02:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return to editing?

Hello, I think it is time to return to editing the article. I offered some ideas above, others did too. Shall we start again? --Checco (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely time! Hopefully we can all reach a workable consensus now.--Autospark (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After an extended (two-month) moratorium, I returned back to editing this article. I did my best in recovering parts of the article that were deleted frankly without consensus (however I refrained from adding the most controversial among them), adding sources and expanding some sections from scratch. Any improvement is welcome and debate is welcome as well. I just hope we can refrain from barricades and total rollbacks. --Checco (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National liberalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing wording

I am attempting to clear up some confusing or poor wording but am getting resistance. Here are some issues I have with the wording in this edit.

  • Per MOS:SLASH, using slashes in article prose should be avoided when possible.
  • "have been especially active in the 19th century" is ungrammatical
  • "whose" is inappropriate in reference to "national liberalism" since whose is used for people, and national liberalism is not a person or group of people ("national liberalists are, though)
  • per WP:ISAWORDFOR, we should avoid using phrases like "X is a term that describes Y" or "X refers to Y" and just say "X is Y".

@Checco:, do you think you can help me out here and explain what the issues you have with my edits are? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"National liberalists" instead of "national liberals" is poor wording, isn't it? I do not see particular problems in the article's text, but I would like to ask to User:Autospark, a native English speaker, who knows this article well to check. --Checco (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When referring to individuals, we should write "national liberals", not "national liberalists", of course. "Were especially active in the 19th century", rather than "have been especially active in the 19th century" is the preferable, grammatical phrasing.--Autospark (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing in question was actually "National liberalist goals", so it was not in reference to people. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also "national liberalist goals" is not correct, right User:Autospark? --Checco (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I would say "national-liberal goals" or "goals of national liberalism" instead.--Autospark (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great! It sounds like User:Aeusoes1 and I found a compromise on the article. @User:Autospark: feel freed to edit it as well, in case you find problems in grammary or synthax! --Checco (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we could figure it out. :) — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_liberalism