Talk:Modern liberalism

Fare: The important thing is not whether I like it or not. It is to clarify the concepts, to avoid confusion, and to give credits where it's due.

New Liberalism versus Modern Liberalism

"New Liberalism", the previous name of this article is an established and relatively unambiguous term. "Modern liberalism" sounds coined specially for this article, maybe the person who changed it would like to see it widely used in this meaning, which it is not. "Modern liberalism" could be understood to mean the "latest fashion" within liberalism, maybe somebody could even understand it meaning Neoliberalism which is a newer concept than "New liberalism". Anyway, using "Modern liberalism" in this meaning is a forgery and I oppose it.--213.243.154.252 01:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It has been used elsewhere. Look it up on Google. Lucidish 15:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. Also with the word "liberalism", the word "modern" is most often used in place of "contemporary", not to describe a spesific ideology. However, "new liberalism" is much less often misunderstood, because it is rarely used for other purposes than to express certain ideology. Thus, this article should be renamed back to "New liberalism".

That would be a good solution. An even better solution would be to use the title Social liberalism, which is least ambiguous, well established, and so descriptive that it is roughly understood also by those who have never before heard any of these terms.

I say merge with American liberalism. Arbor 20:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that if you merge the two columns, they should not be called "American" simply because it is not only an American theory.

Agreed. If anything, merge American liberalism w/ modern liberalism. Or "positive liberalism". Or whatever. Lucidish 15:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I take it back. Merge social liberalism into modern liberalism. Leave American lib alone; it can focus on specifically American idiosyncracies. Lucidish 18:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)