Two users keep removing this statement from the intro: "In the U.S. the term "liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies and regulatory state created by the New Deal, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with limited government and laissez-faire, a philosophy that is closer to classical liberalism or to what Americans call conservatism.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

I think it should be kept because this is an international encyclopedia, and the U.S. and Europe are large population centers that read this article that use the term "liberalism" is very different ways. And it's even notable information prima facie just from the fact that it's explained in several sources. This is what books and encyclopedia articles on liberalism do in order to help the reader out to know what "language" they're speaking, or at least to let them know that it does refer to different things, because there is an international audience. For a liberalism article, on a widely read international encyclopedia like Wikipedia, this is especially crucial. For your convenience, quotes from the sources provided follow and are all available to verify see on Google books except for Encyclopedia Britannica which is available on their website. (I also ask that anyone who thinks it belongs there shoud help put it in rather than simply commenting, because I'm pretty much by myself against two editors who want it out. Hardly anyone is paying attention, so what the consensus is probably won't make a difference without that assistance. Thanks.):

"In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies". (Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online))

"Significant differences exist between the use of the term "liberalism" in the United States, in Canada, and in Europe. In the U.S., the term "liberalism" became associated with the welfare-state policies of and expanded regulatory state created by the New Deal and its successors, from the 1930s onwards..Western European liberal parties tended to adhere more closely towards classical liberalism, with a notable example being West Germans neoliberal Free Democractic Party (FDP)." (Dijk, Ruud van. Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis, 2008. p. 541) [3]

"Moreover, Ameicans do not use the term "liberalism" in the same way Europeans do. In fact, classical European liberalism more closely resembles what we (and what Americans generally) call consevatism." (Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, Stanley Rothman. American Elites. Yale University Press, 1996. p. 41) [4]

"Constructive discussion of liberalism has to identify which of the many meanings of the term is being used...The most noteworthy example of the latter is the difference between the conventional usage of the term in the United States and elsewhere in the contemporary period. Whereas generally liberalism has the connotation of a commitment to individual rights, economic liberalism and a relatively limited role for the state vis-a-vis the market and private institutions in genearl, in the United States it usually connotes social liberalism, that is acceptance of varying degrees of state intervention to acheive certain social objectives, and is contrasted with 'conservatism' which..." (Wim van Oorschot, Michael Opielka, Birgit Pfau-Eff. Culture and Welfare state: Values and Social Policy in Comparative Perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. p. 30) [5]

"The term 'liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state." (Patrick O'Meara, Howard D. Mehlinger, Matthew Krain. Globalization and the challenges of a new century. Indiana University Press, 2000) [6]

"The term 'liberal' can also be easily misunderstood by European and American readers. In Europe "Liberal" usually refers to classical liberalism, i.e. the European philosophical tradition of ineividualism that supports policies of laissez-faire in both civil liberties and economics. In the United States 'liberal' generally refers to someone who supports both civil liberties and a significant role for government in the economic and social areas." (Gunlicks, Arthur B. The Länder and German federalism. Manchester University Press, 2003. p. xi) Introman (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC) [7] Introman (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Of course. Introman (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Exclude The Introduction to the article should give a brief overview of the subject, including different strains of liberalism. But detail about the varying uses of the term liberalism in the US and continental Europe (while excluding the varying uses in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and the developing world) excessively bloats the lead. Also, the issue is complex: there are variances of the use of the term "liberal" within Europe and within the US. There is already a line at the top of the article saying: This article discusses the ideology of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in Liberalism worldwide. For other uses, see Liberal. The section immediately following the lead ("Etymology and historical usage")[8] provides ample opportunity to discuss varying usages. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't "discuss the ideology of liberalism" without pointing out the different conceptions of liberalism. Introman (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman, could you please explain what your comment has to do with my posting? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Do not exagerate the importance. I also point out that you have requoted your "references" without going to the trouble of correcting the many mistakes I noted above. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't nitpick on typos and syntax. That's not what this is about. Introman (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To point out that a reference omits the title of the book it cites is hardly a nit! But the larger point is this: your careless and hasty changes take up the valuable time of the many people who are serious about keeping Wikipedia a scholarly work. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG, you are hardly one to call someone else careless. You original research is rampant. You misinterpret sources, and say things are in sources that are not there, constantly. For example, the bottom of the Liberalism in the United States talk page you are claiming a source is saying something that it's not. Introman (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Four Deuces, this seems a crusade to change the lede with material which might be worthy of some reference in the main body (although in a veryu different form). This seems to a campaign across several articles and should be resolved in one place. Raising it [here] illustrates the issue. --Snowded ^TALK 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I concede that the lede is bloated, but I contend that it is bloated with such as the 'I like pie, flowers are pretty' truism "Today, most nations accept the ideals of freedom" (note that Freedom is too ethereal a concept to merit more than a Disambiguation page), and not with two sentences that clarify a complete disjunct between usage in the US and the rest of the world. Which is summarizing the issue into a generalization, I will concede that also. But summarizing is what we do here at WP, no?, and especially in the lede, so I find that argument to be specious. The sentences call attention to and complement the link to Liberalism worldwide, and two sentences is not undue weight for such a weighty distinction in my opinion. I propose the addition of 'libertarianism' to 'conservatism', or replacing conservatism with libertarianism. I have not looked at the source texts, so that might require additional citation.

Side note: I propose the inclusion of libertarianism in the See also section, and although anarcho-capitalism is more closely related to libertarianism, it is related to Classical liberalism as well, and I support its inclusion also. Anarchangel (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I support inclusion because the readers would get a much clearer picture about how the term is used. -- Vision Thing -- 11:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

First, note that nobody disputes a statement that Liberalism is used differently in different countries. The dispute is over the claim that the US usage is unique (the sources mention Canada and Germany, and limit themselves to the West -- what "liberal" means in Japan is obviously important), that the European usage is universal throughout Europe (one source mentions Western Europe and makes an exception for Germany), that the European "liberal" corresponds with the American "conservative" (do European liberals oppose the teaching of evolution?), and that the American usage corresponds with the "welfare state" (as if the Civil Rights movement never happened). Clearly, we cannot and should not try to cover all this in the lede. Therefore, I favor a sentence or two that limits itself to economic views. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Briefly mention and link to main article That should be enough. There's no need for Wikipedia having duplicate information of what is already presented in a separate article.

Chomskyian (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like lede POV pushing to me, by. To a certain political segment of the US, liberalism may have some associations with the "welfare state", but that's by no means universal, and (as someone else noted), it's not like liberals in Europe are pushing for prayer in schools and eliminating pensions. The perspectives and refs might have a better place in the wider discussion of the body of the article, but the lede is not the best place to put a POV. Ronabop (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean welfare state isn't universal? Are you aware of any American modern liberal that isn't for public healthcare? That's welfare state. Besides, it's sourced, so how can it be POV pushing? If you can find sources that say they're not for a welfare state then you might have an argument to go on. Good luck. Introman (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're using your own OR to redefine "welfare state" as "public healthcare", but be that as it may (since you asked), modern US liberals who aren't advocating for state run public healthcare include Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. Instead, they're advocating for a mix of state, and private healthcare plans (which we already have with Tricare, Medicare, both supported by liberals and conservatives alike). The right is pushing the phrase "welfare state" right now as a scare tactic, because of historic negative connotations (it was a Nazi slur, and later, welfare was demonized under Reagan). Have a look: http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+"welfare+state" In the more accurate form of usage of the term "welfare state", almost all liberal and conservative politicians in the US (and most of the democratic world) generally support and fight for numerous welfare state programs , but it's only used (as a catchphrase) in a negative sense towards liberals. Hence, my opinion that it looked like POV pushing. Ronabop (talk)

A welfare state is just where the government provides for the welfare (material well-being) of the citizens as opposed to not interfering. I dont mean it in any negative sense. Liberals themselves use the term. For example Paul Krugman said: "It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised." (If you want the source, it's in the Krugman article). Introman (talk)

So, if "welfare state" is liberal, was Reagan a liberal? Would Reagan's fans object to him being labelled as such? Ronabop (talk)

He might have been partially liberal, I'm not sure. His philosophy was to reduce the welfare state, though, not expand it. So I don't know how you could say his philosophy was liberal, in that sense. But it's rare to find anyone that 100% conservative, 100% classical liberal, or %100 social liberal, and so on. These are just philosophical ideals. You have to look at a person's overall views of a person and see where they might fit on a scale. Introman (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment: RFC Requesters should not comment within an RFC. The purpose of an RFC is to elicit disinterested editors. As the RFC Requester has acted as though this is a discussion; I will not be commenting in relation to their RFC. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? How about the other commenters here besides the requester that are not disinterested parties? Introman (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The very term "liberalism" has substantially different meanings to two different audiences who each comprise a significant proportion of wikipedia users. "Liberalism" is widely used in political debate on each side of the Atlantic to say different things. The intro should accommodate this difference. Bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Exclude. The viewpoint expressed here significantly oversimplifies both the complicated distinctions between the way the term is used and the wide range of meanings that have come to be attached to it both in the US and internationally. It is entirely inappropriate for the article's lead. The comparison to 'what Americans call conservatism', while glib, is particularly objectionable; American conservatism varies, but it generally contains a great many strains of thought that would be irreconcilable with European-style economic liberalism. Additionally, this construction obscures the fact that most European-style economic liberals have embraced things that US laissez-faire advocates tend to reject, such as a greater degree of government-subsidized healthcare. --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. If they objected on redunancy issues, I would find the objection more credible. Me-think-lady-protest a tad too much.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep or expand It is important to make clear that the term has different meanings in different parts of the world. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

PROs: Archangel, Vision Thing, Bobrayner, Die4Dixie, Martin Hobbin; CONs: The Four Deuces, Rick Norwood, Snowded, Ronabop, Aquillion; UNCLEAR: Chompskian; BANNED USER: Introman. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose that National liberalism be merged into Liberalism. National liberalism appears to refer to the National Liberal Party (Germany) and to other parties with similar names. In every case the term "national" was meant to describe the party not the ideology and there is no concept of "national liberalism". I suggest that the National liberalism page re-direct to National Liberal Party, which is a disambiguation page. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)