Talk:Anti-bourgeois liberalization

Requested move 23 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Possibilities for merging might be discussed elsewhere, for example at Talk:Bourgeois liberalization. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Anti-Bourgeois liberalization → Against Bourgeois liberalization – The wording "Against Bourgeois liberalization" is more prevalent in English literature. The wording "Anti-Bourgeois liberalization" could be misleading. TheLonelyPather (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Opposition to bourgeois liberalization?: Neither form seems grammatically sensible. The Bourgeoisie article uses lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment BarrelProof's suggestion seems better than either the current title or the one in the current RM. That said, I wonder if there's a title that makes it clear that this is an internal notion in the Chinese Communist Party. Alternatively, if there is a more general Marxist notion of bourgeois liberalization, then maybe it would be better to have a general article called bourgeois liberalization without the "against" part, where some of this content could live. (Care needs to be taken to make it clear that it's a Marxist concept, and avoid making assertions in Wikivoice that reify it.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Ah, turns out that article already exists. I think it might make sense to merge this article there. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Merge into bourgeois liberalization per my remarks above. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's also okay. I was hesitant of a merge because on zh-wiki, bourgeois liberalization is a separate article from this article. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's a slight annoyance, but I don't think it should keep us from making the structure that makes the most sense here. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Great then, happy to !vote merge. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with suggested merge. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge (weak support for remaming). I AGF that the "Against Bourgeois liberalization" is more prelevant (please provide Google Scholar/Books links/counts if possible in the future). But I don't see above any rationale for merging, and on zh wiki those are separate articles. Why merge makes sense? PS. I'd also oppose merge on technicality - this is a renaming discussion. If anyone wants a merge, please template the pages with correct templates ({{mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}}) and start a properly labelled merge discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Information on rationale behind renaming or merging:

In 1986 Deng Xiaoping wrote an article "Take a Clear-Cut Stand Against Bourgeois Liberalization", in Deng, Xiaoping (1987). Fundamental Issues in Present-Day China. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. pp. 161–66.. Also see this paper (p. 1), this journal (footnote #23).

However, it is true that many other sources use the phrasing against "bourgeois liberalization", which stresses "bourgeois liberalization" as an individual concept. See this article (section #5), or this WaPo 1987 article (paragraph #6).

If we decide to rename the article, we should rename it as "Against bourgeois liberalization", for it is the exact wording Deng chose. However, the existing sources also show a possibility of combining this article with Bourgeois liberalization.

Currently, the two articles are distinct on zh-wiki: "Bourgeois liberalization" refers to the political term (from zh-wiki: 资产阶级自由化是中华人民共和国的一个政治词语), whereas "Against bourgeois liberalization" refers to the slogan of a political campaign (zh-wiki: 反对资产阶级自由化作为中国共产党的一个政治口号).

I leave the possibility of change up to discussion. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Responding to Piotrus: "Bourgeois liberalization" seems to be an internal notion to Chinese Communist ideology; AFAIK no one outside the CCP orbit actually calls it that. Everyone else just calls it "liberalization". So anyone who calls it "Bourgeois liberalization" is almost ipso facto on the "opposition" side. Therefore I don't see any need for two articles. On the point that there are two articles on zh.wiki, I don't think that need have any bearing on what we choose on en.wiki --Trovatore (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, some of the terminology here seems like just a non-fluent translation of CCP Chinese idioms into English. The bourgeois liberalization article is not very long, and to me it seems natural to describe both the concept of what that is and also the opposition to it in a single article. I'm very far from being an expert on this subject matter, but I can confidently say that both "Anti-Bourgeois liberalization" and "Against Bourgeois liberalization" are not natural phrases in English. It makes sense that the article mentioned above puts the phrase "bourgeois liberalization" in quote marks, because it is not a natural phrase in English. The phrase "bourgeois liberalization" sounds like it is describing a liberalization of the bourgeoisie. And the phrase "Anti-Bourgeois liberalization" sounds like a kind of liberalization that is anti-bourgeois (which is not correct). Both phrases are confusing. A slight improvement of the current title would be "Anti–bourgeois liberalization" (per MOS:PREFIXDASH), but few people would notice the meaning implied by the en dash. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, merge and more Both anti-bourgeois liberalization and bourgeois liberalization are terms being used in a single common context of China, primarily in the 1980s. It is certain that the former cannot be discussed in isolation from the latter and, given the size of the latter, I see no benefit in forking this into two articles. I would tend to agree with the comments by BarrelProof immediately above. Anti-bourgeois liberalization should use the dash per MOS:PREFIXDASH. Further, a hyphen should probably be used to indicate the linking of bourgeois and liberalization but the subtlety of this would probably still be lost on many and is not particularly elegant. The terms should probably be introduced in prose in quote marks because they are phrases that have a particular meaning in context not immediately clear from the phrase itself. Also, there is no good reason to capitalise bourgeois in the present title. It is not being done in the article in prose. To the Nom's proposed target, against is a preposition that joins words or phrases. It is not being used in sources in this context without a preceding word (see here). Using Against bourgeois liberalization as the title would be grammatical nonesense. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article could be better named

The wording "anti-bourgeois liberalization" does not make good sense. As a political slogan, it actually means to oppose or act against the liberalization of the Bourgeois, "Against Bourgeois liberalization" would be a better name for this article.

The wording "Against Bourgeois liberalization" is also prevalent in the English-speaking world. Kindly see the official translation of Deng Xiaoping's 1986 article "Take A Clear-Cut Stand Against Bourgeois Liberalization". This name is also referenced here on JSTOR and here on UC Press.

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you for your suggestion.악준동 (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)