This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.
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)reply
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 here08:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Information on rationale behind renaming or merging:
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).
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)reply
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)reply
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
BarrelProofimmediately 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)reply
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.
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)reply
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 here08:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Information on rationale behind renaming or merging:
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).
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)reply
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)reply
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
BarrelProofimmediately 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)reply
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.