Talk:Liberalism in the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move of the article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Move.

Someone put a {{moveto}} template on the article to move the article to Liberalism in the United States. What are some thoughts on this? It seems like a good idea to me (support). I'm not sure what the editor's reasoning was, but I know that many people from the Americas outside the US consider "America" to encompass both continents, not just the US, so it might make more sense to have the article named Liberalism in the United States, as the article deals exclusively with liberalism in the States. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. It would fit the format of other liberalism articles (e.i. Liberalism in the United Kingdom). Wigren 16:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This article gets moved all over the place, spun off, split, rejoined, removed, restored. If it is moved to Liberalism in the United States, you can be reasonably sure it will be moved back to American Liberalism within a month. Enough already! Rick Norwood 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I say move it, but please take to WP:RM, so we don't have to go through all this again. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Posted there. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The question, of course, is the name of the second largest country on the North American continent. Technically, the article should be titled Liberalism in the United States of America. America could be misread as "the Americas" (but never is). The United States could be misread as "The United States of Mexico" (but never is). In fact, "America" has come to mean "The United States of America" just as "the United Kingdom" has come to mean "England, Scotland, etc." dispite the fact that there are many other united kingdoms in the world. Similarly, Paris is understood to mean Paris, France and not Paris, Texas.

Just to clarify, it's not "The United States of Mexico," it's "The United Mexican States." Quite different. Additionally, there has not been another country with "United Kingdom" in its title since 1905, and Paris, France was the originator of all other cities which are named Paris. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind we are all from the States, so of course we wouldn't confuse "America" with the continents. However, someone from outside the US may not feel the same way. Recently, I spoke with a Venezuelan woman, who took "America" to mean what we would call the "Americas." Granted, she wasn't a native speaker of English, but it still shows that not everyone automatically associates America with the US. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are enough people who really want to retitle this article, then it should be retitled "Liberalism in the United States of America" and every other article that uses "America" to mean "The United States of America" should be similarly retitled, including but not limited to "American Conservatism" and "Modern American Liberalism". Then, whoever moves all of the articles, must also change all of the links to all of these articles. I would estimate, conservatively, that we are talking about at least ten to twenty hours of hard, painstaking work. Who volunteers? Rick Norwood 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly make the changes to the other articles and change the wikilinks. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support votes

1. Support as nominated. It makes more sense and is consistent with how many other country specific philosophies are labeled. 205.157.110.11 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support --Yath 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support as nominated. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per my comments above. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per above and nominated --SeanMcG 00:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support per comments above. Wigren 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I do not think there is any reasonable chance that literate readers of English will actually expect this title to cover the Liberalism of, say, Peru, so the support arguments do not move me; but the oppose arguments do. If this move does anything to dispell the partisan nonsense that American liberalism is not descended from Bentham and Mill, it will have paid for itself. "Freedom plus groceries" is not opposite to freedom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   You should vote what is best for Wikipedia, not to get back at some user. Rick Norwood 13:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   Where has he indicated that he is voting against because of some vendetta against another editor?

8. Support. As Septentrionalis says. john k 02:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose votes

1. I Oppose the move because, as i see it, the two terms don't mean the same thing. "Liberalism in the United States" implies that there is some generic 'liberalism' and we're going to talk about its presence in the U.S. "American Liberalism" implies a distinct belief system, a different type of liberalism. 2nd Piston Honda 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I think it's pretty clear that it refers to the United States brand of liberalism. The other countries' respective articles on liberalism are titled as "Liberalism in Country X", so if only for consistancy's sake, we should do the same for this article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   It's not clear because the two obviously have different meanings. Accuracy supercedes consistency. If you want consistency, I'd suggest changing the names of the other articles. 2nd Piston Honda 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

   Referring to my nomination, I already gave my reasons for which the proposed name would be more accurate. To some people from other countries in the two American continents, the adjective "American" describes a person from either of those continents, not simply a person from the USA. This view that "America means the USA and nothing else" is ignorant and USA-centric. Why is it that American is a disambiguation page which first lists "A person or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the Western Hemisphere," whereas United States is the title of the article for the USA? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose as needlessly wordy, unnecessary, and less likely to be searched on, leading to needless redirects. I appreciate Cielomobile's offer to take on the hard work involved, but note that you need to get a consensus, not only here, but also in "American Conservatism", "Modern American Liberalism", and all the other articles that use "American" to mean "United Statesian". Rick Norwood 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I will post on those talk pages also, then. There is no consensus here yet, and I don't know if there will be, but I will try to bring editors from those other pages into the discussion. Also, if there is consensus to keep the page named "American liberalism," then all the articles titled "Liberalism in Country X" (i.e. Liberalism in the United Kingdom, Liberalism and radicalism in France) should be changed to fit the model (i.e. change them to British liberalism, French liberalism and radicalism). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   In theory, at least, I agree with you -- parallel articles should have parallel titles. In Wikipedia, I'm not sure that is possible. Someone would need to have an overview of the entire encyclopedia, otherwise we are going to have title A changed to conform with title B and then somebody is going to change title B to conform with title C, leaving A out on a limb. And so on, ad infinitum. That makes this a meta-question, one for the Wikipedia gods to decide. Rick Norwood 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps, yes. I am not too concerned with the other articles, though; my reasoning for this particular move is the US-centric view that we are America; which is untrue and may be offensiive to those from the continent outside the US. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I understand your point, but others believe that to call the United States of America "the United States" is offensive to other countries with the phrase "United States" in their name. As a practical matter, somebody is going to be offended no matter what. In fact, just about everybody -- friends, enemies, and neutrals alike -- calls the country "America", probably because it is easy to turn into an adjective, "American", while "the United States" is hard to turn into an adjective. To attempt to prevent this by now almost universal usage is Quixotic. Rick Norwood 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

   I've never heard of anyone being upset or confused because of someone calling the USA simply the US. There hasn't been a country other than the USA titled the "United States of X" since 1968, when Brazil changed its offical name from the "Republic of the United States of Brazil" to its current form. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"USA" is British usage (instead of "US"). It is therefore also common among people who speak English as a second language. Perhaps they want to avoid confusion with USB. :-) Kauffner 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Also, there is the problem that United States does not have any handy adjective form. But mainly, it is a lot of work and I'm afraid it will be done badly. Maybe we should just rename the country. Rick Norwood 13:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   This translates to "United Mexican States," not "United States of Mexico." Hurray for placement of adjectives in other languages. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

2. oppose It's well known that because of historical reasons, liberalism in Europe (and elsewhere) is akin to conservatism in America. The change will mean this article will have to be about supporters of Hoover and Goldwater, not Roosevelt and LBJ. Now that would be true confusion. Rjensen 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think you quite understand what I'm proposing. I'm proposing to move this article (American liberalism) to Liberalism in the United States, seeing as "United States" refers specifically to the USA, whereas "American" can refer more generally to the Americas as a whole. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

   "Liberalism in the United States" is a poor title because it indicates it's related to European/Aisan/etc liberalism, but it's just the opposite. The word "American" solves the problem and leads to no confusion whatever. No reader will think it means "Liberalism in Mexico" (which by the way resembles conservatism in the USA). Rjensen 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

   How does it indicate thet it's related to European/Asian/etc. liberalism? The use of the form "A in B" is no different from the form "adjective decribing B A." Neither is any clearer in that sense. The issue at hand is not so much one of clarity, as the first sentence in the article specifically states that it deals with liberalism in the US, but rather one of political correctness. It is politically incorrect to consider "America" to encompass the USA only and not both North America and South America. Ask anyone from Latin America. Would you call the article Black people "Negro people" instead? No, because it is not politically correct. The two are equally clear, but one is less offensive. It is the same situation with this article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask anyone from Latin America and they will tell you that this article is not about Liberalism at all. Let's not invent imaginary experts who don't exist. Rjensen 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Even more reason to specify in the article title that it is about liberalism in the US. I really don't understand why you oppose this move. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the move because 1) it is motivate by POV motivated attack on "American" (which is perfectly well understood--despite mystery Latin Americans who protest somewhere but not here.) 2) the change is seriously misleading because it suggests US liberalism is part of world liberalism. Suggestion: instead of "liberalism" try "football" and see what happens. Rjensen 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

US liberalism is a part of world liberalism. The policies which it encompasses may be more akin to conservatism in many other countries, but what we mean by liberalism is really "left-wing political ideology." I think we can all agree that "Left-wing political ideology in the United States" would be a bit awkward, though. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on Left-wing politics. The big difference between "liberal" and "left-wing" is that, in the US at least, liberals usually support private ownership of property, while left-wingers in general do not. Also, left-wing usually suggests more government control, nationalization of industries, etc., while liberals usually favor more personal freedom, with just enough government control to protect the environment and the rights of minorities. Rick Norwood 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Left-wing just means left-of-center; it derives from French parliament, when the liberals sat to the left of the president, and conservatives sat to the right. You are correct, though, that liberals generally support private ownership of property, but it is not necessarily true that left-wingers do not. "Left-wing" is a pretty broad term and includes everything from slightly left-of-center ideology (like the Third Way) to the most extreme end of the spectrum (like Communism). But I digress; I do not want to move the article to left-wing politics or anything. The move has nothing to do with any of this. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finalizing decision

It has been over a week since I posted this at WP:RM, and according to the rules there, a decision should be made in five days. Since there are seven supports but only three opposes, and I feel that I have adequately defended my position, I am going to move the article and the associated articles of Modern American liberalism and American conservatism. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A seven to three vote is hardly a consensus. Move the article if you must, but expect that to provoke an edit war that will keep idle hands busy for months and leave things in worse shape than they were before. Break a leg. Rick Norwood 18:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles like Kiss (band) were moved with much less of a consensus; a 70% consensus is pretty good. But it seems I need an administrator to complete this action, seeing as there is already a redirect page at Liberalism in the United States. Maybe I can be a little creative. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the move, but I didn't do it conventionally, so please let me know if I botched any part of it. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've patched up the history, so all of the contributions are in the same place, which as I type this, is Liberalism in the United States. If the article needs to move again from this title, please follow the procedure as indicated at WP:RM. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this section.