Talk:Manchester Liberalism

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Manchester Liberalism. Xoloz (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but with small s and e - technically there is a case for
  WP:CRITERIA better and surprise less. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Other options would be
  Austrian School. I agree with IIO that the exact proposed title is problematic; it makes me think of the London School of Economics, expecting an academic institution rather than a school of thought. The Austrian School is much better known, and there doesn't appear to be ambiguity in that term anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Not happy either way. Unfortunately, there is a notable economic journal called "Manchester School" (or in full, "Manchester School of Economic & Social Sciences", which cuts it pretty close and might be affecting your ghits. However you dab it, it is likely to be confusing. Walrasiad (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment #2 Unlike the Austrians, the "Manchester School" is not a school of economics (that is, economic science or thought), but rather a 19th C. public policy pressure movement - essentially a strand of 19th C. "classical liberalism" but focused almost wholly on economic policy, and trade policy in particular. They did not write or contribute to economic thought, but simply adopted the conclusions of others, and turned it into a political movement. Economists don't recognize it as a distinct school of the field, but just a group of historically-specific laissez faire political activists, whose ideas are derived from and otherwise indistinct from the Classical School. Indeed, it was originally a derogatory and dismissive term used by politicians to lump any advocate of lifting government restrictions on trade or business as belonging to some quirky "school" (much like the term "Washington Consensus" is used sometimes today). I'd be happier with "Manchester School (movement)" or "Manchester School (economic policy)", as that is the only context it is usually mentioned. Walrasiad (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Googling "Manchester school of economics" and the added word "Cobden" gives 159,000 results. Maybe the article can be named
  talk) 20:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose as proposed since capitalizing is inappropriate. Weak oppose any move. Nothing looks compelling enough to beat this
  WP:NATURAL disambiguation, and Manchester school would have to have a non-natural disambiguator... right? Red Slash 00:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• How about Manchester school (classical liberalism)? --BDD (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Manchester Liberalism, but oppose any other move. Most of the titles proposed raise more problems than the current name. As others have noted, this is not so much a school of economic thought as an ideological political movement, an expression of classical liberalism which became one of the most important ideologies in 19th-century England.
  BDD's proposed Manchester school (classical liberalism) conveys that well, but it is verbose and doesn't seem to offer much over the natural language term "Manchester Liberalism", which gets 4,530 gbooks hits compared to only 677 hits for "Manchester Capitalism". Since "Manchester Liberalism" is more widely used in reliable sources, it seems to me to be the best choice. The current title is a clear second-best. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  WP:NCCAPS it may be best to defer to sentence-case, but it's clear that the title-case form wouldn't be a Wikipedia invention. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @BDD: I also wondered if the hits would be about local Liberal clubs and so on, but they are well-focused on the ideology. I'm not sure about the capitalisation, and would accept either form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving to Manchester liberalism.--

talk) 22:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support move to Manchester Liberalism. Not sure this requires a separate RM, but "Manchester Liberalism/liberalism" (undecided about caps) is a good proposal that captures it well enough and avoids the pitfalls and verbosity of the other proposals. Walrasiad (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.