Talk:Movimiento al Socialismo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name[edit]

Is the (Bolivia) really needed in this article? Is there anything else called "Movement Toward Socialism?" --Descendall 10:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. yes, there are MAS parties in Venezuela, Argentina, etc. However, I think it would be best to move all of them to "Movement for Socialism (x-country)". --Soman 11:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this. I believe the British party Movement for Socialism's name was inspired by these groups. Warofdreams talk 12:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Rd232 talk 12:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. No. The translation of "Movimiento al Socialismo" is not "Movement for Socialism" it is "Movement to Socialism" or "Movement toward Socialism". --Revolución (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No. "movement towards socialism" is a much more accurate translation--David Barba 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Yes there's a [1] Venezuelan Movement toward Socialism and an [2] Argentinian Movement toward Socialism. --Revolución (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An exact translation doesn't really work here. There generic meaning of 'al' in this case denotes a wish to acheive socialism, not a physical motion towards it. Either 'Movement towards Socialism' and 'Movement toward Socialism' would have the same generic meaning as 'Movimiento hacía el Socialismo'. --Soman 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think translating "al" as "toward" or "towards" implies a mistranslation of "movimiento" (as a physical movement, not a collective endeavour). However, this would seem to conflict with Wikipedia naming conventions, as the most common name in English appears to be ""Movement Towards Socialism" (note the s). "Movement for Socialism" is not unheard of - Agence France Presse and Xinhua seem to do this at least occasionally - but it's much less common. I stand by it as being more accurate though; Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate errors just because they're common. Rd232 talk 12:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

Moved WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

This should be changed to "Movement towards Socialism" if it's a direct translation from the Spanish "Movimiento al Socialismo". The Spanish "al" here has a directional meaning, a movement in some direction (here, ideological). Otherwise, it'd be "Movimiento para el Socialismo". Also, the party does not describe itself strictly as a "socialist" party, but as a movement headed in that direction. There is a difference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcentellas (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change on elections[edit]

I changed the entry, which listed the 2002 election as two types: legislative & presidential. While this is technically true, the entry (as it appeared) didn't make clear how the Bolivian electoral system works. Since the 1997 election, Bolivia uses a mixed-member electoral system. This means that voters cast a presidential ballot, as well as a ballot for their local congressional representative. But this second (legislative) vote only elects about half the lower house (it varied from 1997 to 2005); the remainder of the lower house and the entirety of the senate are elected from proportional representation formulas based on the presidential votes cast.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcentellas (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change eminent[edit]

The english translation of the name clearly needs to be changed to "Movement towards Socialism". Whatever the "proper" grammatical translation should be, the most widely used english translation in academic journals and news media is "Movement towards Socialism". I think Wikipedia is the only major source that translates the name to "Movement for Socialism". Unless someone can cite numerous valid sources to the contrary, I will make the change in the coming week.--David Barba (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say that there is an 'established' translation of the party name. The party is often internationally known simply as 'MAS'. --Soman (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me one established source that uses the translation "Movement for Socialism", and is not Wikipedia? The most common translations are "Movement Toward Socialism", "Movement Towards Socialism", or "Movement to Socialism". A working consensus has emerged. Please familiarize yourself with the topic before contesting.--David Barba (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples:

...try familiarize yourself with Google, --Soman (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are more recent BBC articles: [3] [4] And from the Economist: [5] Pexise (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can well conclude that there is no unison way in which the name is translated in English. We could argue further if what would be the more common way to translate it, but I'd say that measuring google-hits is not the best way forward. Its quite obvious that many journalists and blogger do a very direct translation of the name, which is misleading in terms of the generic meaning. The name 'Movement to Socialism', used in the Economist article, is an obvious grammatical error. --Soman (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soman, you have won the debate as to consensus on the translation as far as I am concerned- maybe a consensus will emerge in the future. I was wrong. But I do disagree with your assertion that "Movement for Socialism" is more grammatically correct. The literal translation of MAS would be "Movement to Socialism", while "Moviemento para el Socialismo" would be most literally "for". The problem is that "al" has a slightly different connotation than "to"- creating the proliferation of different translations. But, in my opinion, "towards" is the best solution because it loosely fits grammatically and more appropriately conveys the MAS political philosophy, which is not exactly 'for' socialism (in the classical understanding)- but a shift towards something non-capitalist, nationalistically Bolivian, and definitely indigenous. This point goes back to the second part of MAS hyphenated name, the second half being IPSP- the "Political Instrument of the Sovereign People", whereas MAS is not the sole incarnation of 'socialist' politics but apart of and subject to a larger political transformation. Of course this is all in theory and looks different in practice, feel free to debate this point, but that's the original underlining philosophy.--David Barba (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the Movimiento al Socialismo is a borrowed name that was used in order to register the party with the national electoral court. The actual name of the party is IPSP (Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of the Peoples), and they borrowed the name of the MAS, an old defunct party, in order to compete in the elections. I would say Movement Towards Socialism is the best translation and the most generally accepted. Also, it's the translation used in the Encyclopedia Britannica: [6]. Movement for Socialism would be a translation of Movimiento *por* el Socialismo. Pexise (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This website explains a bit more of the history: [7] Pexise (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pexise, and yes, "por" is more literally "for" in this context.--David Barba (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We would need a separate article on the original falangist MAS as well. Another question that pops up, not that it is of urgent importance, is which is the first Latin American party to adopt the name. I suppose it would be the Venezuelan MAS, but not 100% sure. The ones who first took up the name MAS in Bolivia, probably did so copying the Venezuelan party name. --Soman (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a consensus to change the title of the article? Pexise (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To MAS-IPSP? --Soman (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to Movement towards Socialism. Pexise (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Movement can mean both a 'physical movement' and 'trend in various fields or social categories'. In this case it is used in the latter sense, but the name is also a game of words in a way. 'al' in this context denotes a direction, but not a direction of a concrete physical movement but a political orientation. It is thus used in the way that socialism is something that the organization wishes to acheive, thus socialism is something that the organization favours. 'Movement for Socialism' is more correct translation, 'toward socialism', 'to socialism' and 'towards socialism' are direct but not contextualized translations. --Soman (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, our argument about the hyphenated name is specifically to demonstrate that the "movement" of MAS is not directly "for" socialism. As advocated by MAS, the movement does not belong (the other connotation of 'for') to socialism as a political philosophy, but specifically belongs and is subject to the "sovereignty of the peoples"- "por". It is therefore a more contextualized translation to use "towards", denoting a movement in the direction of but not to/for socialism. In this way MAS is categorically different from previous (and existing) 'socialist' political movements in Bolivia, such as PS1 or the communist party.--David Barba (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add, that a MAS slogan occasionally used is "We are neither of the Left or the Right, We are MAS (also doubles as 'more')"--David Barba (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is a semantic point - "al socialismo" does not translate as "for socialism" (which would be "por socialismo") - it translates as "to socialism" or "towards socialism". Pexise (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well either way, "for" is the least accurate translation in terms of meaning and semantics.--David Barba (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do quite well understand differences between al, por, para, hacía, etc. However, the name doesn't originate in Bolivia, so the semantic arguments needs to be brought to the original creator of the name (MAS Venezuela?). --Soman (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen this historic link established. Can you establish this? From what I know of the Venezuelan MAS, their politics are quite different to and unrelated to the Bolivian MAS. I would argue that what is meant of the name by the current inception of MAS-IPSP, under Evo Morales, is more important to the translation than what the Falangistas MAS-U (unrelated to current MAS) meant of the name.--David Barba (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, have you withdrawn your objection to the name change? should we put it to a vote? more discussion?--David Barba (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose using the word 'toward' in the article title. I do not object to a move to MAS-IPSP. When it comes to the name, perhaps the simplest explanation is the adequate one. I'm not convinced that the usage of 'al socialismo' would denote any political difference to 'por el socialismo'. The main difference between having the name 'Movimiento al Socialismo' and 'Movimiento por el Socialismo' is that the former gives the abbreviation 'MAS', which can be used in slogans in an innovative was. 'Somos MAS' certainly is a better slogan than 'Somos MPS'. --Soman (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be three points of argument as to whether MAS should be translated as "for" or "towards" socialism. In relation to those three points I am not clear as to your argument.
1) Whether a default consensus exists: Its seems clear that a consensus does not exist, point mute.
2) As to what the proper grammatical translation would be: Pexise has argued this point above. "al" does not mean "for", whereas "por" properly would.(the semantic point would seem to me to be the most important here)
3) As to what best conveys the proper meaning: This point I have argued for "towards" based on the history of MAS, its original name IPSP and the complexity of its political ideology, distinguishing it from other socialist parties. I am confused as to what your preference in this regard is based on besides personal opinion.
Could you elaborate on these three points, thanks?--David Barba (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, you've just reverted "Movement towards Socialism" elsewhere to "Movement for Socialism." I've avoided the pedantic debate here on this page so far, but everything one else seems to have a better point than your hypothetical "they must have gone for the pronounce-able acronym" theory. And really, there is a preponderance of MtS translations into English. Could you put up either RSs that are insistent on your priority and/or RS validation of the MAS framers' intentions (and answer David Barba's questions) or back off?--Carwil (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, above there is a rather lengthy discussion on naming, were a variety of interpretations and interesting points are presented. None, neither mine nor that of others, is backed up by any reference. There isn't any, to my knowledge, established pratice for how to translate MAS into English. We can try to do google-counts, but if we would find that 70% of the top 100 hits use translation 'A' and 30% use translation 'B' then what is proven? Nothing, there is no 'most common name in English' here. Nor does there seem to exist any official translation into English used by MAS itself.
When translating, nuances get lost. The true meaning of this particular name cannot be translated into English. So we have to find the closest cognate. 'Movement for Socialism' is, in my opinion, a far better translation than 'Movement toward socialism'. MAS-IPSP is a political movement, not a physical movement. It is not MAS-IPSP itself that is travelling the Milky Way Highway towards a socialist future (leaving the rest of us behind on Earth), they are a political movement mobilizing in favor of change in a socialist direction. My proposal is to move the article to "Movement for Socialism - Political Instrument for Sovereignty of the Peoples". --Soman (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, turning from google to google scholar (MAS bolivia "movement towards socialism") leads (MAS bolivia "movement for socialism") 150 to 41, and 96 to 23 since 2005 when MAS came to national power.
But to review the discussion: Pexise's semantic translation point is correct on the meaning of the Spanish. However, you, Soman, are concerned that MAS' advocacy "for socialism" is being overlooked. To that concern, I would counterpose this summary of MAS' relation to "socialism", Communitarian Socialism in Bolivia:
When Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, was sworn in to a second term in January, he proclaimed Bolivia a plurinational state that would construct “communitarian socialism.” In an accompanying address, Vice President Álvaro Garcia Linera, envisioned a “socialist horizon” for Bolivia, characterized by “well-being, making the wealth communal, drawing on our heritage . . .” The process “will not be easy, it could take decades, even centuries, but it is clear that the social movements cannot achieve true power without implanting a socialist and communitarian horizon.”
Little was heard of socialism in this period, in spite of the name of Morales’ political party, Movement Towards Socialism (MAS).
Now, with the consolidation of the new political system and the plurinational state, socialism has been placed on the agenda. In a number of public addresses and interviews, Vice President Garcia Linera and Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca have articulated what they envision as the Bolivian road to socialism.
The vice-president [...] now asserts that “in Bolivia we are working and betting on the democratic path to socialism. It is possible …because socialism is fundamentally a radical democracy.” He goes on to add: “The constitution provides the architecture for a state constructed by society and it defines a long path in which we participate in a process of constructing a new society, pacifically and democratically.”
In short, there is sufficient grounds for seeing "towards socialism" as an accurate representation of MAS-IPSP's political vision, and to lay your concerns to rest. But really, as someone who is working full-time on writing about Bolivia academically, it makes things less schizophrenic to use the commonly accepted term here on Wikipedia as well. I, of course, have no problem having Movement for Socialism bolded as a term used for MAS-IPSP.
On a side point, can you at least desist from re-editing "Movement towards Socialism" on other pages?--Carwil (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A third option would be to move the article to its Spanish name. This could well be one of those cases were the original name is more easy to identify than an English translation. --Soman (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

In a start of an attempt to a major rewrite of the article, I removed two passages, [8]. One would fit better in an article on US-Bolivian relations. The other passage could be reworked into the article, if we find a way to integrate into either the history or ideology section. --Soman (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Link[edit]

I've removed the Office Website link from the article as it does now goes to a holding pages (presumably the registration has lapsed). I've saved the link here in case it is registered and comes back.

Does anyone have a link to the current offical MAS (Bolivia) website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.125.202 (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology[edit]

Why some people are erasing my reports in the ideology part? they are saying that I don`t write references, please who cares about the references!? I write it because it´s important information and not for vandalism, moreover, the same integrants´ party say that the party has as ideology Socialism of the 21st century, Communitarianism, Indigenism and Bolivarianism. So stop erasing important information, it´s annoying!!--Alcastilloru 23:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is annoying you don't care to read the messages in your talk page. Edit-warring will lead your account to be blocked. Also, everytime you click "edit" the message "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." appears. If you do not include a reference that verifies your editing, how do you not expect to be reverted? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tbhotch here, it is a Wikipedia policy that information should be backed up by reliable, third-party references. I'm highly sceptical of using the label 21st century socialism for MAS-IPSP, I've never found any explicit references to it in MAS-IPSP discourse. On the contrary MAS leaders use language of denying to be neither left nor right. --Soman (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 19:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for Socialism – Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of the Peoples → Movement for Socialism (Bolivia) – Rather than the full, official (but translated) name, I think we should simply use the common name for this party, which seems to be "Movement for Socialism". There are multiple parties that use this name, so it can be disambiguated with the country. I note that this was the name that was used until it was moved in 2010 without a discussion about using the full name. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Probably could do this yourself. Seems non-controversial and nobody has replied. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I figured it might be controversial since there was a user that moved it from the proposed name to the current name. That was some time ago, though. I don't mind simply waiting for this discussion to be closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I relisted it for greater awareness, but it turns out ineffective at this time. I support this more concise title, and... I forgot Bolivia is a sovereign state... and a country. --George Ho (talk) 17:19, 4 October 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Movement for Socialism (Bolivia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 October 2022[edit]

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: MOVED. Obvious primary topic by educational significance; no opposing editor gave any sort of reason why not to follow our primary topic criteria. You can't just blindly assert "no primary topic", lol. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– The Bolivian Movement for Socialism has been the country's dominant ruling political party for nearly two decades, whereas the other four parties are either incredibly minor or defunct. Therefore, it's reasonable to state that the Bolivian MAS is the primary topic. The current name space can include the (disambiguation) modifier. A previous discussion did settle on the current page titles; however that occurred at the latter end of 2005, when it had only just come to power. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best go to RM, we have several articles with this title, and it is not at all clear in GBooks - to do this doesn't immediately look helpful to readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support none of the parties on the page are nearly as notable as the Bolivian MAS. The closest party, both in terms of pageviews and political relevance, is the Venezuelan Movement for Socialism, but it has 1/29th the page views of the Bolivian party and only two mayors. The other parties listed are dissolved (Argentina), ill-defined (Britain), defunct (Honduras). While dissolved, defunct, or ill-defined parties/groupings can be significant none of these seemed to be. (Pageviews Analysis) TartarTorte 18:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are five bluelinks and one redlink listed upon the Movement for Socialism disambiguation page, with no indication that Movement for Socialism (Bolivia), which has had its main title header moved a number of times over the past years, overshadows the combined prominence of the remaining entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added move of associated dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not only does the Bolivian MAS have the greatest long-term significance (as argued by the nom and TartarTorte), it also has a commanding lead in in pageviews. (Wikinav is nonfunctional on the dab page, surprisingly.) "No indication" and "no primary topic" votes are meaningless if there are provided indications of being primary and if such oppose votes do not engage with them. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is more useful as a disambiguation page. Shwcz (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is very clear from the evidence above that the Bolivian party is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC both on long-term significance (given its long stint in power) and on page views, as noted by TartarTorte. I don't understand the oppose !votes above - they don't seem to address the issue of why it is or isn't a primary topic at all, instead just saying it's "useful as a disambiguation page", "not helpful for readers", or "no primary topic here", without any backing rationale or evidence. I almost closed this as "moved", given the evidence and the at consensus is viewed through the lens of policy and evidence, but I suppose it's better for me to !vote support instead. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2022 (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.

Above non-admin RM close with "lol" in the rationale[edit]

Pageviews In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from these pageviews that the redirect Movement for Socialism (Bolivia) is used far more than this current title, likely due to internal links. There are 425 direct wikilinks to the redirect as opposed to only 47 direct wikilinks to this page. TartarTorte 15:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: @TartarTorte:, while I agree with the reasoning, this move request nonetheless seems to have been passed a bit too early. I've opened a new request (with different names and argumentation) for consideration. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it was nine days, and again, no one gave any justified reason why not to move the page. Red Slash 20:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 November 2022[edit]

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: Moved to Movimiento al Socialismo. Consensus developed as such. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– 'Movement Toward Socialism' is by far the more accurate translation of the Spanish 'Movimiento al Socialism'. Even Movement to Socialism would be more correct, but no serious translator would use 'for'. Movement Toward Socialism already redirects here, with the Bolivian party being the dominant primary topic (See: GBooks, Britannica, etc.). The other minor Latin American parties should also be moved to the more accurate name, with the added '(country)' modifier. The British party should keep its name, 'Movement for Socialism' should redirect to the Bolivian party, and 'Movement for Socialism (disambiguation)' should redirect to 'Movement Toward Socialism (disambiguation)'. Should this pass, I'll handle changing the names on all of the respective articles. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose moving these to Movimiento al Socialismo, there's no widely used English option so why not just leave it in Spanish, where it would match the vast majority of references?--Ortizesp (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Movement Toward Socialism or Movement To Socialism are the most widely used, especially in academics. Mixing English and Spanish, especially when most other parties are translated, is unnecessarily confusing. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there doesn't seem to be a completely consitent standard for if parties used translated names or the names in the language used in the place. In France and Québec we seem to generally use French names, but I can't find a whole lot of other examples like that. TartarTorte 20:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Manual of Style, non-anglicized titles should only be used when they predominate in English-language reliable sources. In this case, the issue is that English reliable sources vary on what anglicization they use, not on whether or not they anglicize the name. As I stated, both Movement Toward Socialism and Movement To Socialism are equally acceptable translations with multiple backing reliable sources; Movement For Socialism, on the other hand, is not. I suggest Movement Toward Socialism because it's the most accurate of the two (the Spanish al is used in a directional context). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the name 'Movement for Socialism' is used in different variations in various languages (like Movement for Socialism (Switzerland)), whilst 'Towards' is becomes weird in English translation. (A key point, lost in traslation is that 'Más' means 'more'). Now for the Bolivian party, let's keep in mind that the history of the party name is peculiar, it was a name taken for convenience as Evo's faction could not register under their own name (IPSP). --Soman (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference there is that the Swiss party is correctly translated. "pour le Socialisme" → "for Socialism". However, these Spanish parties use al (to or toward) not por (for). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'al' here doesn't refer to a direction in a geographic sense. In this context it means to be in favour of something, to work towards an objective. Thus the better equivalent in English is 'for'. --Soman (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      'to work towards an objective'. Like 'Toward Socialism'? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"for" is a mistranslation. "To" is the best alternative. Super Ψ Dro 21:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Movement to Socialism". I speak Spanish and "for" is indeed a mistranslation, while "toward" could result uncommon and too long. Super Ψ Dro 21:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note the existence of Movement for Socialism (Switzerland). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, that one uses pour/per, which does translate to 'for'. If these articles were to be moved, that one would not need to be. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is 'cause 'mouvement aux socialisme' wouldn't produce an easily-used acronym... that's why why find 'MAS' parties in the Spanish-speaking world and not in the non-Spanish speaking world. 'Movement for Socialism' is the equivalent in English. --Soman (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support as proposed - I don't feel super strongly about this, but I do have a strong affinity for correct translations between Spanish and English (I'm a certified translator). I like "toward(s)"; it captures the idea well. Good job, proposer. Red Slash 20:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Movimiento al Socialismo etc. per Ortizesp. Per an ngram search, the Spanish names are the most common in English-language book sources, and using the actual proper name of the parties also gets around the whole confusion over prepositions evident in this discussion. WP:UE advises us to use the most common name for the subject, be that a translation or a native-language title.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Movimiento al Socialismo etc. per Oritzesp and Amakuru. If the translation is really that contested, along with English-language sources often just using untranslated Spanish, then it's safer to just use the native form of the name. SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Socialism has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Bolivia has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: There is a split consensus between the originally proposed title(s), and "Movimiento al Socialismo". I have notified relevant wikiprojects for wider input. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Movimiento al Socialismo etc. Most commonly seen untranslated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Movimiento al Socialismo per all of the above. Ngram and other source analysis shows that the untranslated term is most common even in English-language sources. --Jayron32 13:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Movimiento al Socialismo. Move it, for there clearly prevails a groundswell of opinion in favour of the Spanish expression. The Ngram viewer search result that Amakuru provides crystallizes the predominance of the use of the expression in English books, and that suffices for signifying the common name for the subject. Local expressions need not be anglicized per WP:UE, as has been rightly pointed out in the discussion. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Movimiento_al_Socialismo&oldid=1208014003"