Talk:List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L)

• British English uses "liberal" to have an economics meaning in the sense of free trade, free markets, and right wing capitalistic connotations (see OED adj. 5c) and the British use is familiar to most of the old world countries including Australia and New Zealand. Americans are not familiar with that use of the word "liberal" which leads to odd arguments on international blog sites. Americans understand the word to mean left wing, economically socialistic, and socially open minded. The common meaning of both US and UK versions is open mindedness, not strict, and free from bias (see OED adj. 4)
• The parenthetical reference to "politics" should be removed because the issue is about UK economical meaning vs. US political meaning even though UK has a political twist and the US has an economic twist - the core source of misunderstanding comes from the economics vs. political uses. -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, that is dealt with in the section regarding the American-only definitions. A lot of Americans may be ignorant of the broader, shared, arguably more technical meaning of liberalism in the classical sense but so would a lot of British (and Commonwealth) people be. That doesn't mean that it isn't a valid and shared definition. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Please see Wiktionary "liberal" noun 2 for the US and noun 4 for the UK those definitions should be entered here to replace current entries. -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Per above, this is effectively (and more correctly) already covered here (and also, Wiktionary is not a WP:RS and the definitions there are open to question). Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Replace "Liberal" with "liberal". The word with an initial upper case letter refers to a known or existing organization. The word with initial lower case letter is the generic concept of "liberal". Please see Oxford English Dictionary (online) "liberal" adj. 5c for the UK, "liberal" adj. 4 for the US, and "liberal" adj. 3a for common meaning. American dictionaries do not have any meanings related to economics; compare dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com for sources. The current entries define liberal in terms of liberalism which is a solecism representing poor quality. Please make the changes for sake of improving Wikipedia. -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is your intent "Replace "Liberalism" with "liberalism" in the shared meaning column?

You may be viewing a different site but I only see 4 adjective sub-sections in the Oxford entry, none of which support your contention and, aside from the mention of political party names, there is no distinction given between US and UK use for the meanings. Merriam-Webster itself gives a definition (6a) of liberal as "of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism", linking to the latter and indeed specifically giving a definition (2b) in terms of economics " a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard". If it's good enough for these two reliable sources, it's good enough for this article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• You must use the web site at "oed.com" which is the true and honest web site. The other one at en.oxforddictionaries.com is a fake that's been engineered to appear resembling the real site and has nothing to do with the real Oxford English Dictionaries or Oxford University Press. Oxforddictionaries.com is not a reliable source even worse than Wiktionary. As for the Merriam-Webster site, their definitions are fine because they stop at "liberalism". The definition of "liberal" does not include and should not include any connotations used to define a related word such as "liberalism". A definition in the form: "liberal means liberalism" fails to define what "liberal" actually means in terms not related to it's core syllables. I recommend:

1st col.Word: replace "Liberal(politics)" with "liberal(noun)" to emphasize the small-l liberal (not the big-L Liberal)

2nd col.UK: replace "a person who generally supports the ideas of the UK Liberal Democrats, a centre left-party"

with "a supporter of center right wing politics and laissez-faire economics"

3rd col.Common: replace "a person who holds the political ideals of Liberalism"

with "a supporter of liberty and open to change and reforms"

4th col.US: replace "a person who advocates modern liberalism; see also Liberalism in the United States for historic background"

with "a supporter of progressive left wing politics and socialist economics"

-- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm done with this "fake news" dismissal of reliable sources, or of their misrepresentation and of the pushing of your own unsupported and novel, original research preferences. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Please my friend with all full respect I assure you that I'm being perfectly honest. I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Perhaps you can recommend someone else to review this issue. I apologize for any insult which is purely accidental and never intended. -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• I think you're violating Neutral Point of View. This is not the place for your personal feelings. You have been given valuable information and it is your duty to act according to the goal of improving Wikipedia. I must repeat: defining "liberal" in terms of "liberalism" still has not defined what "liberal" actually means. There's nothing unsupported or novel - it's called just plain rational thinking and using language as intended. There's no political bias or agenda involved and it is insulting to accuse me of that. Please redefine the three classes in terms that do not rely upon the word "liberalism" or big-L Liberal. -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indicating that such an individual is someone who believes in a particular philosophy, conveniently linked, is about as pertinent, direct and explanatory as you can get. Read the linked article. One of the definitions of "liberal" is someone who believes in that thing. What is difficult about comprehending that?

You are baselessly accusing me of making accusations against you that I patently have not. Please retract them. I have not the faintest idea if you have a political bias or agenda but your arguments make no sense whatsoever. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Sir, please try to understand that I actually comprehend exactly what you are arguing but I am saying there is better and more accurate ways of saying it. Basically, we should not rely on only one definition because there are four or five connotations listed and an author is being unfair by ignoring the other connotations - that is a form of bias being forced upon the readers. Linking to the ideology is a dodge and offensive to readers who expect an author to do some of the thinking for their enjoyment. The point is the definitions listed next to the word "liberal" should say themselves what the believes are rather than redirecting. The act of redirecting is bad form and please don't take this personally but might even indicate that the author really does not know the correct answer themselves. We need to move towards better accuracy and precision in word usage. Do you understand what I'm getting at? -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Redirection via links is a fundamental and crucial aspect of Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.

You have omitted to retract your baseless allegations. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I don't understand what you are talking about and you say: "your arguments make no sense whatsoever". Therefore I would like to request a third opinion. Can you help me do that please. -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

WP:3. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• According to "www.allsides.com/dictionary/liberal" . . . Confusingly, the term “liberal” meant “supportive of free markets” until the 20th century and still refers to pro-market parties in Europe and most of the rest of the world today. Thus a “classical liberal” in the U.S. is a libertarian or a “liberal” in Europe, i.e. an advocate of voluntary and market solutions to social problems. -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cuppa is a British meaning? What's this? 112.201.8.170 (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

This article is for words that are found both in the US and Britain but have differences in meaning: the term cuppa is not used in America so not suitable for inclusion here. See Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States#C. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

It would improve clarity a lot to use initial capitals for each definition etc.---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

And/or use numbers for each definition, as has been done under "boiler".---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you are going to discuss "competence" as a possible entry to this article, [[1]] might add to the subject. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that is a solid example of the use. The question has arisen over whether my addition of it followed wikipedia rules. [If you want the content of that discussion see Mutt Lunker's talk page, where I mistakenly brought the discussion. It has not been duplicated here due to length.] 2601:1C1:C180:4F40:5C4A:BE6D:F0D9:20B5 (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, the discussion that the IP refers to is here. The salient point is that the user claims one definition of the word is British but I note that ""America's most trusted dictionary" notes if a word or usage is particular to one dialect/country or another. There is no such note for usage 1b". The bulk of the rest is the thread is the user's original research on the matter and my explanation that this is not permissable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article title, and its M through Z sibbling, use the unicode dash rather than the ASCII dash.

This article ends with

     A–L

rather than

     A-L.

Why?

What, if any, are the relevant wikipedia policies?

Does wikipedia have a policy encouraging one to "avoid constructs that will break things"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C180:4F40:5C4A:BE6D:F0D9:20B5 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have moved this discussion to Talk:List of words having different meanings in American and British English (M–Z)#Relevance of "sat" and "stood" to keep it in one place considering that both "sat" and "stood" begin with S. Tk420 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would like to question the use the American meaning of the word "fag" in British English. In the UK the dominant meaning of "fag" seems to be a cigarette. Many Brits are aware of the word's use an an anti-gay slur but it does not seem to be as common as the word "student" to refer to a school pupil which is marked with an asterisk by the US meaning in List of words having different meanings in American and British English (M–Z) to show it has some currency in British English. The use of the word "faggot" as anti-gay slur is known in British English for sure considering the annual controversy over its use in the song Fairytale of New York and it use as an innuendo (in response to a dinner suggestion of faggots) in an advertisement for the now defunct supermarket chain Somerfield Tk420 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, I misread the diff for your edit as arguing the reverse. I agree with and will restore it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The UK-specific definition of "billion" has mysteriously acquired this label. This is clearly nonsense:

• The edition of The Oxford Children's Dictionary I had as a child, which appears to have been published in 1976, has "million million" and "thousand million" as the UK and US definitions respectively without further comment. If it was still the normal meaning of the word less than 50 years ago, there's absolutely no way it can be very obsolete now.
• As recently as the 1990s, the MS Word grammar checker flagged the use of this word for being potentially ambiguous.
• The Billion article indicates that this sense is even still in occasional use.

As such, I'm changing it.

Furthermore, I'm not sure when it ever is appropriate to use the label "very obsolete". I've never seen a dictionary use this label. The nearest I can think of is Pears Advanced Word-Puzzler's Dictionary, which uses the label "Obs" to denote words of Old or Middle English, whereas "obs" denotes obsolete modern English words. — Smjg (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply