Talk:Radical Movement
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Radicalism
[edit]Hello, I realised that «Historical Radicalism» has been taken away from the orientation of the party. Actually, the PR and the PRG have been «both» referring to their own existence to historical radicalism and even in the event of the merger in December 2017.[1][2] Furthermore, the whole text on the page of Radicalism concerning France refers to the two parties that just have merged again. So there is no evidence that Historical Radicalism shouldn't not appear as an orientation as it «is», alongside with liberalism and social-liberlism, one of its modern and actual orientation. Ngagnebin (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- I will put it quite simple. Radicalism, as it is self-evident from the article's name – Radicalism (historical) –, is a historical ideology, thus it makes no sense to cite it as the ideology of a current party. The aforementioned article reads that "many European parties that are nowadays categorised in the group of social-liberal parties have a historical affinity with radicalism and may therefore be called "liberal-radical". Thus, in the absence of an article on "liberal radicalism" (Liberal radicalism is obviously a disambiguation), the idology to be cited is social liberalism. Easy and logical: isn't it? --Checco (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- We shouldn't list a historical ideology that does not precisely describe a modern-day mainstream European party. Also, we as encyclopaedia writers should avoid using terms that political parties insist on self-describing themselves as, which may not match the commonly recognised definition of those terms, and affects neutrality of article content.--Autospark (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- The current title of the article, radicalism (historical), merely serves as a disambiguator to distinguish it from the more common modern connotation of the term (article: political radicalism), which simply refers to revolutionary change of social structures, whereas the term in the past more frequently referred to reformist instincts (i.e., in the form of "radical reform"), as well as secular and democratic ideals. The ideology is noted on the articles for the PRG, PRV, and MR on the French Wikipedia, where the article is simply titled "Radicalisme", with no disambiguator. It's not a historical ideology – the disambiguator refers to the historical, as opposed to the modern, connotation of the term. Mélencron (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Most of the article is written in past tense, thus your interpretation is unconvincing. You are maybe too influenced by the French concept of radicalisme. I do not see any reason or consensus for including this historical ideology in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- The fact is that the political movement is called « Radical » movement - it still means something. ;) One could then argue that the page «social liberalism» do not refere explicitely to historical radicalism so keeping it would be clearer this way. Also, I agree the word « (historical) » alongside with « Radicalism » on the ad hoc entry is there to avoid a disambiguation more than to point out that this idea no longer exists nowadays. And its section « Radicalism and liberalism » shows how today it is still different from pure « liberalism ». Nevertheless, the Radical Movement is « not » liberal as it is understood in Europe outside the North American way. Therefore what do you think of taking off « Radicalism » & « Liberalism », and keep « social-Liberalism » (we all agree on this one I think) while adding « radical centrist » and « pro-Europeanism » ? Would this be a compromise for all of us? :) Ngagnebin (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I perfectly agree in removing "radicalism" and leaving just "social liberalism" and "radical centre". The fact that MR is named "radical" means little actually, otherwise we would describe the Social Democratic Party (Portugal) as social-democratic (while it is conservative) or the Liberal Party of Australia as liberal (also conservative), not not forget authoritarian parties with nice names: Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Cambodian People's Party, Workers' Party of Korea, etc. There is plenty of examples of parties with inconsistent names. --Checco (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. :) I've added Third Way but if someone disagrees on this one, one can also discuss it. :) Ngagnebin (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree on "social liberalism" and "radical centrism". I feel "pro-Europeanism" is a little bit redundant. More important, I think that "third way" is a generic expression and I would not include it in this infobox (and, actually, in no infobox). --Checco (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Social liberalism" is fine, but I'm not keen on radical centrism myself, it's a meaningless term and more marketing than usefully descriptive. Also, certainly not Third Way (which relates more to a trend in social-democratic parties during the 1990s).--Autospark (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I also disagree on including "radical centrism" (meaningless), and concur with Autospark's comments on "Third Way". Mélencron (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Social liberalism" is fine, but I'm not keen on radical centrism myself, it's a meaningless term and more marketing than usefully descriptive. Also, certainly not Third Way (which relates more to a trend in social-democratic parties during the 1990s).--Autospark (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree on "social liberalism" and "radical centrism". I feel "pro-Europeanism" is a little bit redundant. More important, I think that "third way" is a generic expression and I would not include it in this infobox (and, actually, in no infobox). --Checco (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. :) I've added Third Way but if someone disagrees on this one, one can also discuss it. :) Ngagnebin (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I perfectly agree in removing "radicalism" and leaving just "social liberalism" and "radical centre". The fact that MR is named "radical" means little actually, otherwise we would describe the Social Democratic Party (Portugal) as social-democratic (while it is conservative) or the Liberal Party of Australia as liberal (also conservative), not not forget authoritarian parties with nice names: Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Cambodian People's Party, Workers' Party of Korea, etc. There is plenty of examples of parties with inconsistent names. --Checco (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- The fact is that the political movement is called « Radical » movement - it still means something. ;) One could then argue that the page «social liberalism» do not refere explicitely to historical radicalism so keeping it would be clearer this way. Also, I agree the word « (historical) » alongside with « Radicalism » on the ad hoc entry is there to avoid a disambiguation more than to point out that this idea no longer exists nowadays. And its section « Radicalism and liberalism » shows how today it is still different from pure « liberalism ». Nevertheless, the Radical Movement is « not » liberal as it is understood in Europe outside the North American way. Therefore what do you think of taking off « Radicalism » & « Liberalism », and keep « social-Liberalism » (we all agree on this one I think) while adding « radical centrist » and « pro-Europeanism » ? Would this be a compromise for all of us? :) Ngagnebin (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Most of the article is written in past tense, thus your interpretation is unconvincing. You are maybe too influenced by the French concept of radicalisme. I do not see any reason or consensus for including this historical ideology in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- The current title of the article, radicalism (historical), merely serves as a disambiguator to distinguish it from the more common modern connotation of the term (article: political radicalism), which simply refers to revolutionary change of social structures, whereas the term in the past more frequently referred to reformist instincts (i.e., in the form of "radical reform"), as well as secular and democratic ideals. The ideology is noted on the articles for the PRG, PRV, and MR on the French Wikipedia, where the article is simply titled "Radicalisme", with no disambiguator. It's not a historical ideology – the disambiguator refers to the historical, as opposed to the modern, connotation of the term. Mélencron (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- We shouldn't list a historical ideology that does not precisely describe a modern-day mainstream European party. Also, we as encyclopaedia writers should avoid using terms that political parties insist on self-describing themselves as, which may not match the commonly recognised definition of those terms, and affects neutrality of article content.--Autospark (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
References to post
[edit]- ^ "Harold Huwart (PRG) : "Le radicalisme, c'est en effet toute l'histoire de la République"". L'Echo Républicain. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
- ^ "Radicaux en mouvement: UDI en dérive ?". L'Express. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
Ideology, again
[edit]User:Social Studies Rules added "secularism", "radical liberalism" and "pro-Europeanism" to the infobox. All three are quite redundant and...
- ..."secularism" is not properly an ideology, but I can live with it;
- ..."pro-Europeanism" did not achieve consensus (see talk above), but it can stay as long as other users agree;
- ..."radical liberalism" is not a proper ideology and quite a nonsense, moreover the provided link is an Easter egg for Liberalism and radicalism in France, while radical liberalism is a redirect to liberal radicalism, which is disambiguation pointing to radicalism (historical), social liberalism and libertarianism.
Why should we use awkward expressions, when we already have "social liberalism"? --Checco (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- What’s really the big nonsense here is that you think that it’s not in the article, but it states that the Radical Movement, is part of ALDE (Pro-EU alliance). --Social Studies Rules (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- So what?! The ALDE includes even Euroceptic parties, like ANO 2011! --Checco (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Radical Party and Radical Movement
[edit]The Radical Movement lasted only four years and then it was renamed "Radical Party". Would not be better to have a joint article of this article and Radical Party (France) named "Radical Party (France)"? I opened this talk at Talk:Radical Party (France). Please, let's discuss there. --Checco (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)