Wikipedia

Talk:Renaissance (French political party)/Archive 1

< Talk:Renaissance (French political party)
(Redirected from Talk:La République En Marche!/Archive 1)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Amakuru in topic Requested move 7 November 2017
Archive 1Archive 2

"Official colors"?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[This edit], removing "black and white" as official colors, was reverted. I am going to revert the revert - I could not find any source for that. The logo is hardly complex enough to say it justifies such an assertion, and I could not find any source for that. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing party manifesto

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just removed what is essentially the manifesto of EM for the next presidential election. WP:OSE, but there is no equivalent section for other parties - LR, PS, MoDem, FN; sometimes the "ideology" section is described via the historical evolution of the party's position across time, but obviously a one-year-old party founded by a new politician is not going to have a lot of history. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information and you have left this article almost bereft of information. Removing all that text is close to vandalism. Rewrite it if you feel it is unsuitable - dont just delete it. In the meantime, I shall reinstate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.92.25.87 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a source of information, but not for all information. Secondary sources should support any inclusion. If none is available, we should not include borderline promotional material. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
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: Not moved. The style proposed would likely cause confusion as pointed out in the below discussion and is not a typical title for English Wikipedia. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 01:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

En Marche! → En Marche ! – Notice the addition of a space before the exclamation point. Per the first footnote, essentially - that is the correct form in French punctuation.

Guidelines say we should use the form most common in English-speaking sources if there is one. However, I do not think the particular form "En Marche!" is really dominant - most propose a translation or drop the exclamation mark. So I think we should default to the French name, including the punctuation, and put the title in italics (see WP:ITALICTITLE, MOS:FOREIGNITALIC). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would need to be added to WP:FRMOS before it could be applied. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Defer to WP:COMMONNAME. There is no single practice for French-language names containing exclamation marks (I've found instances of both on Wikipedia), so here's a quick overview of the name as used in English-language press:
  • En Marche !
  • En Marche!

Mélencron (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Very good decision This is a good call in every way IMO, and the issue will come up elsewhere so I'm going to underline it.

En March ! with the blank is good French but IMO it just does not work as well in English running text as En Marche! does. Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Party is clearly Centre-Left, not Centre.

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion

It is pretty obvious.. The BBC saying the party is Centre is not defining. Reaper7 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Reverted. Such things may be "pretty obvious", but they still need a reliable source, which the Independent piece you added is not (it is in the opinion category). That piece also refers to Fillon as "centre-right" which most French would dispute (he was easily the right-most of the three frontrunners in the centre-right primary). TigraanClick here to contact me 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose to revert by User:Tigraan There is no evidence that 'most French would dispute Fillon as being labelled Centre-Right.' Many voices call En Marche! and Macron Centre-Left. The voice of the BBC journalist does not outweigh the voice of other journalists at the Independent Newspaper I am afraid. Even CNBC is aware the movement is Centre Left: [1] There is no consensus En Marche! is Centre and the BBC that has many times recently been found to biased on the issue of political sentiments by neutral organisations is no barometer of the reality I am afraid. Reaper7 (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
semi-relevant stuff, less important

I fixed your indent level and since your CNBC ref is a single link I de-reffed it, hope you don't mind.

I actually think the "voice of the BBC journalist" does outweigh the Independent piece. I would say the BBC is marginally more reliable than the Independent, but most importantly the Independent piece is in the opinion section, not in the news section, which gives it much less weight (cf. WP:NEWSORG). The CNBC source is much better because of that. However, a more important consideration IMO is that GB/US sources are probably less reliable than FR sources for such a characterization.

If you ask me, yeah, EM leans more on the left than on the right, but I am not a RS. The problem is that Macron has purposefully cultivated the image of "neither right nor left", just as François Bayrou before him (who is rather centre-right, at least when you look at electoral alliances made). On the contrary, the only other significant centrist party in French politics, the UDI, self-identifies as centre-right.

Looking at the fr-wp article, EM is classified as centre citing the following refs: [2], [3], [4]. There was some discussion about the ideology in the infobox in fr:Discussion:En_marche_!#Section_.22id.C3.A9ologie.22_de_l.27infobox that concluded that analysis from respected political experts (as opposed to random journalists) should be the basis for such ideology categorizations; I tend to agree with it.
There is no consensus yet whether to describe EM as centre or centre-left, but that is the occasion to create it. I tend to think Macron's self-identification as centre (rather than centre-left) is the default position barring enough sources to the contrary. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose to revert by User:Tigraan You state to destroy the Independent's journalist's opinion: That piece also refers to Fillon as "centre-right" which most French would dispute (he was easily the right-most of the three frontrunners in the centre-right primary). Well I am afraid the BBC also refers to Fillon clearly as Centre-Right. So you are saying the BBC is correct on Macron but not on Fillon? This is a travesty.. Reaper7 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the "centre-right" thing shows that the journalists who use it are not familiar with French politics, be they Independent or BBC. But more importantly, as I wrote above, I do not think any of the en-speaking newspaper sources should be used here.
Considering how you indent your posts, I suggest you read WP:THREAD. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
So we have proved the BBC is not useful here. We can therefore remove the link in the infobox where it calls Macron's En Marche! Centre. So BBC argument down (as other English/US English speaking Journals say Centre Left), - we will only use French sources as you suggest, sadly the French article's link to En Marche being centrist is also the BBC.. To the point about how Macron self identifies which you said is key. It is not. Le Pen does not say her party is far right - but wiki disagrees. So the same with Macron. Just because he says he is Centre and his party transcends political labelling - although a neat marketing ploy - it doesn't make it so. So from here I will find French articles (you state they understand France better) where Macron is described as leftist. Problem solved. We can then put Centre Left for his party - unless you found a new way to oppose this? Reaper7 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Reaper7: I just gave the link to fr newspapers describing Macron as centre. If you find better sources, go ahead. Even if the "neither right nor left" is electoral flip-flopping (I believe it to be, and I would bet that a good fraction of Macron's candidates for parliament will be recycled from the PS, but my opinion is irrelevant), the vast majority of reliable sources have swallowed it whole, and we are supposed to follow them.
You seem to say that WP describes Le Pen as far-right, but I do not see where it does so in Wikipedia's voice, be it on en-wp or fr-wp; on the contrary, there is some discussion of the qualification using RS. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the party is center-left. Macron was a high ranking member of the Socialist Party until just a few years ago. Readers coming to Wikipedia really just need a quick clarification on whether the party is relatively left or right leaning, and calling it "centre" doesn't help them out. It's just lame electoral posturing by partisans trying to present themselves as closer to the center than their political opponents. That type of electioneering has no place on Wikipedia. If sources are really needed here's one:

[5]

The party is well within the "Third Way", "social liberal", "progressive", and even socialist tinged region of the center-left. VictorD7 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't really find any French sources that consider the movement centre-left: a scattering of items describing some supporters of Macron as centre-left and drawing from the left and the right, but nothing decisive. For the record, I've never seen any description of his movement as anything other than centrist in either English or French media. Mélencron (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well this is the English language Wikipedia, not the French one, and for what it's worth the CNBC source above I just added to the article is from a left leaning outfit rooting for Macron so they're obviously not engaging in electioneering by branding him "center-left". That's clearly what the recent Socialist Party official and his party are. But a possible alternative is to bypass the controversy by simply deleting the line. Not every major party around the world has that particular "Political position" line on its Wikipedia page (e.g. US Republicans don't), and the various terms under "Ideology" might cover things adequately. After all, one could argue the party is too new and in flux to merit decisive branding with such a one word label (though it was founded and is led by a socialist). But I can live with the new "centre to centre-left" description too as a less than ideal compromise. At least that lets readers know which way the party tilts. VictorD7 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Macron picked up his Socialist Party membership back when the rates were cheap and didn't bother to renew it. He wasn't ever a card-carrying Socialist – he's hardly "clearly" of the centre-left given his electoral programme or penchant for fiscal restraint. Mélencron (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well he was high ranking in the Socialist Party, and certainly didn't join the UMP (main center-right) party that held the presidency at the time and won reelection the following year. My biggest problem with the unqualified "centrist" label is that pretty much anyone who's not a state communist or a Nazi (an actual Nazi, not someone whom US Democrats happen to be mad at on a given day) could lay some kind of claim to it, and its use really often is flimsy election posturing. The notion of painting one major candidate "center" and the other "far right" is particularly absurd.VictorD7 (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This isn't merely a pattern of posturing. Macron represented the right-wing of the government alongside Valls. In general, liberal candidates lie the right side of the French political spectrum, at the very least. Mélencron (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Macron represented the relatively moderate side of the Socialist government. He's not "right", even in France, let alone the bigger picture. VictorD7 (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying that he's right-wing relative to the Socialist Party. Also, it's possible to have ministers who are not of the same political alignment with cabinets – it's happened many times before (albeit at the risk of expulsion from their parties). He's clearly a centrist candidate; almost no sources describe him as anything but (i.e., centre-left or centre-right), so I don't think such a mention is merited. Mélencron (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Except he was literally a member of the Socialist Party too, along with serving in a Socialist government. I'm not sure what "mention" you're referring to. I said I was fine with the "center-left" label. VictorD7 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • VictorD7, you say he was high ranking in the Socialist Party twice; I think you are mistaken. He never held any office within that party. He was a minister under Valls for two years, but then see François Bayrou (centrist, was minister under two different right-wing governments for four years) or Bernard Kouchner (leftist, if anything, but served as foreign minister for more than three years in a right-wing government). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • No, see my comment above. And by "high ranking" I'm not referring to party posts (which are often ceremonial anyway) but him rising high enough in Socialist Party circles to land the government job he did. VictorD7 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • That's not how the French government works. Anybody can be a minister, there is no need to be a member of a political party, let alone rise in it. Many Socialists strongly opposed or even hated Macron, many more than Socialists who would defend him, so he would never have become a minister that way. He was a senior staffer at the Elysée, pushed by friends and advisors of president Hollande, then prime minister Valls offered him the job. The Socialist Party had nothing to do with it. Aesma (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of consensus, I would be OK with dropping the "centre" references altogether (i.e. remove the "political position", and "centrism" in the ideology). It is not extremely useful anyways, even if it closely reflects what RS say. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

* Support User:Tigraan's proposal to drop 'Centrist.' Reaper7 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If I may offer to this discussion, the New York Times today has two articles by four different journalist discussing Macron and his party as indipendent centrist: After French Vote, Mainstream Europe Breathes a Sigh of Relief and Le Pen Calls Parties in France ‘Completely Rotten’ as They Unite to Fend Her Off.--Gciriani (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort User:Gciriani but there are many more recent instances of him being described as Centre Left.. again.. For example - The Sun yesterday[7] and The Herald today[8]. In fact even the Business Insider called him Centre Left today.[9] I am with User:Tigraan. The label Centrist needs to be removed. Reaper7 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Reaper7:, thank you for offering additional articles. I think you are right that center-left is more appropriate. However, I had not made a case for centrist, but merely offered additional material for those of you who were weighing the correct label. After all, we live in a complicated world, and we are bound to find examples and interpretations going for either side of an argument. It is only by counting instances for one side and the other side that one can come up with a base rate that helps reaching a NPOV.--Gciriani (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Initials of name of party

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

"The name of the party also shares Macron's initials" would be trivial. The footnoted article, however, seems to imply that Macron deliberately chose a name for the party that would share his initials. Perhaps if someone else could confirm that that is what the text says, I could put it in. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • That passage is really short in the original text. It says (followed by a quote that does not talk about the initials):

La personnalisation à outrance de la formation - Emmanuel Macron lui a même donné ses initiales - a elle aussi été mûrement réfléchie.

Here is a translation that tries to keep the same sentence structure (at the expense of elegance):

That the group is extremely centered on the leader's persona - Emmanuel Macron even gave his initials - has also been thought through.

It does not really imply a deliberate purpose. I found a few places where journalists/columnists picked on the shared initials fact ([10], [11]) but none wrote it is deliberate, so I will remove the sentence. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I just reverted the (somewhat) revert of Gciriani. See edit summary at [12]. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Tigraan, my edit was not a revert at all. The sentence is completely different from the one you and others discussed previously. What I wrote is strictly factual and encyclopedic. I'm not sure what you mean by "it" in your comment "Liberation does not state it" to your revert. I wrote that even though Macron didn't say anything about the initials, the press believes the two are connected. Liberation at least does believe the two are connected in its article. Also social media comments about the initials are quoted by m.Planet.fr and thus what reported by m.Planet.fr is newsworthy.--Gciriani (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tigraan:, since I don't see any reaction to my comments, I will go ahead and rewrite the sentence, trying to emphasize that those are opinions of the press.--Gciriani (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If you wanted a reaction you should have waited more than two hours; but you were (IMO) quite correct to boldly edit, even if I disagree with that.
I realized your edit was not quite reinstating the same material, but I think it has the same defaults. Let's get with the obvious part first: the fact that the party shares the founder's initials, by itself, falls squarely into WP:IINFO - it does not need a citation for reliability, but it is not encyclopedic material either.
My reply to Richardson mcphillips's comment is basically saying that we do not have any source that claims it was done on purpose, so we cannot even say something like According to Libération, the party's name was chosen to match Macron's. (That is a totally debatable point, since the Libération quote is not clear-cut).
Your edit is another angle altogether, "the press and social media noticed it". I think there are some WP:SYNTH issues. I would say a WP:RS is absolutely needed at least for the social media part, and I am not convinced that planet.fr is a reliable source (and even if in general it was, this is a "noise on social media" article, hence less reliable per WP:NEWSORG). For the press part, even if it is not SYNTH, is it really encyclopedic? TigraanClick here to contact me 11:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tigraan:, for the record, I waited almost seven hours. I posted my comment explaining my edit at 18:54 and I made the new entry at 1:50 UTC which is 6 minutes shy of seven hours. According to the guideline you posted I should have waited more than two hours for a reaction, which I did. I even visited your user page to see if you had any preferred way to communicate with you, and based on that I utilized the reply template.--Gciriani (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Gciriani: Sorry for the two hours/seven hours mistake: I based it on the timestamps of the posts here. It does not change my main point though; if I absolutely wanted someone's feedback on WP, I would wait at least a day, or up to a week. But all that was a minor point anyways: I don't think you needed my feedback, and I do not think any guideline mandates that in the current circumstances. Thanks for the ping though. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, hawkish foreign policy (Center-right)

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

Le Pen is economically more inline with Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Macron is more inline with Fillon on economics. The party leans center-right or I would argue right wing. AHC300 (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/04/23/far-right-le-pen-and-center-right-macron-frontrunners-french-election AHC300 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
commondreams.org isn't a reputable source. Mélencron (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
What is a "reputable" source and who are you to say what is and isn't a "reputable" source? AHC300 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
AHC300, in my original answer, the words "reliable source" are in blue, because they are linked to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. After reading that link, you might understand better how Wikipedia evaluates sources. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Just cause he was a member of the so called Socialist Party of France doesn't mean he's center-left. This is like saying Democrats are all center-left, when in actually they are center-right. Macron would be a Republican if he ran in the USA who didn't hate gay people, women, immigrants, etc. He's center-right. AHC300 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-idUSKBN16W0W9 AHC300 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/04/23/macron-won-but-frances-austerity-centrism-is-still-in-big-trouble/ Results from the French primary election are in: center-right, pro-EU finance banker Emmanuel Macron defeated the racist, far right nationalist Marine Le Pen, and will face her again in the runoff. AHC300 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad that User:Tigraan brings up reputation as an important criterion, because in the section Talk:En_Marche!#Party_is_clearly_Centre-Left.2C_not_Centre. User:Reaper7 used the newspaper The Sun to counterbalance an article by The New York Times. After reading up a sample of opinions about the former I have to conclude that it is not a reputable newspaper.--Gciriani (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Tangential point, we should keep that in the former thread, but... The Sun is trash, but to be honest I would not put much weight on any newspaper's passing mention for the centre-or-not-centre question. I doubt the editorial team, even at the NYT, is going to have a hard look at a "centrist" or "left-centre" or "right-centre" mention of a foreign political leader. The ideal would be the opinions of political historians or the like but AFAIK we do not have it. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Macron is center-left, but instead of reverting the improper deletion by this section's op I went ahead and removed the line entirely as editors agreed in the above section. I'll add as an aside that the NY Times is certainly trash too in this era, if slightly more dressed up garbage. VictorD7 (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of sources describe the party as centre, and you parachute in here insisting it's centre-left wielding a single source and insist it's somehow disputed? A quick Google test finds that the ratio of mentions for centre – excluding mentions of centre-left/right – vs centre-left is 51:1; centre – again excluding mentions of centre-left/right – vs centre-right, 241:1. It's similar in the case of Ciudadanos: a 303:1 ratio for centre vs centre-left, and a 282:1 ratio for centre vs centre-right. Mélencron (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Mélencron plus one. This discussion is further proof that most people, Wikipedians included, have a preference based on preexisting beliefs, and then cherry-pick facts and adapt them to a rationale that supports those beliefs. I think that even if one can find some facts supporting a center-left or a center-right interpretations, we should look at the average of opinions on this.--Gciriani (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Mélencron, the WP:GHITS argument above is hardly sound. We go by the weight of sources, not their number, and the problem IMO is that none of the available sources are really heavy.
But for sure, VictorD7's dismissal of the NYT as a source by "(the NYT) is certainly trash too in this era, if slightly more dressed up garbage" begs the question of what newspaper would be a WP:RS in general. If the NYT isn't, then I see nothing that is, and I have no reason to believe the NYT to be particularly bad (comparatively to the rest of the US press) when it comes to covering the French elections. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Tigraan, plus one. It sure seems as if one decided that the NYT was trash because it went counter his/her opinion.--Gciriani (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
For the record, Gciriani, you can use WP:THANK instead of posting "plus one", and the second part what you just wrote comes dangerously close to a violation of WP:NPA or WP:AGF. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the criticism. I'll tone down the comment.--Gciriani (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, Tigraan, I didn't say the NY Times wasn't RS or even dismiss it as a source, though it's certainly not decisive by itself. If you go back and read what I said you'll see I just called it "trash too" in accordance with your comments about another paper in a post where you questioned whether any passing news stories should be used here. I was even careful to add that comment "as an aside" to let readers know it was just an off topic opinion in response to the off topic comments made by others. And yeah, while the NY Times is particularly biased in its hard news coverage, most of the media in general around the world is basically agenda pushing, frequently dishonest garbage in this era. In the long run Wikipedia will have to re-evaluate its sourcing policy and figure out how to adapt (though I'm not yet sure exactly how), but that's a discussion for another day. For now we're stuck using the media we've got, but we don't have to rush to add frivolous, disputed tags like "centre" to a new party founded by a young candidate with little history apart from having been a Socialist party member and Socialist government official. The qualifiers already under "ideology" are sufficient for now, the most important in the context of the ongoing election probably being his pro-EU stance versus Le Pen's anti-EU stance.
Gciriani would exhibit good faith by striking through his completely false and unnecessary comment. Simply replacing the name with "one" does nothing since it was in immediate reply to a post where my name was mentioned. VictorD7 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
VictorD7 I also changed the rest of the sentence toning it down.--Gciriani (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll note that my use of "too" implied agreement with Tigraan's characterization of the Sun as "trash", despite it agreeing with me, refuting any basis for even your "toned down" personal attack before you posted it.VictorD7 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Difference on spacing between full name and abbreviation

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I see there has been a reversal between Mélencron and Grahamdiedrich. I reread the rationale for the spacing, and still I do not understand Mélencron's reversal.--Gciriani (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the name of the party should be En Marche!, the abbreviation is EM! I don't know why Mélencron insists that it is not. If you look on their website and social media, the spacing for the logo is EM! ---- Grahamdiedrich
Obviously different editors are seeing the logo differently from each other in their respective computers, so it may be computer dependent. In my PC and Android phone I see it the way that Mélencron edited it, but I think that we should post images in the talk page to compare.--Gciriani (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Putting Macron's political positions into the "ideology" section

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As the party is based entirely around Macron's ideology and the party hasn't got an official stance on a lot of things (being as small as it is, we'll most likely get this when a manifesto appears), should we start to fill the "ideology" section with Macron's political positions or wait for something alike a manifesto. (Just thought about this right now, don't know if anyone else has.) WolvesS (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC) WolvesS

The last time someone tried, it got removed for essentially just being the party programme, not that I understand why that's an issue. Mélencron (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Despite his short political career Macron has flip flopped on several issues so I think the platform is more appropriate than "Macron's political position". Aesma (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the position of the party

Latest comment: 7 years ago50 comments20 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Gauging onto the opinions of prople throughout the discussion, there is a clear consensus to use Option B--Centre as the political position of "En Marche!" within the infobox.The magnitude of sources in favor of option B than for option E--helps in the closure.Winged Blades Godric 06:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How should the political position of "En Marche!" be described within the infobox? Please choose only one option. I want to resolve this issue quickly but thoroughly – and preferably see that this has received sufficient input and can be closed before the second round on 7 May. (Randomized using random.org, per request)

  • A: Centre-right
  • B: Centre
  • C: Centre to centre-right (or the opposite ordering)
  • D: Other option (please describe below)
  • E: Centre to centre-left (or the opposite ordering)
  • F: Centre-left

Mélencron (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • B (centre) seems by far the most appropriate descriptor of the movement based on independent sources in both English-language and French-language media.
    In English-language media, this is the descriptor used by the Financial Times [13][14][15], The Daily Telegraph [16][17][18], The Times [19][20][21], The Guardian [22][23][24], the BBC [25][26][27], Reuters [28][29][30], the NYT [31][32][33], the WSJ [34][35][36], among others. "Centrist" is overwhelmingly used compared to all other descriptors; searching on Google (in English) for descriptions of En Marche! as "centre-left" or "centre-right" in reputable sources yields nothing.
    The search results for French sources for "centre-left"/"centre-right" are similarly nonexistent; they're either related to the "centre-left to the centre-right", the centre-left Socialist Party, and no results at all related to En Marche! specifically being centre-right (again, almost entirely just tangentially related results; pages with "centre-right" in them but as a descriptor of politicians/supporters/parties that aren't Macron or En Marche!). In both cases, the results for both of these queries are few and far between.
There clearly does not a exist basis for describing En Marche! as anything other than centrist based on reputable sources in both English or French, and by extension, the position of the movement is not seriously – or at all – contested by journalists. Mélencron (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • B. Even though I agree with A, it seems to me that placing this choice first is a source of bias. A majority of outside editors would tend to vote A just because they read it first. A slightly less biased process would be showing the choices going from left to right, as in F, E, B, C, A and D; however, this in turn would bias the choice toward F. Perhaps a random order would improve an unbiased result, if there was a way to do that.--Gciriani (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • B as per Mélencron. That explanation seems to be wholly adequate, and I think this seems to be the best route to take. The sources seem to overwhelmingly favour this descriptor. On a side note, I acknowledge that listing "centrist" first might add a degree of bias, but in this case I don't think one can argue with the citations presented. — Richard BB 13:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • B, but... Mélencron's argument above is convincing IMO, but I still think non-French newspapers, even reputable ones, are relatively poor sourcing for the political position of Macron, since (presumably) they wouldn't see the need for hairsplitting between centre, centre-left and centre-right for a foreign candidate. A better source would be the opinion of some uninvolved political historian, but that is pretty much asking for a rainbow unicorn in France or even Europe at the moment. We should go with what we have, with the understanding that such new information would override newspapers' descriptors if it came to light. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • E in my opinion, I see that he characterizes the movement itself as centrist which probably helps B out a lot but his ideology just screams centre-left to me from the neoliberal ideals when it comes to economy to progressive social positions. Labelling him as centrist feels like labelling Tony Blair or Barack Obama or Gordon Brown centrist. These are all centre-left. I've no references but I just wanted to make that point. WolvesS (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
How would Macron differ from David Cameron, who advocated economic liberalism and social liberalism, while being considered center-right? Blair farcically played to the Labour crowd and facing the trade union wing of his party, pretended that he believed in "democratic socialism." Macron openly admits that he isn't a socialist of any kind. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You seem to lack understanding of David Cameron's policies, David Cameron is only considered a social liberal because he allowed gay marriage to pass (which was only done under Libdems, before that David Cameron constantly criticised Tony Blair for being pro-gay rights) and also voted to ban gay couples from adopting. David Cameron also has gone against abortion numerous times. He isn't socially liberal, and if you think he is, you don't understand the coaliton from 2010-2015. WolvesS (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have actually used 4 sources on the this Talk page alone where he is described as Centre-Left. Please desist. What you are attempting violates Wiki policy. Last warning before we review your account. Back to topic. Reviewing the page - I also strongly agree with VictorD7. Reaper7 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not attempting anything here other than a RfC to settle this matter. As far as I can tell, you've provided two decent sources and two rather questionable ones. This isn't merely a game of numbers, but I've easily been able to find far more – simply because the description of the party as centrist is far more prevalent. Please stop accusing me of vaguely "violat[ing] Wiki policy" and vaguely threatening that this is the "warning before we review [my] account". Mélencron (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe I clearly stated - I believed in option E because of the sources listed above. Very simple. Very clear. A user then stated immediately below 'That's literally one source.' That is an untruth - or lie. I and others have literally posted more than one source. When confronted with this fact - said poster then changed his mind and admitted 4 sources to prove Macron is Centre-Left! Only 2 in which he deemed relevant to his own beliefs. It is against Wiki policy to lie about another editor. See below.
2. Other uncivil behaviours
(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.
(b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings
(c) sexual harassment
(d) lying
(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them
Very simple and clear. The rules on uncivil behaviour to other editors are in black and white and there to protect editors on wiki. Please associate yourself with this page if you get a chance. Wikipedia:Civility. Reaper7 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Reaper7: You just accused Mélencron of lying. Either you stand by your accusation, and then you should go to WP:ANI with the corresponding WP:DIFF (this one, I assume), or you don't, and you should redact your accusations (per WP:ASPERSIONS). TigraanClick here to contact me 12:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I stand by my statement. I have provided more than one source and it was dishonest of the below user to suggest otherwise - and according to rules - uncivil behaviour. If it happens again I will peruse it further. There is no law that defines me to take it further as it is - as conflict resolution should first be attempted within the talkpage itself according to the rules - before escalation. Melencron has now stated below he made a mistake and for me to calm down. Still pushing it a little too much I believe - but as per Wiki rules on conflict resolution - I am willing to leave it there - until he makes up another statement about myself - which so far he has restrained himself from doing. If he does - Will take it further as I stated I would in my original statement before you became involved. Reaper7 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Reaper7: Calm down, I made a mistake and believed the only source you provided was the CNBC one you provided earlier. I was mistaken, obviously, as you later corrected me. Mélencron (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Reaper7 or Mélencron, can one of you please provide links to the four sources Reaper7 has pointed to for centre-left so that other editors don't have to track them down? And please ping me if you don't mind. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I linked three sources I found below that call Macron/En Marche! center-left. I believe it should be labeled such (along with "center" to avoid edit wars, etc.). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • B (centre). Macron has drawn from both the centre-left and the centre-right, both in terms of policy proposals and in terms of members and supporters. Aridd (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • A (center-right). Although Macron's rise is essentially as a proxy for the banker wing of the self-styled Socialist Party, his open advocacy of economic liberalism would preclude him from even being able to wear the mask of center-left. En Marche!'s most significant policy is its liberalism; he is roughly on the same place of the political spectrum as Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia, who we categorise as center-right. The only potential problem I can see with this is Gaullists in France are also considered center-right. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • E (center to center-left). Macron has been endorsed by Barack Obama and Tony Blair, while conservatives such as Fillon have only reluctantly endorsed him as a pragmatic choice in order to keep Le Pen out of the presidency. Supporting neoliberalism or economic liberalism does not make one center-right. His brand of economic liberalism is much softer than Fillon's, and he takes very "progressive", pro-EU, and social liberal positions, all of which align better with the center-left. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mélencron: Yes: [37] (the title calls Macron a centrist, but the first line of the article calls En Marche! "center-left." [38], [39] ("He says he is 'of the left', but keen to unite people from across the spectrum, including the right.") --1990'sguy (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to provide a direct rebuttal to this other than that unlike with English sources, I'm unable to find any reputable French sources that describe En Marche as "centre-left" (traditionally reserved to the PS) or "centre-right" (LR). A search in English, on the other hand... basically brings up what you found. Just an observation. (Re. the last, it probably just alludes to his previous involvement with left-wing parties until 2009; he voted for Chevènement in 2002, if I recall correctly. You could make the opposite argument based on his involvement with the Attali commission, though.) Mélencron (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Choice E also describes the party as center, so it would not invalidate the French sources. The American sources tend to call him left-of-center or center, and I think they should count as well. The Guardian source quotes Macron calling himself "of the left," even though he wishes to unite people on the right. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • B and E both ("centre to centre-left"). It is not in dispute that a majority of reliable sources call En Marche! centrist, but there are some reliable sources that call it centre-left. Therefore our neutrality policy has a ready answer: describe the dispute, giving appropriate weight to each side in proportion to its acceptance by the reliable sources. In the infobox, this means "Centre to centre-left." (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've already iterated my view that the number of sources describing it as centrist is clearly disproportionate to that describing it as centre-left, especially as that description is almost solely used only in English media, if at all, and almost nothing in French sources. (Try it yourself: "en marche" "centre gauche" on Google – paucity of sources that describe it as centre-left; almost all do so in reference to specific adherents or from the "centre-left to the centre-right", plus some comment sections thrown in for good measure. The only major source that really seems to make the claim is from a dossier in Challenges, and even then it seems to be the only a single instance/isn't mentioned in any other articles published by it.) Mélencron (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
That's wrong. We have provided many sources (about as much as you provided for "center") that describe En Marche! as "center-left." There may be more "center" sources, but there are many sources stating "center-left," enough so that including "center-left" is appropriate and will make the article adhere to WP:WEIGHT. We would not describe the full picture of the party according to RSs if we do not include both political spectrum interpretations. The fact that most of the "center-left" descriptions are found in non-French sources (many German sources describe it as "center-left", as another editor proved below) does not make a difference. They are RSs just as much as the French sources. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • E. The focus and views regarding the economy were often described as harsh and Business liberal. Yet put in a broader perspective, also compared with other European countries, the ideas behind are not that drastic at all. Everything else is either unclear or is similar to the socialist party he comes from simply put in other words. --Joobo (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC asks for direct opinions on the subject. I believe the purpose is to see what alternative various users believe that available reputable sources support.--Gciriani (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Well I just said what is known about this movement and its leader published by reliable sources. According to what is known- E would be the most suitable option.--Joobo (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I just said what is known about this movement and its leader published by reliable sources - if that is so, Joobo, could you give us the exact references of these sources? TigraanClick here to contact me 16:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Tigraan: Sure, here are sources who view him on the centre-left (german sources, including renokwn newspapers- mitte-links) [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]; (here some english language sources) [47], [48], [49], [50]. (sources concerning economy) [51], [52], [53], [54]. --Joobo (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • B: Most sources describe Macron and En Marche! as centrist. The self-identification is "neither left nor right". I see no reason to not do the obvious thing and declare En Marche! centrist. To a certain extent these terms are arbitrary, because there are many dimensions to policy, but this is the best we can do. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The party's statement regarding its place in the political spectrum should be taken with a grain of salt. Many parties across the globe have statements similar to this, where they basically say they are in the middle or that they represent the most people. For example, the Centre Party of Sweden is listed as being both "center" and "center-right," despite its name, and the Centre Party of the Netherlands is a right-wing party. Even more telling, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is described by observers as "neither liberal nor democratic." My point is we should not declare En Marche! solely a centrist party because a solid minority of sources also describe it as center-left. Its self-description is meaningless for our discussion. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is clear now that many refs (mainly provided by Joobo and Mélencron) describe En Marche! as both center and center-left. All these refs are reliable sources, and neither side overrides the other. Because of this situation, it is best that we include both positions on the political spectrum in the article infobox. In this situation, it would be cherrypicking to include only one of the two political spectrum locations. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Many sources call it "center-left", not a minority. Even if it were a minority, it is large enough that we should not ignore it or consider it "fringe". --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • E: makes most sense considering that, while the majority of sources label him "center", a significnat minority label him "center-left". Note: if there are any credible sources labelling En Marche as center-right, then I would change my vote to D) "center-left to center-right". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • B: As of today, it seems to me the safest bet, per currently available sources. However, this is a new party, its evolution remains all to be seen and right now it is impossible to have a historical perspective on it. I am quite open to changing my mind on the issue. --Checco (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Checco, it is true that many sources describe En Marche! as centrist, but a large number of reliable sources, linked by several users here including myself, also describe it as center-left. While probably not the majority of sources, they are at least a substantial minority and would not violate WP:WEIGHT if we included them. So, why not describe the party as both "center" and "center-left"? I think both is the safest choice. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I personally dislike formulations like "centre to centre-left". In fact, "centre-left" already includes "centre". However, in this context I would simply include "centre", as the party is more frequently described as a centrist one rather than a centre-left one. Am I wrong? --Checco (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That's probably true, but a large number of sources describing En Marche! as "center-left" still exist. It would be a form of cherrypicking not to include or mention those sources. It would not give the full picture of this party according to RSs if we only included "center." However, many political party articles have similar formulations. Parties like Likud and Liberty Korea Party are described as "center-right to right-wing", parties like the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland are "center-left to left-wing", and the Centre Party (Sweden) is "Centre to centre-right." Descriptions like this are normal, and it would be completely ordinary to include two political spectrum locations that are similar but not the same. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • B: overwhelmingly current media sources describe the party as centrist. Additionally, the party is supported by dissidents of the centre-left PS and centre-right LR.--Autospark (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The amount of sources describing the party as "centrist" is not "overwhelming" compared to the sources describing it as "center-left." To say so would ignore the large number of sources provided here by several editors and thus distort the description of the party according to RSs. Also, En Marche! being supported by members of the two mainstream parties does not necessarily automatically make it "centrist." Despite the fact that members from both parties have joined En Marche!, many reliable sources still describe the party as "center-left." --1990'sguy (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
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.

European grouping

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Le Soir suggest En Marche will join ALDE after the Assembly election - would seem worthy of mention in the text, even if unconfirmed yet. Culloty82 (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone can correct me but EM would need actual seats in the European parliament to join a parliamentary group. This shouldn't be mentioned, maybe in 2019 european elections page (which doesnt exist yet) WolvesS (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
They can join the European political party as opposed to the parliamentary group, though I'd personally hold off on including this at all until it's actually admitted to ALDE. Mélencron (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Google translate

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Chrome translates the name of this party as "Working!", though our article translates it as "Forward". Just wondering which is technically correct. This is Paul (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

English language sources vary in how they translate En Marche !. Looking briefly, the Guardian and the Mail use "On the move!", the New York Times and Washington Post use "Onward!", the Telegraph uses "Onwards!" CBS uses Forward; "Onward!" has been used elsewhere on Wikipedia. It'd be good to get a consensus on how to refer to it. Ralbegen (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@This is Paul: It is fairly hard to translate and English-speaking sources therefore differ, but "working" is certainly not an option. The verb marcher means to walk in literal usage; it is also used with the figurative meaning of "working, functioning" for e.g. a mechanical device that you turn on and off, which is probably what Google understood, but EM's campaign started by having people literally walk through the country. AFAIK everyone understood it as the plain meaning of "walk". (The precise group en marche - lit. walking - can also be used figuratively, e.g. en marche vers la victoire = going towards victory which must have been used a million times in the press today.) TigraanClick here to contact me 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps the boffins at Google will work to correct it now the phrase is in widespread use. This is Paul (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@This is Paul: it is fairly easy to submit a suggested translation in Google translate, if that's your concern.--Gciriani (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Macron stepped down as president of En Marche.

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

http://www.rtl.fr/actu/politique/qui-est-catherine-barbaroux-presidente-par-interim-de-la-republique-en-marche-7788455637 can another person please confirm this for me? WolvesS (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noted it in a comment. He posted a video on YouTube (unlisted, for supporters) yesterday. Mélencron (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Are we running ahead of ourselves changing the name of the party? The name of the party is still En Marche!, as the announcement about Catherine Barbaroux states, and it has only been [55] announced that the candidates will run under the party name La République En Marche!, for the elections on 11 and 18 July.--Gciriani (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
So only the label is changing in the legislative elections (e.g. as with MoDem as Centre pour la France/AEI as Mouvement 100 %) and the party won't be formally renamed until a convention by 15 July? In that case, it should probably be moved back. Mélencron (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There are two optionq. 1/ The name will be changed on 15 July 2017. 2/ LREM is only the name of a political alliance between EM and MODEM. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

ALDE group

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It is already necessary to indicate that a member of the ALDE group http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/97137/SYLVIE_GOULARD_home.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.51.110.241 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Goulard is personally an Alde MEP from her time as a MoDem, but En Marche has not officially affiliated with Alde. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Many MEPs are personally composed in different groups and this is enough. Union of Greens and Farmers, Alternative for Germany and other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezerg777 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried to edit this into the infobox but I couldn't work out how to manipulate the template.

http://www.lesoir.be/1496525/article/actualite/union-europeenne/2017-05-04/emmanuel-macron-rejoindra-famille-liberale-europeenne

Homoeuropeeans (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

missing space before the "!"

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Following the French punctuation rules, the name in French is En Marche ! with a space before the exclamation mark. This article could thus arguably be renamed En Marche ! instead of En Marche!. Maxlath (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This article, written in English, doesn't follow French punctuation rules. --Hazhk (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Restoring the first footnote

I totally agree there should be no space before the "!" in this English article. However, an explanation should be added as a footnote right after the title. I don't know why someone deleted the footnote. This footnote, I quote here: "In French, there is a space in front of the exclamation mark, which makes it "En marche !". It is written without the space in English media.", explains two essential things:

  • The French form of the name. We usually use "Article name (Original language: Article name)" at the beginning of an articles. But here, instead of an extremely weird "En Marche! (French: En Marche !)", a footnote would be better.
  • This footnote answers Maxlath's question: Why "En Marche!" instead of "En Marche !" in this article? Because it is written without the space in English media.

And That's why I'm restoring this deleted footnote. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Should "En Marche!" be italicised throughout?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I would argue that, as per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, the name of the group should be italicised throughout the text. What do other editors here think? HelgaStick (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used"... to me, it doesn't make much to italicize En Marche! (or la France insoumise) – I've used both in the past, for the record, but lean against using italics in general simply because it's unnecessary if it's the primary name in English (as in this case). Mélencron (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I just logged in so that I could suggest doing exactly that! I feel that this is because it is a phrase in the French language used in English text. Vive la France! (I don't think I qualify as an editor, more of a kibitzer.)☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Final candidate list

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

They will run 522 candidates, the other 55 constituencies belonging to politicians viewed as supportive of the new government. Culloty82 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments18 people in discussion
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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 07:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Closer's note: I suggest relisting this when and if the name is officially changed. At this time there's no consensus for a move. —Guanaco 07:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

En Marche! → La République en marche! – Now-obvious instance of WP:COMMONNAME; renaming was announced on 8 May (though not to be made official until July), name is being used as the label for candidates in the legislatives, and is now clearly the dominant name used in the French press (checking any of the lives from Le Monde, Le Figaro, Le Parisien, franceinfo, etc. should make it obvious). The only thing here that might be ambiguous is (1) whether to write it in all capitals – there's a case to be made for either, given the current article title, and I don't feel strongly either way and (2) the abbreviation – REM seems to be dominant at this point, but I'm still seeing LRM and LREM quite often, so I think it should be denoted in the lede as such. Mélencron 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. feminist 01:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CommonName. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." As of now, "En Marche!" is definitely the most common and most widely used name for the party, and, as we do not have a crystal ball, we do not know whether in the future that will change. --Checco (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
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.

Requested move 10 July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments12 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Both possible titles are permissible, but there is a clear absence of consensus to move the page. bd2412 T 21:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

En Marche! → La République En Marche! – Founding convention noted above occurred yesterday; renaming is official. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, this is the appropriate title as REM has seen disproportionate use compared to EM in published sources since the announcement of the renaming, and this title is therefore also appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME. Mélencron (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 02:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - what has changed since the last RM? Yes, the official name has changed, but that's not what we decide our titles on. (See WP:OFFICIALNAMES). English reliable sources appear to use the shorter form at least as much as the longer form, even in the past month,[85][86][87] and we would prefer it as well where usage is split, per WP:CONCISE. Please provide more evidence for the assertion that "REM has seen disproportionate use compared to EM in published sources since the announcement of the renaming". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Collapsed for space, same content reformatted below
  • The usage of REM compared to EM without REM is clearly disproportionate in French sources;
Hi Melencron, this just doesn't match what I'm seeing when I look around at news sites. Take a look at the search results for "en marche" on Google news: [225]. Now we would expect this to include results for both LREM and EM, since the search term will cover both. But the majority of the results shown are just for "En Marche" without the first part. There's no doubt that news sources sometimes use the long form, as in your links above, but I don't think it's the predominant usage. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't use that as a search query – what I'm doing is comparing "République En Marche" site:[news site domain] → results within the past month and "En Marche" -"République En Marche" site:[news site domain] → results within the past month to clearly distinguish between the two. I also prefer using plain Google as opposed to Google News as the latter often omits many articles from its results simply because they seem similar, therefore artificially reducing the number of unique articles. (And for what it's worth, in my own reading I've seen far more instances of REM than EM... though the above might give you an idea of my reading list, of course.) Mélencron (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Mélencron: A non-French speaker might not realize that "en marche" is an idiomatic expression and thus the WP:GHITS number must be vastly superior for "en marche" -"la république en marche" than for "la république en marche" (the latter would hardly be used except for the party).
I agree we can consider the name changed, but... The movement changed as well. The party that won seats in the Assembly (under the LREM slogan) has little to do with the movement that Macron launched when leaving the government. Maybe it could warrant a split. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The solution I see largely used on frwp for deputies is to list their affiliation as either REM or EM/REM (when they clearly joined the movement back in 2016). I don't think it warrants a split given continuity, but the article as it is is largely (and surprisingly) inadequate, which could do with fixing, but unfortunately there just aren't any editors on enwp who currently write about French politics (aside from the mass-stubbing of Lugnuts, a few decent tidbits from DunkyMatchette, and a small number of decent articles by Zigzig20s). Mélencron (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ, as I've attempted to show above. I'm not using a mere Google test as some seem to be assuming – I went through every published article in a number of English-language publications within the past month and the common name is clearly not. Mélencron (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's the name overwhelmingly used in all sources, their official name, the name they used in the legislative elections, the name of their group in the National Assembly, and the name of their group in the Senate. How people still believe that it's the "common name" at this point is beyond me. Mélencron (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The party is now officially named La République En Marche, as stated in the offical status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamdiedrich (talk • contribs)

  • This does not change anything, in my view. Official name ≠ most common name. --Checco (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as initiator. Current name used on the French-language Wikipedia, obvious WP:COMMONNAME per sources and per WP:NAMECHANGES, article should be renamed since sources published since the announcement of the renaming predominantly use the new name. Reformatted sources into a table below:
Usage of names in the month to 10 July
Publication REM predominant Equal predominance EM predominant
The Telegraph [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236]
The Times [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251]
The Economist [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259]
The Guardian [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282][283]
BBC News [284][285] [286] [287] [288] [289] [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] [298] [299] [300] [301]
Politico Europe [302] [303] [304] [305] [306] [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] [319] [320] [321] [322] [323] [324] [325] [326] [327] [328] [329] [330] [331] [332] [333] [334]
The New York Times [335] [336] [337] [338] [339] [340]
The Wall Street Journal [341] [342] [343] [344] [345] [346]
Reuters [347] [348] [349] [350] [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] [356] [357] [358] [359] [360] [361] [362] [363] [364] [365] [366] [367] [368] [369] [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] [382] [383] [384] [385] [386] [387] [388] [389] [390] [391] [392] [393] [394] [395] [396]

Mélencron (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support République En Marche. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, we give more weight to sources published after the name change. Mélencron has effectively demonstrated that "République En Marche" is the WP:COMMONNAME since the change.--Cúchullain t/c 14:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. The name was officially changed, the new name is widely used and is widely recognisable. The movement is young, thus all news coverage is recent (Google Trends clearly shows that EM/REM was largely unknown a year ago. It was clearly showed that in June news coverage (after the name change) REM is clearly predominant. As WP:NAMECHANGES gives extra weight to these sources, we can safely state that La République En Marche! is now a common name — NickK (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with or without "La" - More news outlets use the proposed title than the present title, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Currently, no academic journals have mentioned the political party yet. Speaking of journals, I found out that the name has been some common French catchphrase, also seen in Google Books. Still, I think changing the title to reflect the name change and the common catchphrase and to consist with the French Wikipedia is a better reason than leaving the title as is. --George Ho (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for the move

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't understand on which basis the article was moved from En Marche! to La République En Marche!. In my view, the move was not supported by consensus. I ask a return to the former name, while being open to a discussion on a new requested move. --Checco (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Checco: agreed. I have reverted the move. The RM above was closed as "not moved", so that's the established name unless a fresh RM concludes differently. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments17 people in discussion
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. I previously opposed this move in the last RM, but it is very clear that the reliable source evidence now strongly supports LREM as WP:COMMONNAME, and the consensus from this discussion is in favour of moving on that basis.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

En Marche! → La République En Marche! – To recall:

  • On 8 May, after Macron's election, it was announced that the party would be renamed to "La République En Marche!"
  • The name and iconography were officially submitted to the INPI on 7 May 2017.
  • From that date onward, the vast majority of press coverage in both English and French used the name "La République En Marche!" far more frequently than "En Marche!".
  • That can be demonstrated from the table below (created during the month of July):
Usage of names in the month to 10 July
Publication REM predominant Equal predominance EM predominant
The Telegraph [397] [398] [399] [400] [401] [402] [403] [404] [405] [406] [407]
The Times [408] [409] [410] [411] [412] [413] [414] [415] [416] [417] [418] [419] [420] [421] [422]
The Economist [423] [424] [425] [426] [427] [428] [429] [430]
The Guardian [431] [432] [433] [434] [435] [436] [437] [438] [439] [440] [441] [442] [443] [444] [445] [446] [447] [448] [449] [450] [451] [452] [453][454]
BBC News [455][456] [457] [458] [459] [460] [461] [462] [463] [464] [465] [466] [467] [468] [469] [470] [471] [472]
Politico Europe [473] [474] [475] [476] [477] [478] [479] [480] [481] [482] [483] [484] [485] [486] [487] [488] [489] [490] [491] [492] [493] [494] [495] [496] [497] [498] [499] [500] [501] [502] [503] [504] [505]
The New York Times [506] [507] [508] [509] [510] [511]
The Wall Street Journal [512] [513] [514] [515] [516] [517]
Reuters [518] [519] [520] [521] [522] [523] [524] [525] [526] [527] [528] [529] [530] [531] [532] [533] [534] [535] [536] [537] [538] [539] [540] [541] [542] [543] [544] [545] [546] [547] [548] [549] [550] [551] [552] [553] [554] [555] [556] [557] [558] [559] [560] [561] [562] [563] [564] [565] [566] [567]
  • This remains the case, though I can't be bothered to recreate the table once again. (Take my word for it that the same is the case with French sources – just that the number of articles is far more numerous and I'm not really up for gathering three weeks of articles.)
  • I would also note that the name that the party uses for its parliamentary groups in the National Assembly and Senate is also "La République En Marche".
  • As the movement is now officially known as "La République En Marche!" and it is the name predominantly used in press coverage, it should be moved, per WP:COMMONNAME.
  • Additionally, per WP:NAMECHANGES, "extra weight [is given] to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated this is the case, and that editors in previous requested moves who opposed the move failed to actually address this.

Mélencron (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru, Autospark, Checco, Cuchullain, District101, Feminist, George Ho, Grahamdiedrich, JFG, Lugnuts, Nevermore27, NickK, Panam2014, Ralbegen, SMB99thx, Some Gadget Geek, ThomasBur, Tigraan, and Tomchen1989: this RM may be of interest to you, as participants in the previous RM discussions. @Authueil, Indilo, Zigzig20s, MonsterHunter32, and WolvesS: this RM may be of interest to you, as active editors recently in the area of French politics. Mélencron (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  • My opinion has not changed since the previous discussion, and I still support it per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. The major change since the previous nomination is that there is a Senate group which is also called La République En Marche! — NickK (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The evidence decisively shows that the new name has been the common one in sources published since the name change. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, that is what we look at.--Cúchullain t/c 14:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (still). The argument that LREM is not WP:COMMONNAME among the French media nowadays is ridiculous, to say the least (it was already fairly unsound the last time around). Above, I suggested the possibility to split articles between the "movement" EM (before the parliamentary election) and the party LREM (which presented candidates to the parliamentary elections, got a majority elected, gets public subsidies etc.). However, the current article clearly deals with both as the same entity, hence the full WP:NAMECHANGE should apply.
The only argument I can conceivably imagine is that the change has not been picked up in the foreign press and (this being the English Wikipedia) the COMMONNAME is different abroad. This is possible, especially considering the volume of articles about French politics understandably deflated after the presidential election, that foreign journalists kept using the old name. But this line of reasoning, to be substantiated, needs that (1) the COMMONNAME guideline, applied here, should discount the fr press (or give it a low weight), and (2) the common name in US/UK/etc. press is actually EM and not LREM; both of those premises I think dubious.
This being said... Mélencron, what criterion did you use to choose which "editors [recently active] in the area of French politics" to ping? You should read WP:CANVASSING carefully before next time. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Basically just what it sounds like. Authueil finds deputies' photos, Indilo basically transfers content from the French Wikipedia on constituencies and deputies, Zigzig20s writes biographies, and MonsterHunter32 and WolvesS have each made substantial contributions to articles related to Macron. I considered it a courtesy ping as I'm unsure whether this article is on their watchlist. I don't think it falls under the definition of canvassing – they've shown interest in related topics, I don't know their stance on the issue, and I haven't deliberately omitted pinging those who opposed the move. Mélencron (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
RM requests close a month from their initiation (i.e., 7 December), by the way. (You're referring to the congress in Lyon on 18 November where Castaner will be "elected", correct?) Mélencron (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I talk about November Congress. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Strongly support: I 100% agree that it should be La République En Marche! Grahamdiedrich (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Renaissance_(French_political_party)/Archive_1&oldid=1147974443"