Talk:Radical centrism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Explaining changes to introduction of this article

Recently (October and November 2013), Wikipedians changed four passages in the introduction to this article. I have decided to restore or rewrite those passages, for the following reasons:

CHANGE #1

In paragraph three, the first sentence originally read:

Most radical centrists borrow what they see as good ideas from left, right, and everywhere else they may be found, often melding them together.[citing Olson]

It was changed to become the beginning fragment of the first sentence, as follows:

Most radical centrists combine ideas from both leftism, rightism, and elsewhere,[citing Olson] ...

This fragment is briefer and breezier than the original sentence. However, that does not necessarily make it better. The introduction to a Wikipedia article is supposed to adequately introduce the content of the main body of the article. It is also supposed to accurately represent the cited source (if there is a one). The original sentence performs both tasks better than the sentence fragment.

The article emphasizes that radical centrism is becoming a new political philosophy or ideology – that it is not not just a series of ad hoc combinations of other ideologies' ideas. The original sentence conveys that idea far better than the fragment.

In addition, the original sentence better represents the source's (Olson's) text. Olson has been involved in radical centrist projects since the 1970s; he is probably as knowledgeable about the subject as anyone alive. In his article, a 2,000-word feature review in the World Future Society's flagship publication, he makes this central point (in the section entitled "Is '‘Radical Middle' an Oxymoron?"):

"The most important departure from politics-as-usual ... is a commitment to finding a higher common ground that integrates best insights from both the left and the right. The radical middle is willing to borrow from neoliberals, neoconservatives, neopopulists, transformationalists, and anyone else with useful ideas – and blend the ideas together in an inclusive process of creative problem-solving."

I believe the original sentence better represents Olson's point here. It is less breezy than the sentence fragment. Bu it is perfectly clear, and it more precisely captures Olson's content and nuance. Moreover, it better prepares the reader for the main body of the Wikipedia article. I have therefore restored the original sentence.

CHANGE #2

In paragraph three, the next two sentences originally read:

Most support market-based solutions to social problems with strong governmental oversight in the public interest.[citing Miller] There is support for increased global engagement and the growth of an empowered middle class in developing countries.[citing Halstead, ed.]

Those were changed to run onto the sentence fragment described above, as follows:

[[Most radical centrists combine ideas from both leftism, rightism, and elsewhere,[citing Olson]]] market-based solutions to social problems with strong governmental oversight in the public interest,[citing Miller] and greater global engagement, growtrh, and empowerment for middle class in developing countries.[citing Halstead, ed.]

There are three problems with the revised sentence. First, Wikipedia's editors (in their style manual and its offshoots) make it clear that they prefer brief sentences to long, run-on sentences. And you can see why here: the revised sentence is clunky and difficult to follow.

Second, Halstead's anthology (the pertinent source here) does not assert that "most" radical centtists support greater global engagement, etc.; it simply demonstrates that some do.

Finally, the notion of "growth" has been added in here from out of the blue. The body of the article says nothing about economic growth for a reason – there is no consensus among leading radical centrist theorists on that subject. You can discern that from the brief bios in the "Twenty-first Century Overviews" section: Avlon worked for Giuliani and Lind is a champion of Truman (and Hamilton) – all traditional pro-growth types. However, Halstead co-founded Reinventing Progress, a nonprofit that sought to de-emphasize GNP growth, and Satin co-founded the U.S. Green Party, which is even more of a growth skeptic. Anyway, for all these reasons, I have restored the original two sentences.

CHANGE #3

In paragraph three, the last sentence originally read:

Many radical centrists work within the major political parties, but most also support independent and third-party initiatives and candidacies.[citing Avlon]

It was changed to:

Many radical centrists work within the major political parties while also supprting independent and third-party initiatives and candidacies.[citing Avlon]

The reader has done this sentence a service by eliminating the "many" / "most" distinction. There is no basis for it in Avlon's book, and choosing to use the the term "many" rather than "most" is consistent with Avlon's careful presentation of his material. However, "supporting" is a verb and should be in the same verb form as "work." (This might not matter in everyday speech or informal journalism; but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.) I have therefore redone the sentence as follows:

Many radical centrists work within the major political parties but also support independent or third-party initiatives and candidacies.[citing Avlon]

CHANGE #4

In paragraph four, the second sentence originally read:

One common criticism is that radical centrist policies are only marginally different from left-liberal or progressive-conservative policies.[citing Gary Marx]

It was changed to:

One common criticism is that radical centrist policies are only marginally different from Centere-left or progressive-conservative policies.[citing Gary Marx]

The reader has put their finger on an important point: "left-liberal" is a term that is at best ambiguous to many people, especially outside the U.S. However, replacing that term with "Centre-left" distorts what the source (Gary Marx) and the majority of writers he cites are saying. Their beef with radical centrism is that it's not "Centre-left" enough – that it is merely centrist.

I have therefore corrected both versions above by substituting a more straightforward sentence, as follows:

One common criticism is that radical centrist policies are only marginally different from convenrional centrist policies.[citing Gary Marx]

I hope these changes are understandable and acceptable to the followers of this page. - Babel41 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it funny ...

... or isn't it? that this article doesn't share a single word of content witht the German Wiki article linked in the languages bar?

T 2001:4610:A:5E:0:0:0:9915 (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Trump, a radical centrist?

"In 2015, conservative journalist Matthew Continetti argued that Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump represents the radical middle."

I think this only confuses people. Coz' we all know he's alt-right, so how the heck will he become centrist? It's like saying Vladimir Lenin is Radical Centrist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.42.200 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to ride herd on people's views. It is to present perspectives from a variety of noteworthy sources on the topic under discussion. See WP:NPOV. Matthew Continetti is a notable conservative journalist (see his Wikipedia bio), and his article is cited as appearing in National Review, the most significant conservative political journal in the U.S. (also with a page on Wikipedia). Thus it is a noteworthy opinion that merits inclusion in an article on radical centrism.

The Wikipedia Radical centrism article does not endorse Continetti's views, it simply mskes readers aware of themt because they are significant. (The Wikipedia article doers not endorse radical centrism, either - it informs people about the topic, not least by including a robust "Criticisms" section full of observations that many radical centrists would disagree with.) If there is a passage in a reputable source (i.e., book or article in a noteworthy periodical) disputing that Trump is a radical centrist, then it should be cited alongside Continetti's piece. But it is not for us, as Wikipedia editors, to suppress Continetti's piece because we do not like it. - Babel41 (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yeah - one more thing. Continetti's article is actually a hit piece on Trump as well as on radical centrism. (National Review does not like either.) Hardly anyone who reads the Wikipedia article will be persuaded by Continetti's reasoning. - Babel41 (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The source does not use the term "radical centrism" and there is no evidence he is referring to the same topic. In fact, Clinton comes closer to the paradigm, support of minority rights while upholding traditional power relationships. TFD (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Query about your maintenance tags over the Radical centrism "External links" section

Dear Koavi, - I see that you've put maintenance tags over the "External links" section of the Radical centrism page. I appreciate the concern that we Wikipedia editors have for our product. However, I have been monitoring that article for several years, and I cannot see any links there that are "excessive" or "inappropriate." (1) The radical centrist article is long and covers an unusual amount of ground. (2) Every single external link relates to a Wikipedia-notable person or entity. (3) Every link is briefly explained / justified. (4) Most important of all, every single person or entity is mentioned in the text of the article or in the "Further reading" section following the text.

I have just re-read the external links rules, WP:EXT, and cannot see where Radical centrism's "External links" section goes wring. So please explain your objection further, and I will correct whatever I can; I'll watch for your response in this space. Thanks! - Babel41 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Babel41: Thanks for your note. Since Wikipedia is not a link directory, it's important to keep external links to a minimum based on their quality and applicability to a given article. For instance, on this one, there are no less than six links to American groups. Isn't there one that is more representative? And the opinion sites--surely there are several commentators and bloggers out there: how did you choose these in particular? Are any of them really necessary? For that matter, you have linked a handful of manifestos--these links are fine as such but they should really just be in the further reading above or cited as sources. Yes, they are links but they link to one particular document rather than a site made up of several pages. I would suggest that you consider looking at (or even editing!) DMOZ. If you could take the 15 or so links that are there now and replace them with one or two direct links and one or two directory links that would be 1.) more in line with the external links policy and 2.) make it much more likely that users will actually click on them. That was my thinking. Basically anytime I see an article and it has double digit links, it's basically assured to be excessive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Koavi, - Thanks for taking the time and trouble to write a thorough response to my query. I am not a DMOZ enthusiast. However, I am deeply committed to making our "External links" section conform to Wikipedia policy. Hence I have followed your instructions and done the following:

1. Cut the number of groups down to five – two U.S., one U.K., one Australian, and one global. All five are discussed in the article. (As you can see from the article, the radical centrist movement is largely based in the U.S. and U.K.)

2. Cut the number of opinion sites down to four. (They were not chosen randomly; their hosts are all prominently discussed in the article, including the crucial "Twenty-first century overviews" section.

3. Moved the manifestos to the "Further reading" section.

In addition, I will monitor the "External links" section on a regular basis to make sure the number of links does not reach 10. This article has over 80 page watchers and I am sure some of them will pay attention too (hint, hint).

Thanks again for your help in clarifying Wikipedia's policies here. Unless you object, I will remove the maintenance tag in approx. 24 hours. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Tone and style: Twenty-first century overviews

@132.181.172.56: please be so kind to explain why you added a Template:tone-tag for the Radical centrism#Twenty-first century overviews section:what needs to be improved, and how? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear 132.181.172.56, - As you have not responded to the query from senior Wikipedia editor Joshua Jonathan (above), I am removing your maintenance tag objecting to the "tone or style" of the "Twenty-first century overviews" section of this article. As Joshua's query suggests, there is no readily apparent basis for your tag:

1. Tone. The tone of the section is neutral, as called for by WP:NPOV. The article also includes a "Criticism" section, also delivered in a neutral tone.

2. Style. Wikipedia permits a wide variety of lists and list styles, see MOS:LIST, and the section in question is consistent with the guidelines set forth there. Those guidelines state, among other things, that lists may be embedded in articles, that they may be in bullet-point style, that they should be appropriately introduced, that they may be divided by sub-titles, and that they may be used to make complex ideas easier to grasp than would discursive prose.

If you feel that the claims above are erroneous, please defend your position here and I or another Wikipedian will respond. If we cannot reach consensus, we can formally request a third opinion through Wikipedia or initiate one of the more elaborate processes spelled out at the end of the second paragraph there. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Call for compromise (and viewers' input) on dispute between Ettrig and Babel41

Dear Ettrig, - Thank you for fully explaining yourself (immediately above), and for caring about the quality of Wikipedia (WP). However, I find your explanation unpersuasive, and I have reverted your reversion, meanwhile hoping you or a viewer of this exchange will respond positively to my compromise proposal in the last paragraph below.

The function of an Introduction to a WP article is to briefly summarize the content of the article; see WP:LEAD. That is exactly what the paragraph in question (the last one in the Introduction section) does. The opening sentence, which you deleted, announces the broad theme of the "Criticism" section of the article, and the subsequent sentences give some examples to back up the sentence you deleted - examples that themselves derive from the Criticism section.

The introduction to WP:LEAD states that the introductions to WP articles should consist of "well-composed paragraphs." A well-composed paragraph of expository writing generally consists of a lead sentence and a couple of sentences backing it up. That is exactly what the paragraph in question did. By deleting its lead sentence, all we are left with is a paragraph consisting of a couple of stray examples of criticism The lead sentence provides the necessary context for them. The examples alone, without the lead sentence, do not constitute a well-composed paragraph.

Perhaps an acceptable solution here would be for you to create an alternative lead sentence to the paragraph in question, one you perceive to be more accurate. Or perhaps viewers of this exchange would like to suggest - or create! - an alternative lead sentence. WP is a collective endeavor; I would welcome any such solution, so long as the paragraph is given an appropriate lead sentence. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I think the best replacement for this sentence is nothing. The sentence that you cite is mainly about the length of the intro. But yes, of course we all want all the text to be well-composed. You formulate above that this means support for your view in this discussion. That argument is a fabrication. The principle that you formulate does not exist. There IS a contradicting principle that you refere to yourself: The intro shall be brief (the word used is "concise"). With my solution the intro becomes more concise. --Ettrig (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ettrig, - I appreciate this exchange, and wonder whether your disbelief in my stricture - that a well-composed expository paragraph generally needs a lead sentence - reflects a cultural difference. I was taught this in composition classes in high school and college in the U.S., you appear to be from Sweden. Also, I may be two generations older than most people on WP and am infinitely more at home in the world of the humanities than in the world of sci-tech and computers. Despite some perspective on that baggage I remain convinced that an introductory sentence is needed to orient readers to the rest of the fourth paragraph (which they can then skim or omit).

As stated earlier, I am willing to replace the first sentence with one more to your liking. So I hope you will accept the following alternative sentence: "Radical centrism has received much criticism." It meets my criterion of broadly summarizing the paragraph and the "Criticism" section. It meets our joint criterion of not committing original research, WP:OR, as the original first sentence may indeed have done. And it meets your criterion of extreme brevity - six words!

There are now 100 watchers of the Radical centrism page. I suggest giving them another 24 hours to comment on this exchange. And then, unless I hear from you or anyone differetly, I will remove the original sentence and replace it with the one above. I hope that works for you. Best, Babel41 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I laud you for making this effort at a compromize. You have reduced the redundant sentence dramatically and sufficiently in my view. Well done! --Ettrig (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Pats on the back for both of us I think. - Babel41 (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Australia - Noel Pearson

Noel Pearson brands himself as a Radical Centrist in an attempt to appear non-partisan, open, and working in favour of Indigenous Australians. On the social welfare issue, he is the ideal Radical Centrist, butt on every other issue he is very far from it and holds views that are seen as extreme to the majority of Australians including the Indigenous population. Though he does seem to have politicians and media on his side.

My issue is with the sources cited.

Cite notes 120, 121, and 122 are authored by the subject. This is repeated on his own Wikipedia entry to affirm this stance. Additionally, cite note 118 refers to a paper that questions Pearson's claim of being a Radical Centrist - not affirms it.

While Pearson has made significant contributions to the plight of Indigenous Australians, Pearson's political ideology and actions are often seen as attempting cultural genocide by using his political privilege to replace Traditional Spirituality and Indigenous Languages with Christianity, The Bible, and English; replacing the traditional family structures with the biblical ones; undermining traditional community-based justice systems with Anglo-centric Judeo-Christian system of justice. There is no middle ground. There is no centre. He is a Christian Totalitarian, or at best, a Christian Democrat, which, In Australia, is right of conservative. He will however work with whoever is in power which has ranged from the left faction of a centre-right party to the right faction of the right party. His political allies are considered right to far-right authoritarian Christian fundamentalist Monarchists -- which is polar opposite to the communities he purports to represent.

The Indigenous community track all media regarding Pearson which can be viewed at: http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/pearson/noel_articles.html

The positive articles come from sources that range from Classical Liberals to Conservative to Christian Democrats. The negative articles generally mine quotes from centre-right politicians who unanimously agree that the guy is off the spectrum.

While I've been unable to find any reliable sources that confirm his true political ideology, there are none that are not self-authored (in blog-style opinion pieces reprinted in a reliable but right-wing paper) that support the claim of Pearson adopting Radical Centrism. I do believe that the -- potentially autobibliographical -- entry here and on his personal Wikipedia entry are purposely, or possibly misguidedly, deceitful.

I consider myself a Radical Centrist (with communitarian leanings) but the term could have been used for the majority of politicians and voters (but not Pearson) until American-style partisanship caught on in the late 2000's.

Abl81 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Abl81, - I am not unsympathetic to your thoughts & feelings here. I have read many of the radical centrists in the article, and have devised my own private classification of them as initiators, followers, or opportunists.

However, as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia (WP) does not want its contributors to add their thoughts to its articles. (See WP:OR). Unlike blogs and social media, WP is a rules-based encyclopedia whose mission is to report on what "reliable sources" (WP:RS) are conveying about a subject. That is why all the citations you mention are legitimate here. It doesn't matter whether the cites are to primary or secondary sources. It does matter that Pearson is a WP-notable figure (see WP:BIO). It also matters that two of the cites are to the largest newspaper in Australia, one is to the text of an invited speech to a major foundation, and #118 discusses P's radical-centrist ideas in depth (and not dismissively, as you suggest) in a major academic journal, the Australian Journal of Political Science. All four texts put P. forward as a radical centrist in their very titles, and among them they give a good overview of what for better or worse is his version of radical centrism. That is surely what we want from WP. Readers can, and will, come to their own conclusions.

Please note that, consistent with WP practice in many articles about controversial subjection, the expository sections here are followed by a "Criticism" section where many radical centrist people and perspectives are criticized from diverse points of view. Pearson is included. The last sentence in the "Objections to policies" sub-section refers readers to a 15-page essay in the Australian Journal of Politics and History (footnote 164) which reports on those who are asking whether Pearson is a radical centrist or a "polarizing partisan" – much as you do in your note above.

I think you have a much stronger case with regard to the Noel Pearson biographical article on WP, which you also mention. Three red flags stand out for me there: the gushy last paragraph in the Introduction; the absurdly long "Articles and addresses" section (not even Prime Ministers get that kind of treatment on WP); and – most troublesome, at least for me – the fact that there is no "Criticism" section there (often called an "Assessments" section with regard to biographical subjects). There is no hard-and-fast rule that biographies must have such a section, but in nmy experience on WP, most good bios about controversial figures do have one.

You appear to have the knowledge to create a Criticism or Assessment section for the Pearson bio; and I encourage you to do so. The two academic journal articles about P. mentioned above & cited in the Radical centrism article can give you material, and so can the Indigenous critics (so long as you can find their critiques in reliable sources, either expressed in their own words or described by others). If "someone" eliminates your critique from the Pearson bio, you can simply revert their elimination so long as your critique is done in an objective tone of voice, is not disproportionately long, and is properly sourced. I am not sure WP is your cup of tea. But if you feel passionately about this, go for it. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)