Talk:The Republicans (France)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by 2A02:587:B35:700:44D4:1DD4:1478:90DD in topic Right-wing?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Liberal-conservative, really?
editThe sources mentioning "liberal-conservatism" are centered on Fillon's project, not on the whole party. No source says that Les Républicains is a liberal-conservative party (except Nordsieck, but he's not well-known). On the other hand, it's child's play to find sources mentioning explicitely LR as a conservative party (ABC International, Business Insider, Washington Post, Mediapart...). (Approved by Panam2014 in the French talkpage.) Fourmidable (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is no surprise that American sources describe LR as conservative since "liberal conservatism" is not a category used in the United States. By the way, LR is surely conservative and, more specifically, liberal-conservative. As of late, the party has shifted to the right, but it is still a broadly liberal-conservative party and member of the EPP. --Checco (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources say "LR is [...] more specifically, liberal-conservative"? Even in France we don't have such sources. Fourmidable (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no consensus on replacing "liberal conservatism" with more generic "conservatism", but we surely need better sources. --Checco (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Checco: Because Nordsieck's pov counts for something, we can place it in the development, but NOT in the introduction, nor in the infobox, nor in the article Liberal conservatism (not at all representative). Fourmidable (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Surely, the article is poorly sourced, but I would not underestimate Nordsieck. --Checco (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, Nordsieck's blog has been removed from the infobox at Conservative Party (UK). Reasons discussed included that it is a one-man project by someone seemingly without an institutional affiliation, and that the website isn't frequently updated. I don't have a bone to pick with that source though. With the ideology section of the article noting that there is internal tension within the party pulling it towards the right, I think just 'conservatism' in the infobox would be fine? Sometimes I feel that political party infoboxes become overwrought because there's an urge to end up splitting hairs and listing slight gradations of a core thing, so listing both 'conservatism' and 'liberal conservatism' (see Liberal Party of Australia as an example of a distasteful compromise) would not appeal to me. People can read the ideology section if they're interested in the nuances. Finally, even if it might not be perceived as an ideology of much substance, LR are the flagbearers of the Gaullist tradition so I think that should be returned to the infobox - which is the case at Rally for the Republic. What do you both think @Checco and Fourmidable:? · | (t - c) 19:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I already explained my view. I think that "liberal conservatism" better suits this party, which represents the EPP and, thus, the moderate centre-right in France. Personally, I think that Nordsieck's website is a good source and, actually, it is frequently updated, but surely we need more sources. I would not add "Gaullism" and I would remove it from other infoboxes as it is not an ideology per se (see Gaullism). --Checco (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the above.— Autospark (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fillon does absolutely not represent the entire party. Fourmidable (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- The entire party is broadly liberal-conservative. @User:Autospark: do we have better sources? --Checco (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, we must get the sources first and then add the information. Fourmidable (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Should we add chrisitan democracy to the ideologies? Christian democracy[1] 174.135.36.220 (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think the same. The party is not so moderate to be "liberal conservative". I think it is a only conservative party, or a conservtive liberal one. Hidolo (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is some confusion here: "conservative-liberal" would be more moderate than "liberal-conservative"! This said, the party is an EPP member and representes the moderate, mainstream right France, thus the centre-right. As I wrote before, we surely need more and better sources, but the party is clearly liberal-conservative. --Checco (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is a confusion here. Being a member of the EPP does not automatically make you a moderate. For example, the Slovenian Democratic Party is quite radical, and yet it is part of this European group. Hidolo (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is some confusion here: "conservative-liberal" would be more moderate than "liberal-conservative"! This said, the party is an EPP member and representes the moderate, mainstream right France, thus the centre-right. As I wrote before, we surely need more and better sources, but the party is clearly liberal-conservative. --Checco (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, we must get the sources first and then add the information. Fourmidable (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- The entire party is broadly liberal-conservative. @User:Autospark: do we have better sources? --Checco (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fillon does absolutely not represent the entire party. Fourmidable (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the above.— Autospark (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I already explained my view. I think that "liberal conservatism" better suits this party, which represents the EPP and, thus, the moderate centre-right in France. Personally, I think that Nordsieck's website is a good source and, actually, it is frequently updated, but surely we need more sources. I would not add "Gaullism" and I would remove it from other infoboxes as it is not an ideology per se (see Gaullism). --Checco (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, Nordsieck's blog has been removed from the infobox at Conservative Party (UK). Reasons discussed included that it is a one-man project by someone seemingly without an institutional affiliation, and that the website isn't frequently updated. I don't have a bone to pick with that source though. With the ideology section of the article noting that there is internal tension within the party pulling it towards the right, I think just 'conservatism' in the infobox would be fine? Sometimes I feel that political party infoboxes become overwrought because there's an urge to end up splitting hairs and listing slight gradations of a core thing, so listing both 'conservatism' and 'liberal conservatism' (see Liberal Party of Australia as an example of a distasteful compromise) would not appeal to me. People can read the ideology section if they're interested in the nuances. Finally, even if it might not be perceived as an ideology of much substance, LR are the flagbearers of the Gaullist tradition so I think that should be returned to the infobox - which is the case at Rally for the Republic. What do you both think @Checco and Fourmidable:? · | (t - c) 19:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Surely, the article is poorly sourced, but I would not underestimate Nordsieck. --Checco (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Checco: Because Nordsieck's pov counts for something, we can place it in the development, but NOT in the introduction, nor in the infobox, nor in the article Liberal conservatism (not at all representative). Fourmidable (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no consensus on replacing "liberal conservatism" with more generic "conservatism", but we surely need better sources. --Checco (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources say "LR is [...] more specifically, liberal-conservative"? Even in France we don't have such sources. Fourmidable (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Quiñonero, Juan Pedro (31 May 2015). "Sarkozy apela a las esencias republicanas para reconquistar el poder" [Sarkozy appeals to republican essences to regain power]. ABC (in Spanish). Grupo Vocento. Archived from the original on 25 July 2015.
- That is true, however LR is a perfect example of liberal conservatism. --Checco (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Far right sections
editThe Party split, but Eric Ciotti's line is far right, as they are part of the "Union of the Far right" with the RN I think this should be put on the Infobox. The basque savior (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ciotti's wing is not far-right. It is right-wing and represents the most centrist wing in the RN-led alliance. However, I would wait until the the split will be official and definitive. Moreover, it is quite possibile that the party is disbanded altogether, in favour of a broader centre-right party, with Ciotti out. Let's wait. --Checco (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Gaullism?
editThe article itself says that "the party is largely inspired by the tradition of Gaullism.", so it should be put in the ideology box. Formyparty (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- An inspiration is not an ideology, especially as "Gaullism" is not an ideology per se, according to most sources and the Wikipedia article accordingly. --Checco (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Infobox: political position
editIn the infobox, "centre-right" was replaced by "centre-right to right-wing" without consensus. I oppose that for two reasons: 1) having also "right-wing" is redundant as "centre-right" already includes "right-wing" (we have five positions, from "far right" to "far left"; we really do not need seven or more); 2) the party is a mainstream conservative party affiliated to the EPP, thus "centre-right" is a more accurate descriptor than "right-wing", let alone the confusing "centre-right to right-wing". Several parties are complex entities with several internal factions and tendencies, but infoboxes are useful only when they are short summaries of the articles: the lesser, the better. I ask to go back to the consensual version: "centre-right". -- Checco (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Checco There are two meanings of right wing. The first is just being broadly on the right, including centre-right and far-right. The second meaning is being specifically positioned between centre-right and far-right on the political spectrum.
There are seven political positions (excluding syncretic and big tent). Far-left, left-wing, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right-wing, and far-right. And, you're saying "we have five positions, from "far right" to "far left"; we really do not need seven or more" There are parties which are situated between centre-right and far-right, and parties situated between centre-left and far-left. This is done in SO MANY articles; as you're seeking to remove right-wing and left-wing on its own, as well as remove centre-left to left-wing, left-wing to far-left, centre-right to right wing, and right wing to far-right, you have to do it to ALL of the parties which do that that. Just to show how widespread it is, I'll list all of the parties for ONLY countries starting with A:
Imagine that list but 26 times longer. This is just to demonstrate how extremely common it is, it's very VERY widespread on wikipedia.
Anyways, many sources describe the party as right-wing. Here are some: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Because of how many sources describe it as right-wing, it would be WP:UNDUE not to include it in the infobox. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- On merit (1): Infoboxes are very useful summaries, but little more than that. The article, especially the "idology" section, can contain all kinds of infos and nuances on the party, but infobox parameters — "ideology" and "position" should not be an exception — are intended to be short and clear. There is no reason to bloat them.
- On merit (2): I perfectly known that both individuals and news outlets colloquially use "right-wing" instead of "centre-right". Especially in France, droite is used for the mainstream centre-right, while centre-droit is quite less common. In Wikipedia, we should have a standard. En.Wikipedia is neither French or British or American, it is just English speaking. There should be an international standard. Clearly, LR is the main centre-right party in France and, given the peculiarity of French politics, it is to the left of most EPP, centre-right parties.
- One method: As "centre-right" was replaced by "centre-right to right-wing" without consensus, you should seek consensus first. I respect your view and welcome a discussion, but yours was a bold edit and was challenged. Recently, there have been several edits on the matter, but no new consensus yet. That is why I will restore the established version. Per Wikipedia:Consensus, "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".
- This said, let's discuss. All users are welcome! --Checco (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly support centre-right to right-wing. This is how the sourcing presents the party. Clearly shown above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support "Centre-right to right-wing, sources describe it both ways and it would be omission to leave one out. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Checco 1: "centre-right to right wing" is not bloated, it's pretty short, and is used on SO MANY articles, i gave a small sample of them!!
- 2: There is a distinction to be made between right-wing as an all-encompassing term and as a specific position between centre-right and far-right. A helpful way I use to help tell is that often they'll use both in the same article, and if they use both centre-right and right-wing in the same article to describe the same party, then it's quite clear they mean it's centre-right, i did this for my analysis of sources describing national rally (this method isn't absolute, it's largely just contextual. I see no reason to believe it's using it as an all-encompassing term. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly support centre-right to right-wing. This is how the sourcing presents the party. Clearly shown above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- If we were to add all positions and ideologies that are sourced, both parameteres would be stuffed with long lists of ideologies and positions. As we always discuss on ideologies in order to have a reasonable number of them — never all of them — in the "ideology" parameter, we should do the same with "position". --Checco (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- With the ideology section, we don't just limit it to one ideology though. It's not a good analogy to stress your point, most political parties have at least 2, usually 3 or more ideologies, 2 positions is more than reasonable, especially when the party is either a range of positions or somewhere between two positions. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ideologies can be 15 or 20 for each party according to sources, thus it is good to have two or three of them. As positions are only seven (far-left, left-wing, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right-wing and far-right, one is quite enough, especially when using composed ones ("centre-left" and "centre-right"). --Checco (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be the only one in this discussion who opposes this, I've restored "right-wing" to the infobox, but left the discussion tag in case any other contributors want to discuss. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see. However, established versions should not be ditched so quickly without a broad consensus. --Checco (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then I'd argue that Centre-right to right-wing was "established" as it hasn't been challenged (save for very recently, by an ip user, Destroyerbirb, and you, respectively) since 13 December 2023, when (as far as I can tell) it was initially added. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, Checco, but you're on your own here: Wikipedia can and does use two positions to reflect a more accurate image of a party's overall position. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Centre-right and right-wing mean pretty much the same thing in France. LR represents the 'republican right' (opposed to the 'anti-republican' far-right). French Wikipedia has right-wing only, without centre-right. Centre-right is more UDI, who left the predecessor of LR (when LR was important). In fact there was always a party similar to UDI to the left of the Gaullist party, making the "centrists" an independent part of the right-wing. 80.187.72.156 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, et je suis français moi-même, but what they mean in the French language means nothing here. We are examining the meanings of "centre-right" and "right-wing" in the English language and how they relate to the party. And no, centre droit and droite do not mean the same thing in French. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I don't see how right-wing and droite and centre-right and centre-droit are different. They are the same words translated to English. And a centre-right party is de droite (right-wing), a centre-left party de gauche (left-wing). 80.187.86.202 (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- They have different nuances in English. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- You said
Centre-right and right-wing mean pretty much the same thing in France.
Well, that's both untrue and irrelevant to our discussion, since it's in English. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- You said
- They have different nuances in English. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I don't see how right-wing and droite and centre-right and centre-droit are different. They are the same words translated to English. And a centre-right party is de droite (right-wing), a centre-left party de gauche (left-wing). 80.187.86.202 (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, et je suis français moi-même, but what they mean in the French language means nothing here. We are examining the meanings of "centre-right" and "right-wing" in the English language and how they relate to the party. And no, centre droit and droite do not mean the same thing in French. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Centre-right and right-wing mean pretty much the same thing in France. LR represents the 'republican right' (opposed to the 'anti-republican' far-right). French Wikipedia has right-wing only, without centre-right. Centre-right is more UDI, who left the predecessor of LR (when LR was important). In fact there was always a party similar to UDI to the left of the Gaullist party, making the "centrists" an independent part of the right-wing. 80.187.72.156 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, Checco, but you're on your own here: Wikipedia can and does use two positions to reflect a more accurate image of a party's overall position. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then I'd argue that Centre-right to right-wing was "established" as it hasn't been challenged (save for very recently, by an ip user, Destroyerbirb, and you, respectively) since 13 December 2023, when (as far as I can tell) it was initially added. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see. However, established versions should not be ditched so quickly without a broad consensus. --Checco (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be the only one in this discussion who opposes this, I've restored "right-wing" to the infobox, but left the discussion tag in case any other contributors want to discuss. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ideologies can be 15 or 20 for each party according to sources, thus it is good to have two or three of them. As positions are only seven (far-left, left-wing, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right-wing and far-right, one is quite enough, especially when using composed ones ("centre-left" and "centre-right"). --Checco (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- With the ideology section, we don't just limit it to one ideology though. It's not a good analogy to stress your point, most political parties have at least 2, usually 3 or more ideologies, 2 positions is more than reasonable, especially when the party is either a range of positions or somewhere between two positions. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support for centre-right only. This is, after all, the mainstream conservative party in France, connected to the EPP and so forth. Tautological descriptions like "centre-right to right[-wing]" I oppose as being poor practice.--Autospark (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with the notion that including both is tautological, as "centre-right" and "right-wing" are distinct political positions, not variations of eachother. Centre-right to right-wing is the only position parameter that makes sense, as different sources have used both labels and it would be WP:UNDUE to exclude one. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- How do reliable sources refer to the party? Without those, we will have further debates about this issue. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/15/europe/france-far-right-macron-analysis-intl/index.html states "The Republicans – long the main party on France’s political right – announced a surprise coalition with Le Pen’s far-right party." Neither centre-right, simply political right.
- https://news.sky.com/story/french-elections-who-are-the-main-candidates-and-what-are-their-policies-10795386 offers no position
- https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-left-wing-parties-pledge-team-up-snap-elections-2024-06-11/ simply calls them "conservative"
- Those are three I found quickly. Those who are invested may want to look for more and create a section in the article discussing this so the infobox does not become littered with references. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Warren L.T. Peace: Exactly, we need to refer to the sourcing. However, I'm not entirely sure why you used those specific sources when none of them define a specific position. Here are the first few English-language sources I could find that described the Republicans with some type of position. Keep in mind my search term was "les republicains" and I looked in the news category. I literally looked at every source on by one to search for a description of the position in each article.
1. BBC as right-wing
2. France 24 as right-wing (#2, #3, #4)
3. Euronews as centre-right
4. Euronews as right-wing
5. Euractiv as right-wing (#2)
6. Euractiv as centre-right
7. Politico as centre-right (#2)
8. The Guardian as right-wing
9. DW as centre-right
What this comes to show is that there is an almost EVEN distribution of sources calling the party CENTRE-RIGHT and RIGHT-WING. Having looked at the sourcing quite well, I come to the same conclusion that I initially had: the position needs to say centre-right to right-wing, and I am absolutely adamant about this. The sourcing backs it up. If you guys disagree, I really have no clue what I'm doing here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)- Pinging involved editors @Checco, A Socialist Trans Girl, GlowstoneUnknown, and Autospark:. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- On this you and I agree 100%, it would be absolutely undue to exclude right-wing from this infobox, the distribution of reliable sources' descriptors shows that the party is clearly described as both centre-right and right-wing and to exclude one would be ommitting key information. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Paul Vaurie This quite settles it. An analysis of the sources quite clearly points to it being mandated as DUE for both ideologies to be in the infobox. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging involved editors @Checco, A Socialist Trans Girl, GlowstoneUnknown, and Autospark:. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Warren L.T. Peace: Exactly, we need to refer to the sourcing. However, I'm not entirely sure why you used those specific sources when none of them define a specific position. Here are the first few English-language sources I could find that described the Republicans with some type of position. Keep in mind my search term was "les republicains" and I looked in the news category. I literally looked at every source on by one to search for a description of the position in each article.
I do not see how the issue can be considered settled. Of course journalists often describe centre-right parties as simply right-wing (I also do that in colloquial terms), but political science and comparative politics are a different thing. I fully agree with User:Autospark and also with the IP, who has good points. And... positions are not ideologies! Please. --Checco (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that treating the party as solely centre-right is absurd. There is a faction that answers to the presumptive president that is described as "extreme right". No one who is objective can believe that this is such a moderate party. Real anticapitalist (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Right-wing?
editCould this party be only right-wing because of immigration and economic policies. 2A02:587:B35:700:44D4:1DD4:1478:90DD (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)