Jump to content

Talk:The Republicans (France)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Far right sections

[edit]

The 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gaullism?

[edit]

The 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Infobox: political position

[edit]

In 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)[reply]

@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:

List of pages which use right-wing and left-wing as specific descriptors between centre and far right and left
Party name Political position
Islamic Dawah Organisation of Afghanistan Right
National Islamic Front of Afghanistan Right
Non-aligned Coalition Right
Ålandic Democracy Right
Republican Party of Albania Right
Legality Movement Party Right
Macedonian Alliance for European Integration Centre-right to right
Algerian National Front Right
Islamic Renaissance Movement Centre-right to right
Justice and Development Front Right
Movement for National Reform Right
Third Way (Andorra) Centre-right to rigt
Conservative People's Party (Argentina) Right to far-right
Democratic Party (Argentina) Right to far-right
Federal Peronism Centre-right to right
Light Blue and White Union Centre-right to right
UNIR Constitutional Nationalist Party Right to far-right
Union of the Democratic Centre (Argentina) Centre-right to right
Christian-Democratic Rebirth Party centre-right to right
Conservative Party (Armenia) right
Constitutional Rights Union right
I Have Honor Alliance centre-right to right
Sasna Tsrer Pan-Armenian Party right to far-right
Democratic Party of Artsakh centre-right to right
Australia First Party right to far right
Australian Christians (political party) right
Australian Federation Party right
Australian Protectionist Party right to far right
Christian Democratic Party (Australia) right-wing
Civil Liberties & Motorists Party right
Coalition (Australia) centre-right to right-wing
Liberal National Party of Queensland centre-right to right
National Party of Australia centre-right to right
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party centre-right to right
The Great Australian Party right to far right
Libertarian Party (Australia) centre-right to right
Pauline Hanson's One Nation right to far-right
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party right
United Australia Party (2013) right to far right
Alliance for the Future of Austria right to far right
Austrian People's Party centre-right to right
Christian Party of Austria centre-right to right
Free Party Salzburg right
The Reform Conservatives right
Civic Solidarity Party right
New Azerbaijan Party centre-right to right

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see. However, established versions should not be ditched so quickly without a broad consensus. --Checco (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
They have different nuances in English. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Pinging involved editors @Checco, A Socialist Trans Girl, GlowstoneUnknown, and Autospark:. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Right-wing?

[edit]

Could 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)[reply]

Rethinking the ideology parameters

[edit]

I think we should shake up the ideology parameter in the infobox a little bit. I don't believe there is actual consensus to only have "liberal conservatism". I would propose mirroring the French article to instead have the ideologies of Conservatism and Gaullism. Opposition to immigration is on there too, but I think that this one is very specific, and can be generally grouped under conservatism.
My reasons for supporting this change are that this is how the party is generally described in France, and that I believe this to be supported by sources. I'll do the digging later. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think that we should ever "mirror" any foreign language wiki purely for the sake if it. This is en.wiki, and its content is original. So I do not support your proposal at all, and prefer to stick to the current consensus.-- Autospark (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with User:Autospark, I confirm my previous point of view: liberal conservatism is the perfect synthesis of the party's ideology. --Checco (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Autospark: There is no consensus, in my view. Someone just put that and that was that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what the French article says is very pertinent. It doesn't say "conservatisme libéral", but "conservatisme". This is not a mistake, it has about 8 sources on the end of that. The French article is also probably more correct than we are: French-language editors and readers are more aware about and reading sources on this party than us here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by that, as in different national contexts words have different meanings: just think of "liberal" having a right-wing connotation in France and left-wing one in the United States, "socialist" having a moderate, centrist connotation in Italy when it has more radical usage almost everywhere else, "right-wing" and "left-wing" having a mainstream connotation in France and a more radical one in Italy and other countries (where "centre-right" and "centre-left" are more commonly used) and so on. As Michael Novak once said political terms are like wines: they should always acccompanied by year and country of origin. "Conservatism" and, even more so, "progressivism", as well as "right-wing" and "left-wing", are broad-church terms, but, for the sake of precision, we have also "Christian democracy", "liberal conservatism", "conservative liberalism", etc. on one side and "social democracy", "green politics", "social liberalism", etc. on the other side. Moreover, we should international or, at least, European standards for ideologies in political party infoboxes. Generally speaking, The Republicans are surely a conservative party, but it is more specifically liberal-conservative. Especially after the split of Ciotti's UDR, The Republicans are a quintessentially liberal-conservative party and, among EPP member parties, is quite a liberal one, especially on social issues. --Checco (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Republicans_(France)&oldid=1261099202"