Talk:Classical radicalism

Confusing / Rename
This page is very confusing. For starters why is it called "Historical radicalism"? Ewlyahoocom 19:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Once upon a time, it was called "Radicalism (historical)", then some souls decided "Radicalism" alone was quite enough, so that was fine. Then someone else has bodged a move back, losing the previous history and the previous talk pages.
 * It's confusing because it describes the shifting meanings of a term in active political use for a couple of centuries. ...dave souza, talk 09:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Radicalism" is not a historical term; it continues to be widely used in its original sense in my jurisdictions. I suggest renaming the article "Radicalism" and making a clear introductory fork to "Radicalism (politics)". This latter article is currently called "Political radicalism" (see the talk page there). Cbd4738 (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Radicalism, Republicanism and Liberalism
This page has been written, from a British POV, on the assumption that "Radicalism=Liberalism". It states, however, that the British Labour party was formed by Radical trade-unionists. Is the Labour party a liberal party? Concerning other countries, it states that "radicals are liberals advocating the republic" (i.e. "universal" manhood suffrage). Thus, Radicals would be these liberals in favor of the Republic, that is of universal suffrage (at least for men). Concerning France, this is false. Radicals were not liberals, but Republicans, and some "red republicans" became socialists. Hence Radicals in France were far from being all "liberals", which explains why the party was named Radical-Socialist Party. The same question than for Labour posits itself: are Radical-Socialists "liberals"? So being a socialist is the same as being a liberal? Actually, if you read the history of the movement as has been written here, Radicals were in fact first Republicans, then maybe liberals, and not the reverse. It is only a modern POV reading of history which deletes Republicanism and makes it a version of liberalism. This is a respectable POV, but we should be aware of this being a POV. If I withhold any ideological judgment and concentrates myself on the historical facts hereby exposed, I see that Radicals, whether in Britain or in France, were 1/ in favor of the Republic or/and universal manhood suffrage 2/ were some sort of what we would today call a "social movement", which preceded or overlapped the emergence of the Socialism movement. Thus, it refers to the Chartists, the Luddites, and Georges Clemenceau's break with "Republican opportunist" (moderate) Léon Gambetta (Clemenceau being more to the left than Gambetta). Let's quote the "Chartist" subsection to make my point: "From 1836 working class Radicals unified around the Chartist cause of electoral reform expressed in the People's Charter drawn up by six members of Parliament and six from the London Working Men's Association (associated with Owenite Utopian socialism), which called for six points: Universal suffrage, equal-sized electoral districts, secret ballot, an end to property qualification for Parliament, pay for Members of ParlÈiament and Annual Parliaments. Chartists also expressed economic grievances, but their mass demonstrations and petitions to parliament were unsuccessful. Despite initial disagreements, after their failure their cause was taken up by the middle class Anti-Corn Law League founded by Richard Cobden and John Bright in 1839 to oppose duties on imported grain which raised the price of food and so helped landowners at the expense of ordinary people." So, despite this being written (which seems, in my naive view, to point out at the links between Radicals and the social movement, not to say "socialism" and "utopian socialism"), radicalism is still identified with liberalism. This section, however, makes it clear that Chartists were Republicans in favor of social reforms, i.e. close to socialism and which could easily be compared to today's social-democrats. They allied themselves with the liberal Anti-Corn Law League: this alliance presuppose that the differences between themselves and liberalism. Despite this history (this is only one quote & example), Radicalism is conceived here as being a subfamily of liberalism and of having nothing to do with socialism, while Republicanism itself is dismissed as a non-existent political tradition, or at least as a subsection of liberalism. Thus, the Republic will be liberal or not be. I doubt Republicans who joined the 1848 Revolutions were of this opinion. The word and reality of Socialism is hardly ever called in here, despite its obvious presence. Probably because authors of this article tended to assimilate Socialism with communism, which is, of course, a misunderstanding (in this sense, communism may be said a subfamily of socialism, but so does anarchism, and social-democracy). Tazmaniacs 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS:this article doesn't mention the division line between democracy and liberalism in the 19th century, which was one of the major conflict-line, at least in France. Democrats were in favor of universal suffrage while liberals preferred cens-suffrage. We tend to forget today that 19th century liberals were not democrats, because they have rallied themselves today to universal suffrage in what we call liberal democracies, in which we live (for most Wikipedians). Tazmaniacs 14:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article does not equate radicalism with liberalism. It says that radicalism eventually became absorbed in liberalism, which is true. The Radicals in France were, by the early 20th century, a mainstream liberal party, "radical" only in their anti-clericalism, and even that was basically a closed issue by 1914. The English radicals became largely absorbed into the Liberal Party. And the economic ideas of most radicals were definitely much closer to liberalism than they were to socialism. radicals differed from socialists on economic policy (radicals mostly advocated liberal economic policies, while socialists, obviously, advocated socialist ones), while they tended to differ from liberals on constitutional issues (radicals were avowed republicans, liberals were either constitutional monarchists or opportunists, willing to tolerate either a monarchy or a republic). Beyond this, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Chartists were on the border between radicalism and socialism, I think. More mainstream radicals like John Bright and Richard Cobden most definitely held liberal economic views. But I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Could you express your point more concisely? john k 14:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, I will add, that the issue of universal suffrage is important here, and should be mentioned. A big problem with the article is its focus on Britain, I think. john k 14:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments. In brief, this article does equate radicalism with liberalism, first of all by the use of the template "liberalism" in it, and, more important, in the text itself. Obviously radicals in the 20th century advocated liberal economic policies, but does that make of Radicalism a liberal movement? You point out that radicals differ from liberals on constitutional issues, being republicans rather than constitutional monarchists. Isn't this distinction between Republic and Monarchy something which clearly distinguish radicalism from liberalism? This Republican side of radicalism explains how some radical elements (the Chartists, but also Pierre Mendès-France) were attracted to socialism, which definitely put them apart from liberalism. This article is written as if the main, central and unique conflictual line was between liberalism & socialism, and thus engrains radicalism in the liberal side. But there were other conflictual lines, such as Republic and Monarchy (the former, in France at least, being supported by radicals and the latter by liberals). Is that more clear? :) Tazmaniacs 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A bit. I would just say that while there was certainly a distinction between liberalism and radicalism for much of the 19th century, but that this gradually becomes a lot less clear.  By the early 20th century, French radicalism, notably, is pretty clearly at about the same place on the political spectrum as British or German liberalism.  This is due to a number of factors, but primarily to the fact that France was a republic after 1870, and that most liberals came to accept the republic as "opportunistic republicans."  This meant that the radicals' support of the republic no longer made them particularly, well, radical.  Similarly, France had universal suffrage from 1848 (with a brief break during the 2nd Republic, iirc), so support for universal suffrage also failed to distinguish them from liberals, who also did not oppose universal suffrage.  As far as I can tell, the major differences between radicals and opportunists by the time of the Dreyfus Affair are a) anti-clericalism, and b) self-perception - the Radicals continue to see themselves as being on the left, while many Opportunists are coming to see themselves as being on the center-right (although certainly not all did - there were a lot of prominent Opportunist Dreyfusards, for instance).  I think one of the key things about radicalism is that it basically converged into liberalism over the course of the late 19th century, and that this needs to be made clear.  In general, an expansion of the sections on continental radicalism, and particularly on France, would help this a lot. john k 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the "Liberalism template", as it equates a bit too easily radicalism with liberalism, overviewing the 19th century conflict between (Radical) Republicans and (Liberal) proponents of constitutional monarchy, as well as the fact that liberals were in favor of census suffrage whilst Radicals favored universal suffrage. That radicalism was later absorbed by liberalism doesn't entitle this template which ignores important distinctions, and forget that not a few Radicals were lot closer to the Republican tradition than to liberalism, and some, as the Chartists, really close to Socialism, while some modern parties, such as the Left Radical Party, despite having embraced social-liberalism, has still more to do with the left-wing (in France) than with the right-wing (and French liberals are usually considered as locating themselves at the right-wing, on the contrary of US liberals which has a different meaning). Tazmaniacs 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the anglophone world in general, "Liberals" tend to be on the left (except in Australia, for some reason). I don't see the association of the Left Radicals with the Socialists as being dispositive of whether they're liberals or not. john k 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: a specific Radicalism template would be lot more appropriate than this annexion of a political tradition by another one. Tazmaniacs 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should start off by making this article better. john k 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see the problems with the terms in France, but it doesn't justify removing the template liberalism, since even according to Tazmaniacs radicalism was mostly absorbed by. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 14:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Electionworld you do not seem to have taken my point. That radicalism was mostly absorbed by liberalism doesn't justify such template, which precisely enforces this absorption. The problem is not only about France, but about all others countries. See Chartism for example. Again, Radicalism may very well be said to belong to the Republicanism tradition & not to the liberalism tradition. So why not put a "Republicanism" template, rather than a liberal one? There is no reason to privilege the liberal reading of history over the republican reading. In other terms: this template is a sign of POV, and should therefore be removed. Tazmaniacs 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The template is problematic, not least because it lists Radicalism as a "school" of Liberalism: the main articles on Liberalism don't seem to have much explanation about this "school". As the article shows, it was a complex movement or series of movements largely concerned with egalitarian widening of the franchise, which can also be considered as an antecedent of Socialism as well as having strong ties to Republicanism, and the template definitely gives a misleading impression. The continental European adoption of the term after the Napoleonic Wars and usage after the label fell out of use in the UK is interesting, and it will be welcome if this aspect can be developed further. ..dave souza, talk 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin
I like the origin part. It appears as a misunderstanding considering the American colonies representational efforts. The due process to continue with governmental abilities were seemingly transformed as a departing agreement of which, perhaps started in England. Newspapers and Pamphlets brought an encouragement to the colonists basing the representation of Parliaments acquisition amongst different party relations. The colonies in effort of a government, perhaps now loosing the choice to conduct an affiliating system. If history has a displayed organizational governing in the american colonies it would in relation to the King of England and other authoritative countries be in recognition to have the power to form a governing system. As we know it factions were important in the coalition of governing, governments and the association of an authoritative relationship. When recognized this is a possibility in due process. The DeLancey Faction was part of this method to a standard obligational awareness, perhaps the beginning of a forming government. We will see the progress of it through the authoritative awareness of the King of England and the procedures of a justice. Such a justice in example is the self taxation and the authority to print the currency as to the part of commerce in recommendation towards the continued trade. A freedom in due course. The study continues.David George DeLancey (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Liberal Left/ Illiberal left
I noticed that this article "CancelColbert and the Return of the Anti-Liberal Left" (Michelle Goldberg on The Nation) argues an arguably misguided offshoot of radical left-wing politics it slipping towards far right goals. I noticed there isn't much (if any) mentioning of this on wiki and this article. I wondered what editors/watchers thought about it's place on the article? Jonjonjohny (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Radicalism (historical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041210005950/http://oll.libertyfund.org/Essays/Bibliographical/Kramnick0285/Radicalism.html to http://oll.libertyfund.org/Essays/Bibliographical/Kramnick0285/Radicalism.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201171404/http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/cobbetto.htm to http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/cobbetto.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Broken Links
The links "The Transatlantic 1790s: Project: Loyalists – Radical Activities" and "USA: Readers Companion to American History – Radicalism" appear to be broken. I considered removing them, but perhaps the original contributor has working links he can use to restore them?

LucasG2001 (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

March 2022 IP comments
THIS IS A FICTITIOUS ACCOUNT OF - RADICALISM - WRITTEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PROPAGANDA OF POST 1848 LIBERALISM - THIS POLITICS IS GENERALLY ARGUED TO HAVE BEGUN IN AN ARGUMENT WHICH REJECTED BOTH REFORMATION AND COUNTER-REFORMATION - RADICALS WERE RELIGIOS NOT POLITICOS IN THE 16C - RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION LED TO POLITICAL ARGUMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE AND SO CHRISTIAN CLERICAL RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES ABUSING POWER WERE COMPARED UNFAVOURABLY TO JEWISH AND MUSLIM CLERICAL PRACTICES - RADICALISM WAS THE POLITICS IN THE 1848 REVOLUTIONS WHEN THE LIBERAL INDUSTRIAL ARISTOCRACY USED IT TO COERCE CONCESSIONS FROM CONSERVATIVE AGRICULTURAL ARISTOCRACY - AFTER WHICH THEY TURNED ON RADICALS AND CRUSHED THEM - THEN PRETENDED LIBERAL POLITICS TO BE AKIN TO RADICAL POLITICS TO OBTAIN THOSE VOTES

SPINOZA - IS OFTEN ARGUED TO BE THE FATHER OF RADICALISM BUT HE MERELY FORMULATED IT SUCCINCTLY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.93.240 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"Classical radicalism" or "Radicalism (historical)"?
What about moving the article to "Classical radicalism"? It would be a more appropriate description of the subject and we would avoid brackets. -- Checco (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * After realizing that the article had been moved yesterday from "Classical radicalism" to "Radicalism (historical)" without debate (being bold is perfectly appropriate until when the bold edit is challenged and reversed), I moved the article back to "Classical radicalism". "Radicalism (historical)" is an unnecessarily complex name. As User:PhotographyEdits observed in February 2022, "Classical radicalism" is a natural disambiguation. This said, I am open to debate. --Checco (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposition. Classical radicalism is not a commonly used term. In Europe, they are still called simply Radicalism. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Liberalism sidebar also distinguishes between "Classical" and "Radical". Rather, the title of the article should be "Radical liberalism" or "Radicalism (ideology)", NOT "Classical radicalism". (Personally, I think the title should be changed to "Radicalism (ideology)". This is an ideology that still exists in Europe and Latin America and elsewhere.) Mureungdowon (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Classical radicalism is a near-fetched term, but unlike Classical liberalism, it is not used very well. In particular, there are no examples of the use of the term Classical radicalism in the media, unlike Radical liberalism. No media has ever used the term "classical radicalism". The term is used only in a few books. Mureungdowon (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Modifying the title "classical radicalism", which is rarely used popularly or academically, will cause a lot of problems in many other articles in the English Wikipedia. Still, the link to most articles in the English Wikipedia is "Radicalism (historical)", not "Classical radicalism". Mureungdowon (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mureungdowon @Checco I have zero expertise on the subject, I only know something about the naming policy of Wikipedia. I'll let others decide on this issue. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely, "Radicalism (historical)" is an awkward name for an article, especially as there is no current radicalism or, to match the awkward name, "Radicalism (current)". This said, the article was moved by User:Mureungdowon without debate or consensus. Bold edits are fine, but, as Consensus reads, "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". The status quo ante is that the article was named "Classical radicalism". This discussion is much welcome, but, in the meantime, the status quo ante should be maintained. --Checco (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thus, I moved the article back to its established name (and I changed this thread's name). If anyone wants to change the article's name either to "Radicalism (historical)" or any other name, the more appropriate way should be to seek consensus in talk page first or start a Requested move (see Requested moves). --Checco (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Then I suggest changing the title of the article: "Radicalism (ideology)". Radicalism is still a living ideology, and the term classical radicalism is not used at all in the media, and is not generally used in academia. I think the term "Classical radicalism" is more awkward than "Radicalism (historical)". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure as, in fact, the "radicalism" we are talking about is not a current ideology, but refers to a movement that was active mainly between the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century. Its modern successors are social liberalism and, on some accounts, social democracy. Moreover, "classical radicalism" matches classical liberalism. Let's see how other users view the matter. If no-one comes in, you could propose a Requested move or a Request for comment (see Requests for comment). --Checco (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I am not altogether opposed to "Radicalism (ideology)", but I surely prefer a name without brackets, the argument that "classical radicalism" matches "classical liberalism" strongly resonates in my mind and, most importantly, I would like to read comments from other users too. --Checco (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that "classical radicalism" is rarely used academically, unlike "classical liberalism". I think social liberalism and radicalism are different. (I therefore passively support the title of the Classical liberalism article, but strongly oppose the title of the Classical radicalism article.) This is because Christian democracy and social liberalism are sometimes advocated at the same time. But radicalism is very critical of Christianity and very secular. Traditional radicalism has emerged as social-liberalism, social-democracy, socially progressivism, libertarianism, and even socialism or conservative-liberalism in modern politics. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think radicalism is a 'current' ideology. This is because there are still political parties that advocate the ideology. In addition, a pro-independence leftist party in Taiwan has put this forward as an ideology. So I think, frankly, that the title of the article should be just Radicalism or Radicalism (ideology). Mureungdowon (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I change the title of this article to "Radicalism (ideology)" now? "Classic radicalism" is a rarely used term, so for now there seems to be no alternative but this. Mureungdowon (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Please use the requested move discussion below to change the long term stable name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Radicalism basically went extinct with only the Italian, Danish & French parties outright claiming the legacy while the Norwegian, Swiss or Dutch parties only hold the names from the time and are either not radical anymore (FDP) or rather claim the legacy of the predecessors but not radicalism itself
 * i prefer "Classic radicalism" this is the most specific title, "Radicalism" or "Radicalism (ideology)" would be too easy to confuse with extremism Braganza (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Classical radicalism → ? – Radicalism (historical), Radicalism (ideology) or Radicalism – To use a more correct process for a rename, let's open this. . Please give your input at a comment. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't favour any particular name. If this ends in a no consensus, then it should stay at its current name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Radicalism or Radicalism (ideology) - The former is more preferred, but if the former is difficult, the latter is fine. Mureungdowon (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mureungdowon Please try to base your argument on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and make a single choice, then the closing person knows what title has the broadest support among editors. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mureungdowon Also, I think you mean Radicalism (historical) here and not Radicalism. If that's the case, please edit your comment. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I no longer support "Radicalism (historical)". I support "Radicalism". Mureungdowon (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed my position a little. I am also in support of "Radicalism (historical)". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. My preference goes to the current name, that is "Classical radicalism", or "Radicalism". I slightly oppose "Radicalism (ideology)" (but I may accept it as compromise), while I strongly oppose the much complicate and possibly inaccurate "Radicalism (historical)". --Checco (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose the drift of the article title as "Classical radicalism". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I prefer the current article title “Classical radicalism". "Radicalism" without brackets would also be acceptable as a compromise solution, if we cannot each another agreement.-- Autospark (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I want the title of the article to be "Radicalism". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose renaming to radicalism. This is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. Otherwise I still don't have a preference. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While my first preference is for "Classical radicalism", I also support "Radicalism" precisely per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Checco (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @PhotographyEdits What do you think of "Radicalism (ideology)"? Mureungdowon (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mureungdowon That is fine for me. @Checco I think that the current disambiguation page is primary. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (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.
 * Support. Just "radicalism", please. Dan100 (Talk) 23:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There's substantial opposition to "hijacking" the term Radicalism (currently redirecting to the dab page), and, noting a dislike of "classical radicalism" title, no consensus what the best one would be. No such user (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Classical radicalism → Radicalism – Radicalism(=Support) or status quo(=Opposition). I want to make it more clear about the parts that are not agreed on in the above Talk. Please give your input at a comment.. Mureungdowon (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. The term "Classical radicalism" is rarely used. It is rarely used in academia, and is not used at ALL in the media.# Some of Europe's left-wing liberalism is still called "Radicalism". Mureungdowon (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed malformed move request by resubstituting {{subst:requested move}}. Have no opinion on the proposal. Radicalism currently redirects to the Radical disambiguation page (dab). If moved as proposed, the article needs a hatnote linking to that dab (for details, please see also WP:INTDAB). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand this RM. Could the proposer be clearer as to what he is seeking here? Walrasiad (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the title of this article is very awkward at the moment. So I want to change the title of this article right now. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A proposal was closed just a week ago. I am not understanding what this is.  What is being proposed? Walrasiad (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just believe that the title of the article must be changed to "Radicalism". Mureungdowon (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2023 (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.
 * Oppose. "Radicalism" has very different connotations today (should redirect to Radical politics). This is a very limited historical use of a term which would be confused by modern people.  Personally, I would prefer "Radicalism (historical)", but definitely not "Radicalism" alone.   Walrasiad (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If the title cannot be changed to "Radicalism", I also support "Radicalism (historical)". Mureungdowon (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. As mentioned above, the current title is very awkward. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You opened this rename request, so your support is already implied and it's not needed to vote. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current article title (Classical radicalism) is the best solution.-- Autospark (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do not oppose "Radicalism", but I prefer the current name ("Classical radicalism"). --Checco (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per the arguments of Walrasiad. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is not a commonly used name. This is the clear primary topic for Radicalism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

French origins of name
"Radicalism (from French radical)" - is there a source for this? Radical was already a word in English, no? 163.1.120.19 (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)