Talk:Radical Party (France)

.
Meta (for election infoboxes): Template:Parti radical/meta/color ; Template:Parti radical/meta/shortname. Type "Parti radical" (without quotation marks) into the election box. Aridd (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
This needs a general copy edit in terms of the quality of the English-language writing. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What in the world happened here? I wrote this article, and it was all nice and clear (if not long enough). Now it's a mess. john k 01:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, from going through the first part of the article, there seem to be several problems here. Firstly, the problems with English. Secondly, the article retains a lot of connecting statements that I put into the original article, but which no longer make sense the way the article is currently organized. Thirdly, there's a lot of extraneous discussion that has very little to do with the Radicals - the discussion of the Communists and the beginnings of Vichy, for instance, has pretty much nothing to do with the Radical Party, which is the ostensible topic of this article. I've cleaned up the stuff up to 1940. john k 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd phrase
While I think this article could use a lot of work, at least one phrase in the current article is particularly odd. "…The Radical Party returned in opposition in 1959". Does this mean to say "…returned [from support of the government] to opposition in 1959" or "…returned [from having no parliamentary seats to holding some], in opposition, in 1959"? Either way, the present wording is odd. - Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PR Valoisien
Since the new parti radical valoisien has its own article, can we delete the info on the Valoisien radicals located on this page and make this page purely about the defunct united radicals? --Petrovic-Njegos 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would strongly favor this option. Tazmaniacs 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose this opinion, as the Parti Radical valosien is the continuation of the PRRRS. I oppose also the two articles solution. --Checco 18:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you are fully aware of the history of the Radical Party. As this article and the two others articles state, Parti radical valoisien and Left Radical Party, both are the continuation of the Radical Party. The Parti radical valoisien simply as gained the legal right of using the term, which is quite a different thing. As a sidenote, the French version has favored this solution for a long time now. Tazmaniacs 18:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care about French Wikipedia, but only about the fact that Parti Radical valoisien is the direct continuation of the old PRRRS (see ). The PRG is a split. --Checco 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is obviously your POV. Things are not that simple, as you can see PRG and Valoisiens sit in the same group in the Senate, but not in the Assembly of Deputies. The PRG might be a split, but then the Radicals are historically left-wing, so how do you explain that they are now right-wing? So who is the "real" inheritor of the Radicals? A complex & difficult question to which Wikipedia does not have to respond. Tazmaniacs 19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last sentence, not with the rest. PR valosien is basically a centrist party now, exactly as the PRRRS was during the IV Republic. --Checco 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the united and historical party, with links from there to the 2 split-off groups. This article's last section is basically saying the same thing as the Parti radical valoisien, a repetition is useless. Using a party website to prove your point doesn't work with me, find a non-POV source. --Petrovic-Njegos 14:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Petrovic. Two NPOV solutions present themselves: or restrict this article to the period before the split &mdash; best solution IMO, as the article is long enough &mdash; or add two sections at the end, one on the PRG, one on the Valoisiens, with discussions concerning their ties (same group in the Senate, recent proposition of the Valoisiens' youth to merge them again, and opposition on specific matters). I agree that the Valoisiens are "centrists", but all of the problem resides in the fact that the PRG is center-left and the Valoisiens center-right, and have decided on one hand to take membership in the right-wing UMP, on the other hand to join the left-wing PS. Politics of France, as I hardly believe you ignore, are polarized into Left & Right, and although there have always been "centrists" (mainly meaning: "moderates" in contrast with the far-left or far-right), these "centrists" also always have to take side when certain, key issues are brought up. Furthermore, a bit of history of France would achieve of convincing you that they are some key traits which characterize both the Left & the Right, which explains why the Radicals were considered a center-left party during the Third Republic despite their conservative stand on economic and financial matters. Tazmaniacs 19:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I read your interesting arguments and I understand that you have some point. I don't want to impose my opinion, but you didn't convinced me. Sorry. I don't know if I'm giving you another POV source, but I observe that also francepolitique.fr considers the Valoisiens as the direct continuation of the PRRRS (see, and ). --Checco 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

While I do agree that the Valoisiens are the direct continuation of the PRRRS, I think having two distinct articles is actually not a bad idea -- as long as it's made clear in the articles that the Valoisiens are considered to be the direct successors. — Nightstallion 14:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The best solution to this would be to restrict this page to the historical party, and add a section near the end with links to the pages of the two respective parties and discuss shortly the ties and differences and link people to the party's respective pages if they want to learn more about the post-1971 history of the PR and PRG. The ancestors of the PR and PRG are a matter of opinion and everybody has their own POV. I hope we can accept the compromise and clean up this article. --Petrovic-Njegos 13:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do accept the compromise and I want only to propose to move Parti radical valoisien to Radical Party (France), 'cos it is better an English title that a French one, as for all other French parties. --Checco 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Radical Party (France) redirects to this very page as of now though.--Petrovic-Njegos 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we need an English title, maybe Radical Party (Valoisien) or Valoisien Radical Party would be more appropriate. When one refers to the Radical Party, most of the time one refers to the historical Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party (which is quite long to write at each time...) Tazmaniacs 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the name Valoisien Radical Party as the best name for the modern centre-right splitoff of the historical party. And Radical Party (France) should be kept re-directing to this page (Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party)--Petrovic-Njegos 01:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I consider Radical Party (France) the best name for the article and I oppose any use of the term "valoisien" in the name of the article, 'cos it is not official. No problem for the PRRRS: we could add a disambiguation at the beginning of the page sayng something like "if you are searching for the ancient Radical Party, see...". --Checco 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Checco on this, it should be Radical Party (France). It's the official name. — Nightstallion 06:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Call the page on the modern split-off Parti radical valoisien that way, but how do we call this very page?--Petrovic-Njegos 12:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the Valoisien's official name is still "Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party". However, Valoisiens usually don't use the name "Socialist" anymore, for obvious reasons. This is the whole point of the story: after the split, they were the one who got the judicial right to use this brand &mdash; you have a similar story about party names concerning the National Front, since the original one was the National Front of the Resistance. Despite the Resistant FN having won the judicial right to use the name, National Front (France) still redirects to the far-right FN, since when one refers to the FN, ones usually refers to Le Pen's party. I think that for the sake of simplicity, Radical Party (Valoisien) is better: first, it's still gives the name "Radical Party", second, most of articles linked to Radical Party (France) do not refer to the Valoisiens, but to the Radicals. For the main reason that if the Radical Party was very important under the Third Republic, today it has lost much of its importance. As I've edited some articles concerning the Third Republic, I really find it more simple this way. If you guys think this is POV pushing, I really don't think it that way: IMO, this question of names is not that important. Regards, Tazmaniacs 12:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I continue to think that Radical Party (France) and a disambiguation at the beginning of the article is the best solution. --Checco 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So what do we decide to do? --Checco 02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter much, the difference is very slight between having Radical Party (France) redirect here and using a "other use" template in the beginning of the article pointing out to the Valoisien or having Radical Party redirect to a disambiguation page. As stated above, for the sake of simplicity (uses of "Radical Party (France)" in other articles) and Wiki consistency (National Front) I prefer the first solution, but certainly won't argue hours on this theme. I just suppose that if you do decide to redirect it to a disambiguation page, you're going to have to go to all of the articles where Radical Party (France) is used and disambiguate them so they lead directly here &mdash; and, personally, I will find another solution to write quickly "Radical Party" so it leads here when needed, if "Radical Party (France)" is not an option anymore... In other words, I don't think it's much of an ideological problem, but more a matter of simple pragmatism... Tazmaniacs 17:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) Mh, I still think that "Radical Party (France)" would be more logical... — Nightstallion 14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Title
Okay, the facts are that both the original PR and the new PRV are both officially called PRRR-S. So I think the best course is to have them either at
 * Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party (historical) and Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party (current) or at
 * Radical Party (France, historical) and Radical Party (France, current).

I don't particularly care which of the two it is, but moved them to the full title (option 1) for now. Thoughts? — Nightstallion 00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The current solution is fine, but I think that the second option is the best: shorter and clearer titles fit best in Wikipedia. --Checco 02:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the current solution, and don't particularly support Checo's preferences, because (France, historical) and (France, current) is not very nice IMO. However, concerning the redirects with Radical socialist party etc., I think they should direct here, as the use of "Radical-Socialist Party" more often than not refers to the historical party (see the "What links here" page). It's not very important, but I just think it's more simple (again, I'd like to find a short way to refer to the historical party as not to always have to write the entire title, hence these redirects). Tazmaniacs 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, fair enough; feel free to change the redirects as you see fit. — Nightstallion 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For me it is not fair enough as for Nightstallion, but anyway... --Checco 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The best solution remains for me to have a "Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party" article on the historical party and a "Radical Party (France)" article for the current one, with all the disambiguation line we will need. --Checco 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that for the simple reason that they both officially have the same name -- either both should be RRRSP or both should be RP(F), but not differently. I have no preference as to whether it should be RRRSP for both or RP(F) for both, though. — Nightstallion 11:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure: no preference? --Checco 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually... — Nightstallion 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I do think Nightstallion's solution of using the official titles is the best. Tazmaniacs 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Corruption
It's odd to read about only one big scandal in the entire party history. Very strange indeed, as everyone know that its history is riddled with one case of corruption after the other. 201.19.138.118 (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
I think that the name of this article is too long and that it should be changed.

I propose "Radical Party (France, historical)" as new name on the example of Christian Democracy (Italy, historical), but I'm open to other proposals.

Please consider that this requested move should go together with Talk:Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party (historical). --Checco (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Moreover I'm considering again about having a single article on the French Radical Party as the "current" one is the direct and legal continuation of the "former". They are simply the same party. In fact Left-wing Radicals split from the Radical Party in 1972, after that Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber had been elected party leader in 1971. Servan-Schreiber continued to be leader until 1975 and actually there was no end to the "original Radical Party". --Checco (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that -- this is not the only French historical party which you could call "Radical Party", so we should better use the full name. — Nightstallion 10:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is actually the only French historical party you could call "Radical Party", especially as the "current" one is the direct continuation of it. --Checco (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. Fair enough, okay. — Nightstallion 13:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, 'I think it is too long' is not a policy or guideline based suggestion, that I can see. Is there any policy we should be basing this on, because in general, I don't think length is a problem. Narson (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One Radical Party, two articles

 * I copy here this discussion I had with Nightstallion --Checco (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I proposed two requested moves about the Radical parties. "Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party" is too long as a title and also incorrect for the current Radical Party as that long title is not used any more. I'd like too know your opinion on these moves.

Moreover I'm considering again about having a single article on the French Radical Party as the "current" one is the direct and legal continuation of the "former". They are simply the same party. In fact Left-wing Radicals split from the Radical Party in 1972, after that Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber had been elected party leader in 1971. Servan-Schreiber continued to be leader until 1975 and actually there was no end to the "original Radical Party". --Checco (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not understand your argument, but what about the other move request? I don't think it is correct to name an article about a party with a name (Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party) which that party doesn't use any more. It would be like naming that article about the Social Democratic Party of Austria "Socialist Party of Austria", as this was the name used by the party for more than fifty years! --Checco (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * About the second issue I brought to discussion and which I believe it is fairly more important, I think that we should consider having only one article about the French Radical Party, as it is the same party. Almost every source states that. Plese consider for example http://www.france-politique.fr/parti-radical.htm. PRG was a split from the Radical Party, but the Radical Party continued to exist, exactly as the Communist Refoundation Party continued to exist after the split of the Party of Italian Communists. --Checco (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Other sources support what I believe it is corret:
 * http://www.indopedia.org/Radical_Party_(France).html
 * http://www.politique.net/parti-radical-de-gauche.htm (states that PRG was born from the split of the minority faction of the Radical Party, also fr.Wiki states this)
 * http://www.partiradical.net/pages/nous-connaitre/presentation.asp (the Radical Party presents itself as the direct continuation of the 1901 Radical Party)
 * http://www.google.de/search?hl=it&q=parti+radical+de+gauche&meta= and http://www.google.de/search?hl=it&q=parti+radical+de+gauche&meta= (also PRG presents itself as a scission from the Radical Party!)
 * --Checco (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not against merging the two parties, but we should have the article at the correct name -- and as I remember, the last time we had this discussion it turned out the legal name was still RRaRSP? — Nightstallion 11:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging the two articles is definitely more urgent.
 * About the name, I see that the party is called simply "Radical Party" both in the symbol and in the website. Even if RRaRSP wold be the legal name (something I'm not sure about), I think that we should chose the simpliest name. Think about Conservative Party (UK) whose official name is "Conservative and Unionist Party", Rainbow Group (1984–1989) whose official name was "Rainbow Group: Federation of the Green Alternative European Links, Agalev-Ecolo, the Danish People's Movement against Membership of the European Community, and the European Free Alliance, in the European Parliament", Democratic Left (Italy) whose official name is "Sinistra Democratica. Per il Socialismo Europeo", Lega Nord whose official name is "Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania" and so on. Anyway I don't think that this is exactly the case. --Checco (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. Okay, fair enough, consider me supportive of the shorter name. Now, what about the merger? The last time, some people brought some pretty good arguments why we should *not* merge -- what has changed since then? — Nightstallion 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply there was and there is no evidence or source that they are two different parties. A similar thing happened fro the Italian Democratic Socialist Party, if you remember. The fact that fr.Wiki has two separate article cannot be a reason for keeping two articles in en.Wiki. Moreover also fr.Wiki states that the "current" Radical Party is the direct and legal continuation of the "former" Radical Party... --Checco (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. Okay, fair enough, then consider me neutral to moderately supportive on that. — Nightstallion 12:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of this discussion I will merge the two article into one. As all the sources explain there's no evidence that the "historical" Radical Party ever ceased to exist. --Checco (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the name of this article is too long and that it should be changed. Moreover this centrist party does not use this long title (including even the word "socialist"!) any more. I propose Radical Party (France), but I'm open to other ideas. --Checco (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is indeed the name most commonly used by the party itself currently, fair enough. — Nightstallion 16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is definitely so. Google gives 596,000 hits for "parti radical" and only 10,400 for "parti républicain, radical et radical-socialiste". --Checco (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Google alone is not enough by itself; does PRRRS self-identify as PR in official documents, in their constitution, in press reports? — Nightstallion 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See www.partiradical.net; the long name is not even mentioned in the history section. (They claim foundation in 1901, not 1902). We are not bound to follow party constitutions, especially when this would imply our own translation of the French; see WP:COMMONNAME.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Both in the symbol and in the website the party is named simply "Radical Party". Do you both agree with the move therefore? "Radical Party (France)" seems to me a correct and unconstroversial title. --Checco (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request
Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party → Radical Party (France) — All the reasons stated above —Checco (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support for WP:COMMONNAME: it is the most common name and also the only used. --Checco (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. — Nightstallion 18:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"None" in the infobox
Regarding this edit by Bastin, I would like to say a few things. I think it is appropriate to tell readers that a party is not member of any European party or party international. That is the case of the Radical Party, which is not affiliated to any of them. One can check in the websites of all the European parties and party internationals and he/she will see that none of them include the French Radicals as member. We generally fill all the fields that are worth filling and that is the case: in fact in many other pages about parties "none" is used. Why is that controversial? --Checco (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two issues that go to the core of Wikipedia policy:
 * 'We generally fill all the fields that are worth filling' is clearly not a policy, as it is far too vague to mean anything; what's worth filling in? If a party does not have a Secretary-General, we don't write 'None' in the Secretary-General field.  We leave it blank.  Including fields that are not relevant does not give the subject a neutral treatment.
 * As you note, you have performed original research by looking up all the internationals you could think of and determining that it has no affiliation. Of course, this ignores that it could have affiliations that you've never heard of.  Without providing a source that says it does not, you are arguing from ignorance.
 * Both these reasons draw back to the main point. I would have no problem with you including the field if you could provide a reliable source that said: "The Radical Party has no international affiliations".  That would not only show that the field was 'worth filling in', but that the party really doesn't have any international affiliations.  Until you do, you have no evidence that it's true, nor any evidence that it's worth filling in.  Hence, by WP:V and WP:NPOV, it should not be included. Bastin 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are complicating something which is very simple and, although your knowledge of Wikipedia rules is brilliant and your contributions are valuable, you are doing harm to Wikipedia in this case. You know that the Radical Party is not a member of any European party or party international as I do and it is worth saying that in the infobox. I'm not arguing from ignorance, but arguing from knowledge. I'm sorry you don't. --Checco (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Radical Party (France). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110517103319/http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com:80/actualite/politique/20110514.OBS3117/le-parti-radical-vote-son-independance-vis-a-vis-de-l-ump.html to http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualite/politique/20110514.OBS3117/le-parti-radical-vote-son-independance-vis-a-vis-de-l-ump.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Radical Party (France). 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/20130612163353/http://www.91secondes.fr/alliance-republicaine-ecologique-et-sociale-ares/ to http://www.91secondes.fr/alliance-republicaine-ecologique-et-sociale-ares
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516121628/http://www.germain-isern.com/2011/05/maurice-leroy-croit-en-une-grande.html to http://www.germain-isern.com/2011/05/maurice-leroy-croit-en-une-grande.html
 * Added tag to http://www.partiradical.net/images/stories/evenement/invitationlancementdelalliance.pdf

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) 21:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Radical Party and Radical Movement
The Radical Movement lasted only four years and then it was renamed "Radical Party". Would not be better to have a joint article of the two articles named "Radical Party (France)"? The longstanding name is Radical Party and it is practically the same party. --Checco (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of historical ideologies, political positions and national affiliations from the infobox
Proposal to remove the historical ideologies, political positions and national affiliations from the infobox as it makes it far too cluttered and difficult for people to easily read and navigate. This information and the corresponding citations should definitely still be included on the page, just incorporated into the main text with the corresponding citations rather than being placed in the infobox. The infobox can then be kept to what can be cited as the party's current ideologies, current political position and current national affiliation. I'd be more confident if the historical information could be incorporated into the main body by another editor who can read French and/or has more knowledge of the party than myself though. Helper201 (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ideologies in the infobox's "ideologies" parameter should not be more than one or two. The only exception I would make is for parties like this which had a long history and ideological shifts. I thus disagree with the proposal. --Checco (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with the proposal, and I support the move to state "liberalism" and "secularism" in the infobox. We also need more sources for these ideologies. Vacant0 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Social justice
The french article contains no reference to this parasitic neologism. Why is it included here as a core tenet of the party? 82.12.128.242 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)