Talk:Radical centrism

Why is this article classified under Project Conservatism?

Radical centrism is explicitly *not* conservative. It is a call for change, specifically changes that do not conform to conservative or (U.S.) liberal party lines. I don't know who makes these classification decisions, but I think the article belongs elsewhere. I don't have a specific suggestion. 67.167.254.120 (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Too many words in intro

One of the sentences in the intro reads: Criticism of radical centrist policies and strategies has mounted as the political philosophy has developed. This is almost redundant because it says there has been criticism AND it is followed by three examples of criticism. To state the obvious: The examples are sufficient to demonstrate the existence. There is one little grain of non-redundant info though: The criticism is proportional to the maturity of the philosophy. But this is not in the article and not referenced. So we can remove this without loss. --Ettrig (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Also the second paragraph uses a silly definition of centrism which contradicts centrism. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Why I replaced primary sources with a secondary source

Dear 50.252.146.35 and Tylerafagan67, - I appreciate your enthusiasm in reporting on Senator Manchin's use of the phrase "radical middle". However, I have replaced your primary sources with a reliable secondary source, and changed the paragraph accordingly. Here's why:

Your sources are television interview transcripts. Wikipedia (WP) much prefers reliable secondary sources, such as mainstream books and articles, to primary sources, such as media transcripts and organizational documents; see especially WP:RSPRIMARY.

Here's the point: It is virtually impossible to use primary sources without interpreting them. And WP does not want its contributors doing that, because then they are conducting what WP calls original research, see WP:OR. Put plainly, WP wants its contributors to report on what reliable secondary sources are saying; it does not want its contributors to pull out favorite passages from primary sources and say, "Look! Look! Senator X is a Y!"

In the paragraph you wrote, you find it significant that Senator Manchin used the phrase "radical middle" one time each in two television interviews. But that is your interpretation of the significance of his words. I find, and others might find, his use of the phrase insignificant, for the following reasons:

1. The vast majority of both interviews shows Manchin to be a conventional centrist, not a radical centrist; and

2. Both mentions of the radical middle are accompanied by laughter! Manchin may be joking, or being puckish, or wildly exaggerating, or making the ironic point that it's "radical" to be a moderate in the Senate today.

In neither interview does Manhin demonstrate any understanding of the concept of the radical middle as it's developed over the last five decades. No radical centrist theorist I've read equates the radical middle to compromise between Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans. Some call that space the "mushy middle", as per our article. WP's articles on Bipartisanship and Centrism may be where material on Manchin, Jones, and Collins properly belongs.

The classic way to avoid interpreting primary sources on WP is to ask if a reliable secondary source (see WP:RS) has made use of that or similar material. If so, then we can simply neutrally report on what the secondary source says. After much searching, I was able to discover that a WP-notable journalist in a mainstream periodical has noted Manchin's use of the phrase, in an actual conversation with Senator Jones. So I have replaced your paragraph with one based on that secondary source, and added another secondary source for context.

Again, I appreciate your work. And I think that, if there is any real substance to Manchin's use of the phrase radical middle, then other mainstream journalists and authors will pick up on it, and it will find its way – through their writings – into this article. All best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Info. on the leadership of No Labels belongs in WP's No Labels article, which this article links to twice.

Request to Treybien to revert his changes to this article's citation style

Dear Treybien, - I have just seen your conversion of some citations in the Radical centrism article to another citation style.

I appreciate the time and energy you are putting into WP. However, at WP:CITEVAR, editors are instructed to not change an article's established citation style. This article has maintained an established citation style since 2013. (I assume you were not aware of this!) Therefore, the citations you changed should be returned to the established citation style.

I was able to revert the citation style changes you entered on 4 June. However, I lack the skill to revert the citation style changes you entered on 2 June. Would you please do so? As an experienced editor, you will understand that an article can quickly become a hodgepodge if WP's rules are not followed. Thanks so much! - Babel41 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Treybien to this discussion as a first step.--MONGO (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Babel41: Hi. I've checked out all the changes introduced (comparison page) by Treybien on June 2, 2020 and IMO they did NOT degrade quality of the citations as to be considered as merely reflecting personal preferences as he/she converted plain links and provided additional more information. It's undeniable that they introduced inconcictencies but it's hardly justifiable to revert them back.

[...] However, at WP:CITEVAR, editors are instructed to not change an article's established citation style. [...] I think it's just right moment to mention exceptions which can be found at the followig section: WP:CITEVAR#Generally_considered_helpful which clearly allow such changes if they are helpful. Don't you consider template-based citations as inferior to plain-link-in-tags or parenthesised ones? They seem to be obsolete to me. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 06:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear DAVRONOVA.A., - Greetings from thousands of miles away, and thank you for responding. However, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I did not say that Treybien had "degraded the quality of the citations." To the extent he added additional information to them, I applaud him. What I objected to was that he changed the citation style of a portion of the citations from one accepted citation style to another, without seeking a consensus. At WP:CITEVAR, WP tells its editors not to do that:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.

Moreover, despite what you claim, the "Generally considered helpful" portion of WP:CITEVAR nowhere says or implies or even hints that an editor can change the established citation style of a mature article without first seeking consensus on its Talk page.

That is my basic point. But let me respond to some of your other claims.

1. We actually have no idea why Treybien changed the established citation style of some citations here. He/she failed to tell us why, or even inform of us what he/she was doing, on the View history / Revision history page.

2. You (not Treybien) claim that the template-based citation style is more helpful than, and superior to, the free-form style. You even feel free-form is "obsolete." I disagree. I consider template-based to be cumbersome, old-fogeyish, and intimidating. But so what? These are just our preferences, exactly what CITEVAR wants us to avoid debating. The truth is that Wikipedia considers both citation styles equally valid. And that the hundreds of editors that have worked on this article over the last eight years have stuck to the free-form citation style. It is therefore this article's established citation style, and cannot be changed without PRIOR consensus on the Talk page.

3. I hardly find it "helpful" to change some citation styles here but not others. It will only confound future contributors to this article, and keep it from achieving Good Article status.

4. It is not true that Treybien's citation-style changes did not impact the existing content of some citations. In the very first and second citations, you will see that he/she eliminated phrases succinctly describing the content of those important articles. Hours worth of research – zap.

All I am asking is that Treybien be made to follow the rules here. His/her citation-style changes should be reverted, and he/she should then seek consensus for them on this Talk page. I try to follow WP's rules, and have been reverted when I failed to do so. Others should be treated the same. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The editor that made the changes has decided to not participate in this discussion yet so feel free to revert back to the previous changes.--MONGO (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Babel41: [...] and cannot be changed without PRIOR consensus on the Talk page. [...] Let's agree on this. Doesn't seem that consensus is reached. I have to agree with MONGO for now. Untill contributions are challenged by Treybien here I think you can revert them back safely. But please, keep publisher's and author's names (which were added by Treybien) in place as to avoid WP:BABY.

[...] you will see that he/she eliminated phrases succinctly describing the content [...] Can you please specify which ones exactly these changes were by using {{diff2}} template? Please, use also {{tq|q=1| qoute goes here }} template to point out which my point you argue against.AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear MONGO and DAVRONOV, - Thank you both for helping this discussion reach a respectful and decisive conclusion. I will revert back to the established citation style (while keeping any missing publishers' or authors' names that Treybien may have added). However, because it will be extremely time consuming and exacting - I don't have rollback rights here - I will not be able to get to it until my real-world duties slack off a bit. I am sure I will get to it sometime this month.

DAVRONOV, you can best see the excised phrases from citations #1 and 2 if you simply go to the View History page, click on any "prev" link prior to June 2020, and scroll down to the References (i.e., list of citations). Again, thanks and best to you both, - Babel41 (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This lead is mostly meaningless.

“The centrism refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion.” this reads like an advert. nearly every political movement claims or condemn all these values when convenient. for example for a conservative Bush might have been realistic about Arab politics, for a liberal Obama was pragmatic about US chances in Iraq. “This approach typically leads to endorsing evidence, rather than ideology, as the guiding principle. Radical centrists borrow ideas from the political left and the political right, often melding them.[5]” nothing in the source supports the notion that radical centrists don't endorse ideology (whatever that one even means) or endorse The Evidence. Regardless, even if sourced, assertions about rightness of ideologies aren't fit for Wikipedia lead.

Zuzu8691 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)