Talk:The Republicans (France)

legal successor of the UMP?

What do you mean by legal in expression legal successor?

I do not understand it, because on one hand this party is not created by law, and on the other land I have no knowledge of juridic link between UMP and LES-REP!

I believe successor (without legal) is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.30 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

illegal for him to name the party "Republicans"

«Critics of Sarkozy claimed it was illegal for him to name the party "Republicans" because every French person is a republican in that they support the values and ideals of the French Republic that emanated from the French Revolution, and as such the term is above party politics.»

The sentence look to me to much strong:

• The illegal terms makes believe critics are just limited to a legal/judicial matter, while in fact they are not such limited.
• Critics of Sarkozy is a fuzzy expression, as the critic is not against Sarkozy, but against the labeling of a party
• Critics of Sarkozy is a fuzzy expression, because it does not give a good clue of who criticize it, such as left party, centre right party and far right party, for instance. But it was also criticized within the party.
• every French person is a republican sounds false: some french person are free to not be republican but be monarchist (see Monarchism in France). The concept is less simple. For instance (1) other politicians dislike the fact that Les Républicains claims property on that word, while most of other parties claims in one way or another being republican. They might be worry about a possible future change of the meaning of that word. For instance (2) Republican marches is much more wider that this single political party.

I suggest: «Critics of this one word "Republicans" label are based on different political and philosophical views. Every French person can consider himself as a republican in that they support the values and ideals of the French Republic (concept which can be linked without being limited to the French Revolution, the Republican marches, political groups), and as such the word is above party politics, and not the property of a single party» This led to a trail case.

Another thing which can be done is

1. to give one sentence/paragraph with the reason for why this word appears in the name of the new party
   • Here is some clue: Union for the New Republic (UNR); Union of Democrats for the Republic (UDR); Rally for the Republic (RPR)
2. to give one sentence/paragraph with the reason for why this single word party name is criticized
   • See top discussion
3. To conclude with a third sentence/paragraph which clarifies the trial decision(s)

77.199.97.30 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

court ruling in favor of Sarkozy

«The general committee approved the change on 6 May and, after a court ruling in favor of Sarkozy»

• I suggest that it is a référé ruling (or summary ruling?).
• I suggest that it is not in favor of Sarkozy but in favor of UMP party or LesRép party (this might need to be checked)
• I suggest that this is not a definitive ruling, but a first ruling, the official one being planned end of june.

77.199.97.30 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Why?

This article does not answer to the fundamental question: why this party was recreated/renamed? It should do so, because there is at least one reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.30 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Here after is some part of the answer to this interesting question:

• http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2015/05/30/les-republicains-un-choix-garde-secret-pendant-six-mois_4643967_823448.html

And here another one: « Je vais changer le nom du parti, mettre en place une nouvelle organisation, installer une relève et faire revenir adhérents et donateurs pour redresser les comptes », promet-il. Et d'assurer, bravache : « Si je réussis cette nouvelle formation, (Alain Juppé et François Fillon) ne pourront plus me rattraper. » http://ump.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/09/21/sarkozy-juppe-fillon-la-bataille-de-2017-est-lancee-a-lump/

77.199.97.30 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Move needed? Les Républicains or The Republicans?

It seems strange this article is referring to the party as The Republicans when the official name is Les Républicains and every other Wikipedia article in any language uses that, except the English one. Shouldn't it be moved/renamed to Les Républicains? Phatwa (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Move not needed. As you can see, most en.Wiki articles about parties, including French ones, have English names. --Checco (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

They do, alas. I find such excessive linguistic anglocentrism to be one of Wikipedia's weaknesses. -- Picapica (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not "anglocentrism", it's simply English language and this is the English language Wikipedia, indeed. I respect your opinion, but I do think that this is en.Wikipedia's strongest point in comparison to other Wikipedias, which are too often nation-centred. --Checco (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

English Wikipedia shall be good and not nation-centered because it excessively translates proper names that need no translation – and thereby also creates unnecessary and avoidable bracket titles? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

New article?

Is there really the need for a new article? The lead itself says that the UMP was simply renamed. So, writing a new independent article without better explanation seems quite absurd for the reader. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, statements like "the party was formed" are rather a lie, as nothing was formed but only renamed after a proposal of Sarkozy. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I do believe that, when big parties are re-founded or re-named, they need new articles like this one. --Checco (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely the same party as before with the same members. There is no difference. Institutional Revolutionary Party does not need three different articles as well. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Sam Winchester. In fact the intro to the article is a contradiction: "The party was formed on 30 May 2015 by renaming the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP)". A renaming is by definition not a new party. If it is a new party, then is not a renaming. It cannot be both A and non-A at the same time. --Oddeivind (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, it was not just a renaming, but a re-organisation, as the Rally for the Republic was the re-organisation of the Union of Democrats for the Republic. Fore clarity's and readers' sake, it's better to keep the articles on UMP and LR separate. --Checco (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Either it is a new party, in which case the article should not state that the old party was renamed or it is the same party with a new name, in which case there should not be a new article. Oddeivind (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

In my view, the remaning process always or in most cases involves the formation of a new party. --Checco (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There are many examples that the opposite has been done. For instance National Rally (France), Left Party (Sweden) and Centre Party (Norway). Oddeivind (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I oppose those examples, especially what happened to National Front/Rally. --Checco (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Plan to edit the History section of the wikipedia page

I would like to edit the History headline of this Wikipedia page, as the section is rather empty especially regarding the subcategory "since 2016"

I would like to enhance the content of the subheadings "UMP name change" by:

- including the reasons for this change of name according to Sarkozy but also according to the critiques of the movement. These critiques claim that Sarkozy wanted to change the name due to several judicial affairs regarding the party.
 - including more precisely what were the complaints regarding the name change and what were the judicial procedures that have been organized and their results

I would also like to enhance the content of the subheadings "Since 2016" by:

- including more details about the accusations regarding Francois Fillon during the campaign for the presidential elections of 2017
- including also what were his responses to the accusations (I am aware that a page called Penelope gate already exists so I will not go much into depth)
- Including what were the impacts of this judicial affair and of his defeat in the elections on the political party
- Including the main politicians that changed political party, or were offered a place in the government
- Including the results of the legislative elections and their impact on the political party
- including the results to the European elections and their impact on the political party

I will mainly use french newspaper articles as sources for this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slanog (talk • contribs) 17:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Especially the first part would be quite fantastic. Go ahead! --Checco (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Right-wing factions

There are sources that say that this party has some right-wing factions:

https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-edito-politique/l-edito-politique-15-avril-2015

https://www.europe1.fr/politique/francois-fillon-le-plus-a-droite-des-republicains-2835481

https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/jeanfrancois-kahn/malgre-le-miracle-macron-pourquoi-la-droite-wauquiez-pourrait-prendre-lavantage-en-2018_a_23322314/

https://www.liberation.fr/les-idees/2017/12/08/la-droite-et-le-fn-complementaires-ou-adversaires_1615368/

https://www.businessinsider.com/r-the-hollande-sarkozy-re-match-france-doesnt-want-2015-6?r=US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/03/14/the-republican-party-is-coming-to-france/

I personally agree with the claim about the right-wing factions that appears in these sources (141.226.170.35 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC) )

We don't write that there are right-wing factors in major center-right political parties in the UK or Germany. I object to writing The Republicans' right-wing effects on the infobox. The Republicans are more socially progressive than centrist and center-left political parties in South Korea and Japan.--Storm598 (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, what is regarded "right-wing" in France is usually "centre-right" by European political standards. --Checco (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC) 141.226.170.35 (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If what is regarded "right-wing" in France is usually "centre-right" by European political standards, then is what regarded "far-right" in France is usually "right-wing" by European political standards? 141.226.170.35 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

According to that logic, the Conservative Party of U.K. and the CDU of Germany also have right-wing factions. There may be no direct connection, but the FN and other mainstream French far-right are more socially progressive than the center-right of South Korea.--Storm598 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the RN is far-right in France, but it is to the left of several mainstream conservative parties in other European countries. However, the main point is that "centre-right" is virtually never used in France: "right-wing" is used, meaning mainstream conservative. --Checco (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Checco, can you give me examples about these mainstream conservative parties? Storm598 why is RN consider far right if this party is more socially progressive than the center-right of South Korea and other some countries ? 141.226.170.35 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

In South Korea, major politicians of the People Party oppose homosexuality, but major politicians of the FN tend to refrain from making such remarks. In terms of abortion and human rights for the disabled, South Korean center-right are much more conservative.

First of all, I'm very strongly opposed to writing "right-wing" on the article infobox.--Storm598 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream conservative parties... for instance, European parties affiliated to the EPP. Anyway, let's be more focused: the main point is that only "centre-right" should be mentioned in this infobox. --Checco (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I also support the idea of only listing "centre-right" in the Infobox.--Autospark (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Storm598 should RN's infobox position mentioned "right-wing" or "far-right" or both these positions? 141.226.170.35 (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think FN is more of a "right-wing to far-right" than a "far-right."--Storm598 (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Ideologies in the infobox

I think we should reopen the discussion since it is very likely that either Éric Ciotti or Bruno Retailleau get elected Braganza (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

With Ciotti being elected and the evolutions of the party after his election as party president, I would support reopening the discussion to add to right-wing in their position in the infobox Lexoomfie (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would propose this: all of the changes are inline with the ideology section Braganza (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
Ideology	Liberal conservatism Conservatism Gaullism
Political position	Centre-right to right-wing

Note: I changed the section name. What do you mean by "election"? By the way, three ideologies are enough, in my view: "liberal conservatism", "Christian democracy" and "Gaullism". Possibly, "Christian democracy" is no longer applicable to this party in 2022 and we could remove it—for now, I would keep it. --Checco (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

my bad i meant "discussion" because of the upcoming leadership election Braganza (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vacant0, Quinnnnnby, Talleyrand6, and Julio974fr: Braganza (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The proposal seems fair as far as I'm aware. Talleyrand6 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That'd be WP:RECENTISM, so no. Vacant0 (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Checco: Braganza (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I would keep three ideologies: "liberal conservatism", "Christian democracy" and "Gaullism". Possibly, "Christian democracy" may no longer applicable to this party as of 2022, but I would keep it, for now. --Checco (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Christian democracy is already included in Gaullism, and what do you think of the position change? Braganza (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that Christian democracy is or can be included in Gaullism–the fact that some Gaullists and de Gaulle himself were devout Catholics does not make them Christian democrats. On political position, I would keep "centre-right" as the party is a mainstream conservative party in the EPP mould–in France the party is classified as "right-wing", but LR is a centre-right party by European and international standards, not to mention the fact that, on both economic and social issues, French parties tend to be to the left of their European counterparts, due to the French tradition of dirigisme and secularism. --Checco (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

thats true but ENS is labelled as "centre-right" too while RN as just "far-right" Braganza (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand we need to have a general picture. In my view, LR is centre-right, Ren is centrist and RN is right-wing. By the way, in a country there can be also two or more parties with the same political position. Finally, I would remove all political positions altogether and leave only ideologies, but we would need a broad consensus on this. --Checco (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Checco: Pécresse' Libres is labelled as "centre-right to right-wing" Braganza (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Centre-right" would be more correct for Libres. --Checco (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As I asked below, can we add christian democracy to the ideologies? 174.135.36.220 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Once again

So i just checked the sources (they rather refer to gaullism, using gaullism as proof for christian democracy is Wikipedia:HIJACK):

1. LesEchos does not mention christian democracy
2. ABC mentions it as factions
3. RadioFrance does not mention it
4. Nordsieck neither

Braganza (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Gaullism is also much more than just a rehash of christian democracy, so using any source calling them gaullist as justification for christian democracy is misleading.

As well, I believe it’d be the most accurate to consider LR as centre-right to right-wing, if not just right-wing, considering the rightwards turn of the party and the departure of many of its ‘centre right’ members to Macron. Lexoomfie (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Gaullism has nothing to do with Christian democracy. The UMP and, thus, LR was objectively a merger of three French centre-right "political families": Gaullism (RPR) — evolved into a form of liberal conservatism, Christian Democracy (part of UDF) and Republicanism (DL) – the French version of conservative liberalism. A fourth political family, Radicalism, was less involved. The ideologies of the party are thus liberal conservatism, Christian democracy, conservative liberalism and Gaullism. This said I would not object with having just "liberal conservatism" in the infobox. At the same time, I am much against "centre-right to right-wing", as the party is generally centre-right and that already comprises the right. When possible, infoboxes should be short: "liberal conservatism" and "centre-right" would be enough, as more infos could stay in the intro and, especially, the article's text. --Checco (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

i would still include Gaullism though, it is a kinda unique ideology and very important for LR Braganza (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

since there appears to be no opposition against removing christian democracy i will remove it later today Braganza (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue with "Gaullism" is that while it describes the party's historical roots, it's more of a personalist ideology (which I'm personally dislike listing in Infoboxes), or arguably could be considered to be a historical movement rather than (strictly speaking) a political ideology. It should definitely be identified/described in the article body, however.-- Autospark (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Autospark: we should remove it from any other gaullist party too then (i would accept this though but this has to be done everywhere) Braganza (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am on the fence and undecided about whether to remove Gaullism (and I agree, it would need to be removed from the Infoboxes of articles on LR’s predecessor parties as well). I would like other editors to express their opinions on the matter if they feel strongly either way.— Autospark (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

probably we leave it for the better

it's kinda like Kemalism or Pancasila Braganza (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I would support two options: 1) having only "liberal conservatism"; 2) continuing to list "liberal conservatism", "Christian democracy" and "Gaullism". --Checco (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Christian democracy is not sourced, nor does LR have any references to christianity Braganza (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

There are surely sources on Christian-democratic politicians and factions within LR. --Checco (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may butt in, is the party referred to as Gaullist in ideology, or as Gaullist by descent? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

As ideology, I guess. As of today, it is virtually redundant, but still an important ideological heritage for the party. --Checco (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to leave it in the body of the article, than added it to the ideology parametre? After all, it infers that the party is Gaullist, yet its ideology isn't, as it is by descent. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In a way, it is a bit similar to the current discussion going of with FdI, as the party descends from neo-fascists, yet the party's ideology isn't, or it's a minority. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean this, but, in a way, you are right. LR's roots are Gaullist, but the party is not Gaullist per se (similarly to Italy's FdI, whose roots may be neo-fascist or, better, post-fascist, but its present reality is far from neo- or post-fascism). I would not oppose having only "liberal conservatism" as ideology here. --Checco (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Opps, wrong one. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Liberal-conservative, really?

The 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 174.135.36.220 (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

References