Talk:Radical centrism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is this article classified under Project Conservatism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Also the second paragraph uses a silly definition of centrism which contradicts centrism. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many words in intro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why I replaced primary sources with a secondary source 

message: “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)
thread_title:  This lead is mostly meaningless.