Talk:Radical centrism/Archive 1

message: I don't see how "Radical Centrism" can have such a name. They are not "centrists". Centrism is defined by a moderate view which forms consensus between the left and right political spectrum. Centrism does not make its own definitions, and is a constantly changing point of view which reflects the popular polarized politics at the time. It is my opinion that "Radical Centrism" is only named such as a PR move to help influence opinion by "defining the centre," which is what all political parties try to do. Centrists do not define the centre; they form a moderate view based on the current popular polarized politics. "Radical Centrism" to me is just a new political party, which has called itself "Radical Centrism" in order to attempt to show that it is in the centre, when in fact it is not at all. It's an Orwellian naming scheme. 
(from the discussion on New America Foundation)
--Ben
:Hi Ben, Thanks for continuing the discussion here.   I would answer in several parts:
** Whether its a good name or not, that's the name that is currently used by these groups, and the job of this article is to reflect current practice.  And we need to make sure we focus discussion on the article.
** Radical Centrism is not a new political party.  It is not exactly a new term (its been around since the 1970s), and it is most assuredly not a political party. It is more properly a movement, historically contrasted with so-called 'sensible centrism.'  Historically radical center was associated with the working class, and considered to skew socially conservative and fiscally progressive. vs the sensible center which was associated with the knowledge class and skewed socially porgressive and fiscally conservative.
** True, moderate centrists don't accept radical centrists as being centrist.  So? The moderate Left and Right don't accept their radical elements as legitimate either, but the terms stick because they are useful.  Why should the moderates be the ones who get to define precisely what is 'centrist' and what is 'not'? Can you document a well-defined historical usage that excludes this possibility? If anything, the radicals seem to have done a better job of defining 'centrism', at least according to google.
** The most important point, IMHO, is that radical centrists do see themselves as centrist -- but not moderate -- in that they are in fact trying to interpolate between Left & Right and develop policies that will generate broad-based support.  They may or may not succeed, but I would argue the moderates haven't done much better, so we have to judge both by ideals rather than results.
:At any rate, the article should clearly reflect the chasm between 'sensible' and 'radical' centrists, but I think you have an obligation to make sure it mirrors the general attitudes of self-identified centrists vs. the larger radical centrist community, not just your personal grips with the NAF. Drernie 01:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What qualifies as ''centrist''?

message: Ok, I agree that if this name is well established as you say, then the article should discuss it with the traditional name.
*So, I think all we're arguing about is whether to expand the section about whether the term is appropriate, right?  It sounds like you want to state that the term is 'generally' inappropriate, rather than just considered inappropriate by traditional centrists.  Right?
**Well, as you said, this is a traditional term, and if it is in use you can't really argue it. More, I would like to prove that the term's relationship to Centrism is completely fallacious.
However, you cite google as a demonstration of your opinion that radical centrists have done a better job of defining centrism. This is not a good demonstration, because if you ask google to define centrism,  the definition it finds is: "a political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of left and right by taking a moderate position or course of action"
*I appreciate the link to Princeton's definition of centrism.  I am willing to concede that the terms 'moderate' and 'centrist' have often been used synonymously.  At the same time, I think it is fair to say that the term centrist has also been used more broadly to indicate  supporting or pursuing a course of action that is neither liberal nor conservative.
**I think you are misinterpreting that particular definition. I interpret it as meaning that the adjective 'centrist' describes that which is not of two polar opposites, esp. in left-right politics. The other definitions there mention middle-of-the-road, moderate, moderationist. 'Radical centrism' is not moderationist, and it is not middle-of-the-road insofar that 'radical centrists' are basically building a new road. 
"The moderate Left and Right don't accept their radical elements as legitimate either." This is your opinion, the subjective legitimacy is a non-issue. Just because I may be a liberal, for example, doesn't mean I don't know that there is a communist party or a socialist party. I may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean they aren't parties. I also know that in they are in the traditional left-right spectrum. This legitimacy you speak of is subjective, and I think it is rather besides the point.
*I am basing this on my experience contributing to Right-wing politics - many on the Right refused to accept Fascism as on the Right, and similarly for Communism on the Left, even though that's how they are commonly understood (check the Talk archives). While the analogy may not be precise, my point is simply that a) these terms all evolve over time, and b) its not always clear whose definition to use.
**Yes, the terms do evolve over time, but it is always clear whose definition to use: yours, as an informed objective observer.
***Um, not sure what you mean by "objective observer."  I think Wikipedia only recognizes a Neutral point of view, which is a little different than a claim of objectivity.  You are familiar with NPOV and the rules of Wikipedia, right?
"The most important point" I think is the least important point. How radical centrists see themselves is not important, except to note in the article. Taking their subjective view as the definition is not the right way to write an article. Articles are supposed to be objective. Additionally, all political parties would like broad-based support, they aren't necessarily going to get it. Saying that radical centrists are trying to develop policies that will generate broad-based support is, in one sense, a non-issue, and in another, untrue considering their radical stance is, by definition, not broad-based. You can't say that centrists "have not done much better" at forming a moderate view, since "centrism" is by definition a moderate view. 
*I think you're missing  my point, and confusing 'moderate' with 'broad-based.'  Sure, 'sensible' centrism is by definition moderate, but that doesn't mean it is broad-based.  And something can be radical yet popular.  The epistemic point is that radical centrists measure their success by majoritarian support in public opinion polls on the relevant topics, rather than appealing to an intellectual or religious elite.  That is, their stated goal is in fact to discover a larger consensus, rather than promote an externally-validated agenda.  I agree with you that the article shouldn't state that they *are* doing this, but we can objectively state that they *seek* to do this (or at least claim to).
**I am not confusing moderate with broad-based. These are quite simple terms, and I never said centrism was broad-based. In a polarized political climate, for example, centrism will likely not be broad-based. I think the appeal of a political philosophy is a non-issue. Depending on the policital climate, centrism may not be broad-based. Radicalism can be popular, or broad-based, or not, but only until it is no longer considered as radical (though it may keep the name). Radicalism is subjective to the culture and society. "That is, their stated goal is in fact to discover a larger consensus" Of course is it is. This is what ALL political parties would like to do, as I said. You cannot even objectively state that they *seek* to do this if they in fact do not seek to do this; this is what, as a writer, one must figure out themselves. You can only say they claim to seek to do this. Without being analytical, it is merely a regurgitation of manifesto. You must also consider, objectively, the political situation, and not reference your own political beliefs. If, for example, you think that their way is the best way to form a majority consensus does not mean that it actually will. You must consider the majority views. In the case of radical centrism the majority of political thinking, the liberal and conservative philosophies, might find consensus in middle-of-the-road idealized centrism. Currently, they would demonstrably not find consensus in 'radical centrism,' as the majority does not agree with their philosophy, possibly because they have not been exposed to it, or they do not understand it (one wonders why that would be the case :P).
Whoever you are talking about are not centrists. It think it is a dynamic political philosophy, and not a rigid political philosophy. Maybe that is what is the same: Radical Centrists also have dynamic political philosophies. But just because they may both be dynamic, doesn't mean they are related in any other way. Centrism is specifically moderate. "Radical Centrism" cannot be "radically moderate." It is an oxymoron, and because of this obvious fact, in my view, their subjects, names, and overall philosophies, whatever they may be, are totally unrelated.
*Well, yes, Radical Centrism is a more-or-less oxymoronic neologism.  But that's just the nature of how language evolves.  Horseless carriage was an oxymoron when it was invented, as was wireless telephone. As is neo-conservative, and postmodern, and numerous other terms we use all the time.   Oxymoronic doesn't mean non-sensical or illegitimate, just unconventional.  When new ideas are created, old words are redefined as retronyms.   I believe the emergence of the term radical centrists justifies retronyming traditional centrism.
**Then what would traditional centrism be called? I should have clarified that I was speaking more as if it were a contradiction in terms. (It is also an oxymoron in a linguistic sense). To me this is a case of doublethink. Language does evolve, and seemingly contradictory terms can sometimes mesh. However, and this is a key point, with a horseless carriage, you take away the horse and you still have what we now call a carriage. With the wireless telephone, you take away the wire and you still have what we call a telephone. But with radical centrism as a political philosophy, you take away the moderation and middle-of-the-left-right-road, and you have nothing left except an adjective!
I ask you, when does a political party become a new political party, unrelated to others? 
*Um, I believe a movement becomes a political party when it becomes organized, has membership, and supports candidates for office. To date, Radical Centrism in the U.S. is completely grass roots, with very little connection between the various think tanks and individual activists.  There isn't even anything you can join, except a couple of mailing lists and one student group in Ohio.
**Ok, I meant political philosophy (I was actually going to change that before you replied :P).
"Radical Centrism" is not related to Centrism at all. It is a philosophy which I believe is independent of the left-right spectrum.
*Actually, I think of radical centrists are 'triangulating' on Left-Right politics rather than simply interpolating.   The article on radical middle thinking might be helpful in understand what that means.
**Fine, I don't care where in the spectrum you want to put them as that is not my issue. Their place in any spectrum is a non-issue to me. It is clear we both agree that they are not in the Left-Right politics spectrum.
(My "personal gripes" with the NAF policies are not the issue, I have issues with the nomenclature and definition. Let's get it out of the way--I'll say that in my opinion you defend their subjective definition in a way that suggests you agree with their policies. Now that that is out of the way, let's have no more opinions on each other's motives.)
---Ben 1 Jun 2004
:My apologies if that came across a personal criticism.   I was trying to understand whether you were commenting on the general concept of radical centrism, or just the specific policies endorsed by the NAF.  It is now clear you are concerned about the concept on general linguistic grounds, and I withdraw my comment. --Drernie 20:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Radical moderates?

message: Ok, forget all I said above in my replies (I stand by it, but I think this will most clearly illustrate my point):
Say you have a country that wants but has no healthcare nor education system. The people wish to choose what kind of these services they want.
They can choose between private healthcare, two-tiered (mixed public and private) healthcare, or public healthcare. They can also choose between private education, two-tiered education, or public education.
This is what I believe political parties would choose, where left is for 'collective' politics and right is for 'individual' politics.
Right
*Private Healthcare
*Private Education
Centrist
*Two-tiered Healthcare
*Two-tiered Education
Left
*Public Healthcare
*Public Education
"Radical Centrist 1"
*Public Healthcare?
*Private Education?
"Radical Centrist 2"
*Two-tiered Healthcare?
*Private Education?
"Radical Centrist 3"
*Public Healthcare?
*Two-tiered Education?
etc.
Hopefully you can see why I think "radical centrism" is unrelated to centrism, and why I believe it is a misnomer, and additionally why I think "radical centrists" should more properly be labelled independents in terms of their political orientation. To me, it seems the 'philosophy' is merely "not everything in one place," (which isn't centred by any stretch of the imagination) and which it seems it has no real value as an actual political philosophy. Applying anything more to the label, you just begin to end up with many very different, and independent, political philosophies.
--Ben 13:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I'm not getting your point at all.   Did you make up this example, or are you citing actual radical centrist sources?  In my experience, most radical centrists generally endorse some form a two-tiered healthcare analogous to what you say traditional centrists are proposing.  It would help me greatly if you could cite sources, so I know exactly what you are reacting against.Drernie 15:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I made up this example. Sometimes people do that to prove a point. It is supposed to be an analogous example and not representative of any country. The first example of "radical centrism" is independent. Examples 2 and 3 of "radical centrist" are more properly, respectively, moderate right and moderate left. I was using this to demonstrate my point. I don't know how else to say it.---Ben 23:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Best Example

message: Hi Ben, I am greatly worried that we are in danger of violating the cardinal rule of Wikipedia, which is to discuss the *article* not the concept.   I don't think the article ever claims that radical centrists are centrists, which seems to be your primary beef.   If I understand you correctly, you are asking that:
* we adopt a more neutral point of tone in terms of describing how rc-ers see themselves, rather than making statements about what they are or are not
* we avoid equating radical centrism as being a brand of centrism
Those are both legitimate requests, and I will attempt to modify the article to be clearer about that.  I would suggest that further discussion on this page should focus on particular phrases or passages that you find inappropriate.   If you want to continue the larger discussion, I suggest you use my Talk page, or we take it to email. ---Drernie 15:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, we should discuss the article and not the concept. I propose that I write an "Alternative view" to be included on the main page, and we can leave the first part the same. I do not think the majority of the article is neutral or accurate and I believe my alternative view has merit. And while the article does not claim that "radical centrism" is the same as centrism, your article implies radical centrists are related to, or a brand of, centrism no less than 7 times! As for what I am asking of the article, it is major change. The neutral point of view about how rc-ers see themselves is a non-issue, as long as it is not biased against their view of their view (and seriously, that barely even makes sense). Avoidance is also different than stating what I think is true and important to note: that it is not a brand of centrism. Furthermore, I believe discussion on this subject should stay on this page, but I will no longer try to prove my point about how I see the concept, and why I think the article is inaccurate or not neutral, as apparently it is in vain. Instead, I will create a full  "Alternative view" addition to the article, unless you have any better ideas.---Ben 23:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ben, given that seem to be at conceptual loggerheads, I can't think of anything better than an Alternative view.   I've tried to be explicit about the differences between radical centrism and what I call traditional centrism, but if you feel that even that comparison is invidious (as opposed to merely inaccurate) then I don't know what else to do.  All I would ask is that you take the time to review the larger history of radical centrist literature, especially Gidden's book and Mark Satin's radical middle newsletter, rather than just base your article on what I or the New American Foundation have said.  Fair enough?  Hopefully then someone else will come along an find a NPOV that accommodates both of ours.  Thanks.  Drernie 16:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the article 

message: Why do we have a dispute header, and what needs done? Care to lend a hand? Sam [Spade] 06:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna remove this dispute header in a bit if I continue not to hear anything. Sam [Spade] 21:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite/dispute header 

message: I moved things around a bit, hopefully according to the wishes of others. I dropped the dispute header, but if you want to explain some actionable complaints, feel free to put it back. Regardless, I am open to comments, complaints, or what-have-you regarding my edits, the moves, mergers or anything else. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 04:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Sam.  I pushed it a little further, to stress both the relation and distinction between the philosophy and the political movement, and try to build a more linear flow.  I appreciate all your hard work.Drernie 17:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No trouble, your satisfaction that it was all for the best is all the thanks I could ask for :) Sam [Spade] 20:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK 

message: I suspect that there is a (satiric) use of the term from as early as 1963. I seem to remember a piece in Monocle magazine imagining a centrist equivalent of the John Birch Society that wanted to allow only Cambodia (then radically neutralist under Prince Norodom Sihanouk) and Switzerland to remain in the U.N., etc. Does anyone even know of a library that would have a run of Monocle? -- Jmabel 17:47, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
...So I asked a librarian. There is apparently no collection of these within several hundred miles of me, so I am not the one to research this. The librarian did, however, give me a list of where Monocle can be found, which I will place on Talk:Monocle. Is there anyone -- maybe at Yale, or in Los Angeles, or in New York, or even at U. Va. or BYU, who would be willing to follow this up? I promise you, it will be reasonably fun reading... -- Jmabel 18:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
:There's a very similar term in a Jules Feiffer strip that must date back to about that time. Hope I can find it in my almost complete collection. Dandrake 20:09, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Hold Me!, Random House paperback published 1962, strips with copyright dates 1960 - 1962. No page reference because the book has no page numbers, but it's about 2/3 of the way through, and anyway it's worth reading the whole thing. Dandrake 04:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
::Great research, thanks! Drernie 17:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any evidence, but I suspect the term comes from Danish politics, where the party Radikale Venstre (literally radical left or radical liberalists) which have been and still is a social liberal center party for more than 100 years. The party was founded on the cultural radicalism, and the modern breakthrough, which is exactly what this "Radical center" concept describes, but which was formalized in Denmark in the 1890s. Carewolf (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of term 

message: I don't know if  communitarianism can be cited here. It's exactly like listing libertarianism; they take elements from liberalism and conservatism, but separate elements. (Juan wrote this and didn't sign...)
:Certainly in the U.S. (and I don't know much about this outside the U.S.) "radical middle" politics are often communitarian. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
::More importantly, various radical middle organizations cite Etzioni as an inspiration, so there's an ideological connection.Drernie 14:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I think what you're referring to is the 'Responsive Communitarianism' minisection added. -- OK, jmabel, I just learned how to sign Juan Ponderas 15:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  communitarianism? 

message: Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the neutrality of this article is disputed, considering that this article is about the radical middle? BTW, I was a Perotite in 1992 and 1996, and followed the American Reform Party after Buchannon hijacked the main Reform Party. Arch O. La 08:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Radical middle:How ironic! 

message: Not something I recommend, see Talk:Third way. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger w [[Third way]]? 

message: ...to discuss the following, from the article:
:Followers of the philosophy often consider the wave-particle duality of physics, the Christian doctrine of Jesus as both God and Man, the federalist balance between national and state authority in the United States Constitution, and the Golden Mean of Aristotle to be representative of the beliefs of the philosophy. 
"Followers (plural)... often..." and then this rather idiosyncratic statement? This is manifesto material, not encyclopedia material. Does this come from somewhere? In that case, cite. If not, let's lose this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jmabel, if you can figure out how to trim this article enough to satisfy "neutrality", please do.  Its probably better to have a simpler article; there's enough references now that people who want examples can find them.  Thanks.Drernie 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm at a loss for words... 

message: Can we at last remove the dispute header?  I've tried my best to remove the source of the original complaint, and Jmabel has done his part. I'm not sure what else can be done.   Would anyone object to my removing it? If so, can please tell me what needs chaning (or better yet, change it yourself?).Drernie 23:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If anyone wants to put it back, please first try to rewrite the article yourself, or at least make detailed suggestions for what needs to be changed.Drernie 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Dispute Header? 

message: I removed :Image:Radical Center Emblem.svg. 3rdman restored a link to it. I removed the link. The following is the message I left on 3rdman's user talk page: - Jmabel | Talk 21:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're at it, I'd venture European Bull, while very nice graphically speaking, suffers the same fate... —Nightstallion (?) 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I removed the "logo" 

message: "At its inception fascism was described as an "extremism of the center" by its opponents. Indeed corporatist economic policies and rejection of socialism as well as finance capitalism are common to both radical centrism and fascism"
Mainly do to lack of information, or general perspective. I wouldn't mind if a criticism section was made with more information, longer than a sentece and with a balanced perspetive. I though decided to remove this section which served no genuine purpose. The title "Relationship with Fascism" is also rather misleading and almost purposefully provactive to begin with. 68.43.20.186  6:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed this segment 

message: Partido Popular Democrático is the former name of Partido Social Democrata. You want to refer to the CDS Partido do Centro Democrático e Social, now Partido Popular.
http://portal.cds.pt/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.67.194 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnote 2 

message: Is this article about the American Radical Center, or the British Radical Centre?  Dbfirs 19:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The correct spelling is centre, is there anyway to change this? --Matt Downey (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wtrite a letter to dictionary editors advising them that they are wrong. TFD (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centre* 

message: In collaboration with Dr. Ernie, the original author of this article, I have revised, updated, and expanded it to bring it closer to Wikipedia's guidelines (the Manual of Style and its offshoots) and closer to the standard of excellence set by some other Wikipedia articles on political philosophies.
I have made the following major changes:
* As it stood, the article listed only two references, and one of those was bogus (the current Economist website was given for an Econmist article from 1969); the other carried a WOT "Warning!" tag.  The article now lists over 140 references.
* The introductory section now summarizes the rest of the article.
* Folowing the intro., every contestible sttement is now accurately sourced.  I was able to find sources for some of the statements in the original article.  All other unsourced statement have been eliminated.  (A banner urging editors to source their statments had been atop this article for over two years.)
* I have added a short section on analogous political philosophies in the non-English-speaking world.
* I have addd a lengthy section presenting criticisms of radical centrism as a political philosophy and as a strategy.
* I have added 13 "notes" in a new "Notes" section, to keep from cluttering the text with interesting but non-essential information.
* I have added eight great pictures!, all from Wikimedia Commons.
Despite these major changres, the article still reflects much of the work that Dr. Ernie and those who cam after him put into it:
* It still begins with definitions.
* It still treats the early-21st-century introductory texts as the key parameter-setting texts.
* It still focuses on actions as well as on theory.
* It still maintains an unusually substantial resources section.
My revision also picks up on two suggestions from commentators on this talk page:
* Following Sam Spade, it now includes a sub-section distinuishing radical centrism from the Third Way.
* Following Brianshapiro, it now includes a sub-section discussing radical centrists' feelings abut Ross Perot.
I hope you will like what I've done.  And because of the historical approach of the aricle, I think you wil find it easier to add to over time. - Babel41 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on the February 2013 revision 

message: I appreciate all your good work on the article, Babel41, but what does "a restive grassroots" mean? Is grassroots even a noun? I don't think so, and Wiktionary doesn't either. Bishonen | talk 17:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for acknowledging my work, Bishonen.  And you are right, I got too "elegant" for my own good there.  I have replaced the phrase with "local and nonprofit activism."  That is hopefully not only more understandable, but says more precisely what Avlon and Miller were driving at. Babel41 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Am getting a printout of the site blown-up on a xerix machine this week, the better to catch the sorts of typos you were noting on my history page. - Babel41 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A detail in the "Strategy" section 

message: As you may have noticed, a senior Wikipedia editor recently placed a disapproving banner over this article's "External links" section.  It stated, in bold print, that the links "may not follow Wikipedi's policies or guidelines" and spoke of "excessive or inappropriate external links."  It included the image of a whisk broom!
I contacted the editor (see User Talk:Temporaluser) and he referred me to Wikipedia's External links policy page, WP:EL. Its introduction unambiguously sttates, "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" [italics in original]. A subsequent passage reiterates, "Links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum" (section 1, item #3).
Until today, our article did include a "lengthy or comprehensive list of external links."  I have now reduced it to a healthy minimum (and eliminated the banner!).  Hopefull, my cuts wil not seem arbitrary.  The fourth section of Wikipedia's External links policy page - "Links normally to be avoided" - tells which links we should hava avoided, and I followed it assiduously in making the cuts:
* Organizations sub-section: Organiztions listed simply because they are mentioned in the article, and not because their sites wre used as sources for the article, should be avoided (see WP:EL section 4, item #19).  Therefore, Americans Elect, Future 500, and Liberal Democrats (Britain) have been eliminated.
* Organizations sub-section: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject should be avoided (see WP:EL section 4, item #13).  Therefore, Citizen Ethics Network, Earth Institute, Independent Voting, RSA: 21st Century Enlightenment, and Third Way: Fresh Thinking have been eliminated.
* Opnion weblogs sub-section: Eliminated Bloggingheads.tv and Civil Politics for the reason given in paragraph immediately above.
* Opnion weblogs sub-section: Blogs whose authors fail to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria should be avoided (see WP:EL sectioon 4, item #11).  Therefore, Booker Rising, Citizen Jane Politics, and Radical Centrism have been eliminated.
* Opnion weblogs sub-section: Chats and discussion forums or groups should be avoided (see WP:EL section 4, item #10). Therefore, Rise of the Center and Village Square have been eliminated.
* Manifestos sub-section: Three of the eight - by Klein, Miller, and Satin - were not stand-alone manifestos but articles. Moreover, the Klein and Miller articles are linked in the text, and the Satin article is linked at his Opinion weblog (which is listed).  So those three articles were eliminated from the External links section.
* Audio and video sub-section: Tapes with potential copyright issues should be avaided (see WP:EL section 4.6.1, "Linking to user-submited video sites").  Therefore, all 11 audio and video tapes have been eliminated.  (This is not as great a loss as it may seem, as all these tapes come up via YouTube or Google searches under the relevant person's name.)
I did not enjoy making these decisions.  I am not a General Sherman type, and I regret that the fruis of many hours of my research work and other contributors' research work have now been eliminated.  But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with rules, and I know that many of us are trying to create the foundations of an article about Radical centrism that the Wikipedia community will feel good about building upon for decades to come.  I hope you will take my incursions here in that spirit. - Babel41 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on the May 2013 cuts to the "External links" section 

message: Hi 87.79.133.132.  You added this sentence to the sub-section on "Think Tanks and Mass Mecia":
"U.K-based The Economist also decribes itself as radical centrist".[citation]
The problem is that the description you refer to is not from The Economist.  It is a from a blog by one person on The Economist 's website.  Thus it does not necessarily speak for the magazine as a whole, as the anonymous "leaders" in the magazine do.  It represents one person's (J.C.'s) considered opinion., however well-placed he might be.
Under these circumstances, I think it is unwise to take this one blog post as a definitive expression of the magazine's political persprctive, as your sentence does.  I have altered the passage to read:
"In September 2013, an essay on The Economist 's website described that British-based newsmagazine as "neither right nor left, but ... coming instead from what we like to call the radical centre".[citation]
I have entered that passage as a separate paragraph (since the prior paragraph concerns U.S.-based media) and have altered your citation to make it consistent with the rest of those in this article.
I hope you can live with my alteration.  The blog post is, I think, substanial enough to describe as an "essay," but your formulation is an overreach.
Best, - Babel41 (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now had a chance to look at "True Progressivism," an article briefly referenced in the blog post.  I found that it provides a much sounder basis for stating that The Economist has positioned itself at the radical center (e.g., it is from the magazine itself and is in fact a "leader," aka editorial).  I haave therefore revised the passage above so that it begins with a quote from the editorial.  I think it's worth devoting this amount of space to The Economist because of its prestige and influence in the word.  Thanks again to you, 87.79.133.132. - Babel41 (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I altered the sentence on ''The Economist'' 

message: Dear 98.91.11.174, - I appreciate your attempt to add "Left-right politics" and "Libertarianism" to the "See also" section.  However, the Radical Centrism page has gotten in trouble for listing too many items (see "Notes on the May 2013 Cuts" two entries above) - it had long been a notorious "clothes horse" of an article - and we are now committed to keeping our lists trim by adhering to Wikipedia's (admittedly extensive) rules.
One Wikipedia rule is that items listed in "See also" should not duplicate those in the Navigational boxes; see WP:SEEALSO.  At the bottom of the article, you will see two such boxes, "Political Spectrum" and "Political Ideologies."  The Left-Right article simply fleshes out the ground covered by the Political Spectrum navigational box (which is itself only tangentially connected to the actual content of our article).  Libertarianism is already linked in the Political Ideoogies box, which lists many other ideologies that have affinities with the energing Radical centrist political philosophy. - Babel41 (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of two items from "See also" section