Open main menu


legal successor of the UMP?Edit

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 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

illegal for him to name the party "Republicans"Edit

«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) (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

court ruling in favor of SarkozyEdit

«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. (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Here after is some part of the answer to this interesting question:
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. » (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Move needed? Les Républicains or The Republicans?Edit

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?Edit

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)
Return to "The Republicans (France)" page.