Jump to content

Talk:Democratic Constitutional Rally

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat arms Tunisia.gif

[edit]

Image:Coat arms Tunisia.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging articles on Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD), Socialist Destourian Party, Neo Destour and Destour

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus on a particular course of action, and no support for more than a year, with arguments against. Key issues unresolved issues are (a) whether the policies of Constitutional Democratic Rally, Neo Destour and Democratic Constitutional Rally are sufficiently distinct to be indepentently notable, and (b) whether a Destourianism article could appropriately cover all of the parties. Klbrain (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that the present articles on the Constitutional Democratic Rally and on Neo Destour be amalgamated. It would seem logical, as the RCD was a reconstitution of Neo Destour, to merge the two articles, provided proper automatic linking in inserted. It might follow logically that the articles on Destour (the original party) and Socialist Destourian Party should also be merged into this combined article, allowing a proper chronological treatment of the development of the Constitutional movement in Tunisia from 1920 up to 2011 to be given. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Charles Essie (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three They are clearly the same party. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 19:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Full support for merging all three @Rif Winfield: This seems as the only logical solution to me. There is no reason to have separate articles about these clearly interconnected parties. We should have a single article which would cover the whole period from at least 1934 (when Neo Destour separated from Destour) until 2011. That article would combine Neo Desour (1934–1964), Socialist Destourian Party (1964–1988) and Democratic Constitutional Rally (1988–2011)... I'm just not sure about whether we should also include Destour in the merging, but I don't have strong opinion about it – if majority of editors want to merge it as well, I'll be fine with it. --Sundostund (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I assume that @Abjiklam: would be interested to say his opinion here, because the two of us had a discussion related to this proposed merging, back in 2014. --Sundostund (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Neo Destour being an offshoot, not a continuation, of the Destour, I think the two should remain separate. But I agree that Neo Destour, PSD and RCD should be merged. I've left a message at the WikiProject to see if there are other opinions. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's my concern as well – the Neo Destour was formed as a result of the split in the Destour, in 1934... --Sundostund (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
don't agree. The parties were successor organisation's to each other but there are sufficient political and ideological distinctions over the decades to warrant distinct articles. There's no reason for historically distinct entities to be subsumed into the most recent version. I'd support stripping out the 'heritage content of the more recent articles. The articles on French political parties do not merge the RPR, UPM and others into a single article but keep them distinct. Likewise for British political parties there are separate entries for the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats. They're not just pushed into a single 'liberal demo rats' article. Mccapra (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name for the merged article

[edit]

We should also think about a name for the merged article... I'm thinking about "History of constitutional movement in Tunisia", with separate sections for every different period. If anyone has some ideas about this, it would be great to hear them! --Sundostund (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund: If you do so you're gonna need to add a section about the desturian movement after the revolution since a lot of newly formed political parties claim an ideological continuity with the desturian movement and not only with the Tunisian national movement. As examples we can cite Nidaa Tounes, National Destourian Initiative, Destourian Movement, Neo-Destour Party (see fr:Abderrazek Khallouli).. We have to clearly distinguish between the destour as a party with multiple names and the destour as a mouvement.--Helmoony (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Helmoony: Sure - I see no problem to add a section for the post-2011 period. I'm sure we can find some solution for that issue. --Sundostund (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Helmoony and Sundostund: I'm not sure I agree. I thought this merger was based on recognition that Neo Destour, the Socialist Destourian Party and the Democratic Constitutional Rally were all the same party meaning that the combined article would be about the party and not the political trend it subscribed to. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to an article about Destourianism as it existed along side an article about the party. Charles Essie (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Essie: Yes – Neo Destour, the Socialist Destourian Party and the Democratic Constitutional Rally were all the same party (or at least very closely-connected parties) but the main issue here is that we need a new name for a new, "unified article". We can't just "stuff" all the data for 1934–2011 period into one of the three currently existing articles. We need a new article, and a new (currently unused) name. My proposition "History of constitutional movement in Tunisia" is just an idea; if you have some idea of your own, please feel free to share it... I see no problem in your idea to create Destourianism as the article for political trend in general. --Sundostund (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We always have separate articles for parties and ideologies. We don't have a single article for Ba'athism and the Ba'ath Party because they're separate and equally important things and there are other parties that follow the ideology. Same thing here. Charles Essie (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Essie: You disagree with what? I think we have some sort of misunderstanding here. I think I was clear above: My only real concern is about the new, "unified" article which would encompass data about the party, and what would be its name. As for ideology, etc I have no problem to let you (and other users) handle it as you see appropriate. --Sundostund (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Constitutional Rally. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Constitutional_Rally&oldid=1195362435"