Talk:Rassemblement pour l'Indépendance Nationale

Untitled

How was the RIN initially "neutral"? Liberlogos

Read the manifesto. ;-) -- Mathieugp Le RIN n'est devenu un parti politique de gauche qu'en 1963. Cependant, il est clair assez tôt que la plupart de ses membres et de ses sympatisant était des gauchistes. Mais bon, toute la jeunesse du Québec était gauchiste à cette époque, ce n'est pas étonnant. Comme être pro-mondialisation dans les universités à l'heure actuelle... :-) Mathieugp 02:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

sources

Is there any sources for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.128.204 (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rally for National Independence?

I am not convince that the expression "Rally for National Independence" was ever in usage in English to refer to the Rassemblement pour l'Indépendance Nationale. Unless references to this usage can be cited, I suggest moving back to the old French name. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I don't think that "Rally" is even the correct translation of "rassemblement". User:Againme has moved a whole bunch of Quebec political party articles to translations of names: National Union, etc., which simply are not used in English. I do not agree with these moves and will try to find justification in WP:MOS for reverting them. Ground Zero | t 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here it is:

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions says

Use the most easily recognized name: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.... Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Use common names of persons and things: Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

Use English words: Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence). Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form as in Franz Josef Strauss; and rarely, as with Mount Everest, it will be completely different.

Clearly, the RIN is always referred to by its French name in English texts. A simple Google search will reveal this. I vote to move this and the other articles back. Ground Zero | t 18:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the article moves have been to incorrect translations, e.g., "Ralliement national" to "National Realignment". I have posted a Request for Comment at [Canadian_Wikipedians notice_board. Ground Zero | t 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANSTYLE is even more specific than WP:NC on this point. Unless there is a widely used and recognized English-language version of the name, use the official French-language version. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the French names are the ones used even in English. Rough translations are inappropriate for main reference to these things though a one-time parenthetical explanation of the meaning may be appropriate. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so we are pretty unanimous on this. Who wants to do it? -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While the result is pretty clear, I think we can avoid multiple moves by waiting for the original editor to comment. I have left a note on his/her talk page. If we don't hear back within a few days, then we should do the move. This problem could have been avoided if Againme had heeded the general advice to suggest a move on the article talk page before doing the move. We should also consider the possibility that he/she has a trump card in the form of some hard-and-fast rule in WP:MOS that we have overlooked, however unlikely that seems. Ground Zero | t 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just using the Use English principle. But if you wish, go ahead. I just ask you not to delete the English versions. Rally appears many times in English Wikipedia as a translation for Rassemblement, mostly in African political parties. Please keep the English versions as redirections, with the Redirect from alternative languages category in them. Thanks.--Againme (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that you were mistaken: the Use English principle says: ":Use English words: Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form."

Your numerous moves of Quebec political party articles violated this principle.

Please undo your mistakes by returning the pages to their original locations. I agree that having the English translations as redirects is not a bad idea.

In future, I strongly recommend that discuss page moves on the articles' talk pages, as is always recommended when moving pages. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ground Zero: The coment you just wrote in my talk page seems to me a little rude, like you are ordering me to do something. I don't think I made a mistake, because I'm sure the native names are not more recognized where I live. Most people could not even pronounce them. So, if you guys think it's wrong and want to undo it, I won't stand in your way. Have a nice day. --Againme (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not intend to be rude. What I wrote was: "please correct your mistakes, rather than leaving them for other people to clean up. Thank you." This is a request, not an order. Along with several other editors, I have indicated that your numerous page moves (that you made without discussion with other editors) violate the Wikipedia style guide. We have explained why this is the case. Please accept that you made a mistake, and that you should now undo your mistakes. It would be rude of you to expect other editors to clean up after you. Ground Zero | t 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Againme: The parties indicated are only known by their original French names. The English translation is never used so, in these cases, we use the native name since that is how it is known. People looking for information on these parties would never expect to find them anywhere else. Your over-generalisation of the English-name use guideline is an understandable mistake. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I'm sorry to tell you that I'm going to be a conscientious objector in this particular issue. I think these entrys should be in English, so I cannot undo that. People looking for information on these parties will find it as there is redirections from French names. Can I be blocked or something like that because of this?--Againme (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a discussion, present our rationales, and establish a consensus. Disagreement is fine, so long if consensus differs from your position, you live and let live rather than edit war. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should we make up an English name for these parties? That's Original research at best and certainly unhelpful for readers to present it as some sort of recognised name for the entity. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you DoubleBlue, I would never start and edit war.--Againme (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Againme, as other editors indicate, you were mistaken in oversimplifying the "use English" rule, and in making up translations for these articles names. Please take responsibility for your mistakes, and undo them. I do not think that this is an unreasonable request, and I am disappointed that you expect others to fix your mistakes for you. Ground Zero | t 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ground Zero, I see you are trying to take this further. As I explained before, I do not see those movings as mistakes, so I cannot fix what is not broken... And you are mistaken: I don't expect others to do anything, it's you, with a three-or-four-guys "consensus", who wants to see something done. Furthermore, it's you who expect me to do something against my will. See you!!--Againme (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there is clear consensus for this article to return, I requested this article to be moved back (admin move was required) and has been carried out. It's not clear to me what the other articles are that should be moved. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear DoubleBlue: Thanks for your concern. I'm now adding the proper categories to the English titles that are now redirections. Greetings.--Againme (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "rally" is not really a good translation. I'm not sure there is a good translation but the meaning is more of "assembly"/"organisation"/political "party". DoubleBlue (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)+

Againme, your first mistake was to read only the first part of the Wikipedia instruction on using English words and then stop reading. The rest of the sentence says "unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form". The fact that most of your translations do not exist in English (try googling them to see if you get any relevant hits about the Quebec political parties other than Wikipedia and mirrors), and the fact that some of your translations were just plain wrong means that you made a mistake in following the Wikipedia style guide. You have not provided any reference to Wikipedia style that supports your arguments that these page moves were correct.

Your second mistake was to move articles without discussing the moves on their talk pages as is recommended for any page moves.

The other editors who have commented here have indicated that your move was incorrect because it violates various parts of the Wikipedia style guides.

Your refusal to accept your mistakes and take responsibility for them is irresponsible. To answer a previous question, if you continue to undertake pages moves without consultation or that violate the Wikipedia style guide, yes, you can be blocked. This would be regrettable: you do a lot of worthwhile work in creating redirects. It would be better for both you and Wikipedia if you use your talents and efforts to edit and contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way. I hope that blocking is not necessary in the future.

Taking responsibility for your actions by undoing the page moves would be a good demonstration of good will on your part. Ground Zero | t 21:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ground Zero: I'm not saying this to horrify you, but I've never read one sixth of Wikipedia instructions or style guide, and the truth is that 95% of all editors haven't either. I would advise not to take surfing the Internet that seriously. And what about DoubleBlue saying that your translation ("Rally") is also wrong? Anyway, I don't want to fight. Thanks for your recognition on my redirects. If you had talked to me in this manner at first I probably would have undone my movings as you requested. I promess I'm going to ask before moving another article. I also hope that blocking is not necessary in the future, but I would not mind one bit if you decide to do it. Good wishes. --Againme (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I haven't read one sixth of the Wikipedia style guide either, so from time to time, I make mistakes, learn from those mistakes when other editors point them out, and do my best to go back and fix the mistakes that I've made. I am glad that at least you have accepted that this situation was caused by your mistake, and not by other editors.

I think if you go back and take a look, I was civil with you from the start. When Mathieugp first raised the issue, I asked other editors not to move the article back until you had a chance to defend your move, noting that there may have been something that we overlooked, and I posted on your talk page a request that you respond here. When it turned out that you did not have a good justification for your move, I asked you to move the article back. It seems that you were quick to take offence -- you seemed to think that I was ordering you to do something, when I was only making a polite request, for example. (There's not much point ordering something to do something on the internet -- it just doesn't work.) I did not intend to cause offence, only to help make Wikipedia better. I have started to move the articles back, and would appreciate some help. Ground Zero | t 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear GroundZero: Maybe you are right and I was fast to take offense. Except that I never said I made a mistake :) I don't believe as much in following every little rule, we would be still slaves in Middle Ages Europe if we have gone for it. I don't have a clue as to how re-move moved pages, I though only sysops were able to do that. But I'm going to help at least by categorising English language redirects that are no longer main title articles. Regards.--Againme (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"I never said I made a mistake" -- the evidence of your mistake has been presented abundantly clearly. Your moves were clearly in violation of WP:MOS, and you have not made any attempt to justify your moves beyond the first two words of the "Use English" rule. The fact that you can't bring yourself to accept that you made a mistake says a lot about you.

"I don't believe as much in following every little rule" -- that is an odd statement for someone who justified his actions by saying "I was just using the Use English principle". You justified your moves by referring to a rule that you did not understand. Everyone makes mistakes. Most people own up to them.

"I don't have a clue as to how re-move moved pages" -- you move a page back the same way you moved it in the first place. Try it and you'll learn something new. Regards, Ground Zero | t 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I did try and it did not work, it told me that the new destination name already existed. Following main rules doesn't involve necessarily following every rule. I think this is getting personal for you as you are now harassing me on my talk page. Please stop.--Againme (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a box you check to delete the destination page. You just have to read the instructions. Encouraging you to take responsibility and fix your own mistakes is not harassment. Ground Zero | t 06:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if I do the same that you did, will you correct every mistake you made if I point it up to you? And are you going to justify your self for any good faith action you do if I demand you so, whenever I want? And can I let messages in your talk page every week to let you know exactly how wrong you are and what you need to learn? You did all this things to me. --Againme (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys, I think it's time to kiss & hug! Or you can just shake hands and pretend to smile: I'll be your witness. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bah ouais, bah ouais, eh? (by the way, with the exception of the anglophone parties and the liberals, the rest of the quebec parties have always referenced by their french names, even by the english-language media outside of quebec -- i.e. Action Democratique du Quebec has never been mentioned as Democratic Action of Quebec (maybe once or twice, but in the last 10 years, media has always used the french name), PQ but never Quebecker's Party, BQ but never Quebecker's Bloc, Quebec Solidaire but never as United Quebec, etc....see where I'm going with this?) nat.utoronto 09:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"will you correct every mistake you made if I point it up to you?" If you point out my mistakes, and I am sure that I make mistakes, I will correct them, and thank you for teaching me more about Wikipedia. Contributors want to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It does not help to have people going around moving articles incorrectly. As long as you continue to deny that you made any mistake and refuse to correct them, I expect that you will continue to make the same mistakes, which makes Wikipedia worse. Ground Zero | t

Dear GroundZero: On the contrary, you don't have to expect such an awful outcoming because I told you I'm not doing that anymore without asking before. As for mistakes you should correct, you said things about me that are not true, for example this edit summary. So I would kindly ask you to attest that. Thanks. --Againme (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you are going to stop moving pages without asking, That is a good first step.

With respect to the comment I made in the edit summary about you moving the Parti social démocratique du Québec page incorrectly, I was mistaken. You did not make that move. I apologize for claiming incorrectly that you did. Ground Zero | t 16:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm inclined today to follow Mathieugp's advice, let's pretend to smile and say goodbye. --Againme (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know what the heck means "Bah ouais, bah ouais" :)... See? That's because this is the English Wikipedia...--Againme (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

English translation

The intro currently says: "The Rassemblement pour l'Indépendance Nationale (RIN, English: Rally for National Independence) was a political organization...."

I don't think that this is the correct translation of rassemblement. I think that "rally" is a translation of ralliement, not rassemblement. Harrap's Concise French/English Dictionary translates rassemblement as "assembling, gathering". Before I change this, I would like other opinions. Ground Zero | t 17:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In French, it is difficult to see any difference at all between rassemblement and ralliement. I would translate to whatever in English usage would make more sense in the context of a political organization. I do not know if "Gathering for National Independence" (or "Gathering for WHATEVER") has any comparable precedent. If it does, then maybe it should be preferred. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rally should be an acceptable translation. Rally for the Republic in France was known in French as Rassemblement pour la République. nat.utoronto 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Mathieu and Nat have convinced me. Ground Zero | t 03:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rassemblement pour l'Indépendance Nationale. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040326224421/http://membres.lycos.fr/independance/organisations/rin/ to http://membres.lycos.fr/independance/organisations/rin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)