Talk:Europe of Sovereign Nations Group: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:17, 10 July 2024

Why is Republic Movement movement of Slovakia Listed as 1 MEP

I noticed that this page as well as many articles indicate that Republika only has 1 MEP. However, they won 2 in the 2024 EU Parliament elections. Is this possibly because of the expulsion of a member like in the case of AfD and Reconquete? OguHunter (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of their MEPs (Milan Mazurek) was barred from joining because he denied the Holocaust in 2019. Let's not forget that these guys are a split from the openly neo-nazi L'SNS 31.22.201.205 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a secound AfD MEP (Petr Bystron) could also end up being expelled from ESN pending ongoing investigations that he took russian and chinese bribes. This would put pressure on them to get NIKI and SALF on board to avoid falling below the 23 MEPs threshold. 31.22.201.205 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

Okay what should the ideology of this group be?

I think for position far-right (alone) is pretty uncontroversial. Zlad! (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait half a year at best, to make other additions to far-right or extreme right to the ideology, as we then have the knowledge of how they REALLY act DerEchteJoan (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for the far-right descriptor, it is the most explicitly far-right group since the European Right (or the short-lived Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty). I’d just leave the ideology field blank to be honest; far-right is possibly an adequate and simple description.— Autospark (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ideologies listed in the article are referenced and should remain as such. “Leaving for at least 6 months” “waiting to REALLY see” are not considerations as per the Edit Policy and would constitute WP:OR.

I see no reason to change the Ideology section. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 20:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would place the ideological descriptions (with references) in a separate Ideology section, to be honest.— Autospark (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great Idea, as it does not overcrowd the box and explains these ideologies thoroughly DerEchteJoan (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignistism should absolutely be included in the infobox, as it there are numerous third party sources, describing it that way. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The info box is a template and should be used as such to ensure consistency as per the WP:MOS, MOS:IBX. The info box headings should be used. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then for now, there shall be one Ideology and that is confirmed: Sovereigntism. Any other ideology should be discussed further in here if that is alright. DerEchteJoan (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Hard Euroscepticism or just Euroscepticism, as all parties are that way. FellowMellow (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source for Sovereigntism. [1] - FellowMellow (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russophilia is very common in the group. Mi Hazánk for example opposes any sanctions against Russia, wants closer economic cooperations with them, and has called upon Ukraine to give up territories and end the war. The AFD has just recently been in a Russia and China related scandal. Republika has also spoken out about the war in Ukraine in a very similar manner. Zemmour, the leader of Reconquête also called for France to distance itself from the United States and cooperate more closely with Russia. Russophilia, at least under "Fractions:" needs to be included. Mtlelas (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the inclusion of Russophilia, but not as factions and fractions (in my opinion). There is no party in this alliance, that hasn’t called for more cooperation with Russia. For Patriots of Europe, it makes sense to have factions, as there is a split on that, but ESN does not have it. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an established List of political ideologies on which the content of these info boxes should be drawn (as linked to in the info box template page Template:Infobox political party).

"Russophilia" is not listed in the political ideologies and as such, as per MOS, should not be included. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo Jc Jo well in Patriots of Europe and other European parties, it was accepted inside the infobox. Why are they able to be included there, but not here? - FellowMellow (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct @FellowMellow, I agree it should not be included there either. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it is. @Jo Jc Jo, as there is consensus there. If you think it should not be included there, then I strongly suggest you indicate this in the Patriots talk page. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're going off topic here: inclusion elsewhere does not justify inclusion here.

I have rationalised my argument above clearly for why it should be here.

As per WP:CON, please address the points of the argument if you disagree. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you’re mistaken. We are not getting off topic. As long as there is consensus, on other talk pages, it doesn’t legitimize that it shouldn’t be on here. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not included in that list, but it is included in the ideology of several political parties all over the world. Russophilia is an important foreign policy platform. The list of ideologies needs to change, not thousands of pages using it. Mtlelas (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one of the parties using it is ESN member Mi Hazánk. Mtlelas (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with @Mtlelas.

it seems to be a 3-1 decision at the moment. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great but as per WP:CON, we achieve consensus through discussion not majority. Pease see Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT for further info on the consensus process. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a silly comment this is. I am perfectly aware that it’s consensus. However, so far and most users did not agree with your option. It seems a bit that you are trying to ignore what other users think. Also, no reverts have been done. I strongly encourage you to pay more attention about what other users believe. @Autospark @Zlad! please weigh in also, as you both have also commented. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Russophilia is adequate. Zlad! (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo Jc Jo We can not reach consensus if one person simply objects. Do you maybe have an idea for a compromise? Mtlelas (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 :::::::What a silly comment this is. I am perfectly aware that it’s  consensus. However, so far and most users did not agree with your option. It seems a bit that you are trying to ignore what other users think. Also, no reverts have been done. I strongly encourage you to pay more attention about what other users believe. @[[User:Autospark|Autospark]] @[[User:Zlad!|Zlad!]] please weigh in also, as you both have also commented. - [[User:FellowMellow|FellowMellow]] ([[User talk:FellowMellow|talk]]) 21:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 ::::::::I think Russophilia is adequate. [[User:Zlad!|Zlad!]] ([[User talk:Zlad!|talk]]) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::@[[User:Jo Jc Jo|Jo Jc Jo]] We can not reach consensus if one person simply objects. Do you maybe have an idea for a compromise? [[User:Mtlelas|Mtlelas]] ([[User talk:Mtlelas|talk]]) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)