- refrain from gradually removing any content from before the grouping formation from the article - it was all a speculation which completely missed the "no policy" aspect as it was now known until after the group formed. And even with recent content we shall be careful with 3rd parties just assuming the policies/ideology of the group is the same as the former ID grouping while the group came to be precisely to change/remove many of those policies from the agenda.
* refrain from gradually removing any content from before the grouping formation from the article - it was all a speculation which completely missed the "no policy" aspect as it was now known until after the group formed. And even with recent content we shall be careful with 3rd parties just assuming the policies/ideology of the group is the same as the former ID grouping while the group came to be precisely to change/remove many of those policies from the agenda.
* not become the primary source here. The main reason a new group was created seems to be to ''remove'' the explicit right-wing ideology concepts present in the former ID grouping memorandum and replace them with an "Agree to Disagree" concept on the left-right political spectrum questions.
WP shall not become the primary (circular) source here - and it is already starting to be. To re-iterate, given the main reason a new group was created seems to be to remove the right-wing ideology concepts present in the former ID grouping memorandum and replace them with an "Agree to Disagree" concept on the left-right political spectrum questions, trying to shoehorn those policies on the the group ideology/policies *solely* based on the fact some member parties objectivile have thos views is just wrong.
Trying to shoehorn those policies on the the group ideology/policies *solely* based on the fact some member parties objectively have those views is just wrong.
Would love to hear some comment on this. So far I see almost all commenters and 3rd parties miss this aspect and then get into endless discussions of what the policies of the group will be on agendas which are in the "no joint position on this" zone. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/185.5.68.137|185.5.68.137]] ([[User talk:185.5.68.137#top|talk]]) 09:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Would love to hear some comment on this. So far I see almost all commenters and 3rd parties miss this aspect and then get into endless discussions of what the policies of the group will be on agendas which are in the "no joint position on this" zone.[[Special:Contributions/185.5.68.137|185.5.68.137]] ([[User talk:185.5.68.137|talk]]) 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
I'm doubting whether christian-democracy is a correct tag for this alliance. There's a citation right now courtesy of @FellowMellow, but the only person calling it christian-democratic is a member of Orban's party. That party self-describes as christian-democratic, but that does not seem to be accurate (consensus on the Fidesz page is to call it national conservative and right-wing populist). The self-description does not seem a good reflection of reality there. FellowMellow (and other Wikipedians), what do you think? Cayafas (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alliance was created to focus on one aspect of promoting Christian values. I don’t think @Cayafas is correct, when he is suggesting that the ideology should be based on what the other parties have. They all have different values. Might I mention that in the article, it was said "patriotic, conservative, and Christian democratic." It makes me wonder why @Cayafas is not disputing national conservatism, but is disputing Christian democracy. I wouldn’t really call it a self description. It looks like that’s what the party is seeking to advocate for. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FellowMellow: You are actually incorrect. Ideologies are based in third-party sources, not self-references. If that were the case, a number of parties would be self-described, instead of their actual ideology. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no I’m not incorrect. You are incorrect. The source says same with conservatism, but so far you haven’t reverted that. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FellowMellow: "patriotic, conservative, and Christian democratic" is a self-description from a Fidesz politician. It isn't stated elsewhere in the article, and certainly not by the journalist of the article. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the would-be member parties are Christian-conservative, but I surely would not mention "Christian democracy". See below. --Checco (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have "right-wing populism" alone in the infobox. However, we could also have one among "conservatism", "national conservatism" or "nationalism". --Checco (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right-wing populism is unsourced. Unless you can provide a source, right-wing populism should stay out of the infobox. Sources say right-wing, but populism is missing. I think the ideology should include sovereigntism, as one of the big reasons to the formation of the alliance deals with advocacy for stronger powers for the European countries to make own decisions without EU involvement. - FellowMellow (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sovereigntism" is not an ideology, it is a neologism used by some parties in order not to use terms like "nationalism". Surely, "right-wing populism" is a broad-church description that perfectly suits this outfit. Finally, "anti-immigration", "anti-Green Deal" and "Euroscepticism" are policies, not ideologies. --Checco (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. "Anti-immigration" and "Euroscepticism" are widely used in political party infoboxes. Please check examples such as Party for Freedom, Europe of Nations and Freedom, Identity and Democracy (and also check ideology section of ID, where it includes "sovereigntist." There are more articles that also use this like the German BSW (Euroscepticism) or the Dutch BBB (Soft Euroscepticism). "From Wikipedia, Sovereigntism, sovereignism or souverainism, meaning the ideology of sovereignty) is the notion of having control over one's conditions of existence, whether at the level of the self, social group, region, nation or globe." Also from Wikipedia, "In Europe, sovereigntist political movements divide (on the one hand) between those that seek to leave the European Union completely (or oppose joining it) and (on the other), those who aim for a "Europe of the nations", a less integrated Europe respecting the individual characteristics and sovereignty of constituent states." Therefore, it is an ideology and is legitimate. - FellowMellow (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are mistakes, indeed. There is a movement aimed at reducing the number of ideologies or supposed ideologies in party infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well to you it may seem to be a mistake, however these ideologies have been there for a very long time. Since they are still there and have been for quite a while, your argument about such movement is not of any legitimacy. Right-wing populism does not make any sense, at least not without a source. There is no third-party source that I have seen or been shown that mentions the word "populism." That is why that ideology should not be in the infobox, at least not until there is confirmation. As for your other proposed ideologies, I would only indicate my support (as I have said from the beginning) about the use of national conservatism. That I have always been in favor of using for this article and it seems you agree with me on that. - FellowMellow (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia users try not to make party pages less informative challenge: impossible.
Euroscepticism or Pro-Europeanism is a completely valid ideology and for European parties first and foremost is useful. "anti-immigration" and "anti-Green Deal" are policies, while Euroscepticism and pro-Europeanism is an ideology. Zlad! (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t make sense why other political party articles have this and remain untouched, but for some reason (on here), some users are bothered by this, while ignoring the fact that other articles have this. Makes no sense to me. - FellowMellow (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem excessive. Regardless, I think we can agree that national conservatism and sovereigntism (which may be a bit of a neologism, but RS most often use it over nationalism) are both valid and helpful to include. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the term "sovereigntism" as it is not politically neutral within the context of European politics. Parties like the EGP, Volt, and ALDE also emphasize sovereignty, but with a different interpretation. Consider Macron's Sorbonne speech for example. Sovereigntism is at best non-descriptive and at worst disingenuous. Transparentrose (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Orban’s group, Patriots for Europe, wants to pursue a far-right populist agenda, which includes plans to curtail the European Union’s influence in national politics, revert power to member states and limit immigration into the bloc." is mentioned in the Bloomberg article, so we could also conclude that it is also Eurosceptic and anti-immigration. Vacant0(talk • contribs)09:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support using the descriptions Eurosceptic and anti-immigration in the article body, as supported by current sources, but I have a strong oppose position to either being in the Infobox – both are policy positions, not political ideologies. Also, (right-wing) populism and nationalism inherently imply both those policy positions to a large extent, and those are actual ideologies. (And no, I don’t care if other articles list “Euroscepticism” in Infoboxes. It is a poor practice that should be avoided.)— Autospark (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalism makes sense, right-wing populism does not. The source I read about populism is not there. Nationalism should belong in the infobox, but right-wing populism should not. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? So you are suggesting placing an example of a description of Prime Minister Orbán as an official ideology of the alliance? How wrong can that be. It says "Speaking at a press conference in Vienna flanked by "Patriots For Europe" signs, the national populist and strident Brussels "critic" added that "This will happen within days, and after that the sky is the limit." That is a description of PM Orban, not the alliance. That is an invalid argument and the source does not describe the alliance as "national populist." You are incorrect again. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with adding "nationalism" and "right wing populism" to the ideology with these sources. There are bound to be more, too. Cayafas (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely wrong and I 100% disagree @ValenciaThunderbolt. You can’t make decisions based on hypocritical choices. You have repeatedly engaged in reverts of ideologies that were unsourced, yet want to add an ideology without a source. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're adding self-refs. What I did was re-add a reference from the article that states "national populist", which is another name for "right-wing populism". The ideologies you were adding were stated by a member of the Hungarian government, who is a Fidesz member. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re in the wrong. It’s not a self-ref. @Checco proposed conservatism, which also a seff-ref. You have provided no sources whatsoever. National populist does not equate with right-wing populism. Also the ideology I added was not from Fidesz. It was a description of the alliance. Read the source again. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GlowstoneUnknown @ValenciaThunderbolt if you really want to place right-wing populism in the infobox (even though I object because there is no proper source), however I would agree to its addition, if my proposed ideology of (anti-federalism; meaning anti-EU federalism) makes it into the infobox as well (as they are strongly against more federalism) and it makes sense. Otherwise, I remain opposed. I offer as a fair compromise. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't care one iota if other articles have bad writing/bad academic practice in their construction. "Anti-federalism" is a policy position, and is absolutely not a political ideology.-- Autospark (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GlowstoneUnknown I disagree with one thing. As I said before, right-wing populism has no source for it. A description of a Prime Minister is not an ideology of the alliance. I think the ideologies should be (national conservatism (as nationalism is rooted in that ideology, no need to have nationalism and national conservatism separately), a faction of Euroscepticism (as Fidesz-KDNP is soft exit), and anti-federalism. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be against anti-federalism as an ideology either, I just think it's reasonable to include RWP as one of the ideologies considering every one of the parties (excl. KDNP) include it in their respective infoboxes. – GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)15:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this because it didn’t have proper sourcing and @ValenciaThunderbolt relied on a description of Orbán as legitimate to include RWP in the infobox as an ideology of the alliance. That I couldn’t support. However, I think a fair compromise would be supporting RWP (in exchange) for supporting the inclusion of anti-federalism (as well). - FellowMellow (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Euroscepticism to put it simply is just not wanting more Europe and wanting less. Favoring exiting is called Hard-Euroscepticism. There doesn't seem to be a hard eurosceptic party in here, so Euroscepticism alone should cut it. Zlad! (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zlad! I am proposing something completely different. I proposed placing it under (faction), meaning most are in favor like PVV, FPÖ, and CHEGA for example. Fidesz-KDNP are not hard Eurosceptic. That’s why it should be done that way (like what ID group has with Identitarianism). - FellowMellow (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the listed parties are for leaving the EU. PVV was, but is not anymore. Correct me about others if I'm wrong.
That's why I'm against factions as all parties seem like they are Eurosceptic, not soft or hard, just Eurosceptic. Zlad! (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just placed euroscepticism. I didn’t add soft or hard. Just regular. PVV is, but they aren’t pursuing it because they want to continue in the coalition. CHEGA and FPÖ especially are. - FellowMellow (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why does it make sense for it to be a faction? all parties are eurosceptic. some more than others, but all are. no party maybe outside of VVD falls in either soft or hard camps or non-eurosceptic camp. Zlad! (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this - Christian democracy generally has a connotation that is different from most of these parties, and the dearth of reliable sources calling them christian-democratic reflects this. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources I have read simply describe the alliance as "far-right" or "right-wing." Of course, those are not ideologies per se. I think part of the difficulty here is that this alliance is actually composed of parties that previously claimed to espouse conflicting ideologies (e.g., ANO was in ALDE, PVV used to be quite secularist, etc.). Due to this internal ideological diversity that has, so to speak, yet to settle, only "sovereigntism" (or "nationalism" if we find the former term problematic) and "anti-immigration" are, in my view, appropriate labels for this group at this point in time. If there is no consensus even on those terms, then perhaps the "ideology" label in the infobox should just be left blank for now. KFan3 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair @KFan3. Personally, nationalism makes sense, but I feel the group should also have an inclusion of "anti-federalism" in its infobox, as the alliance advocates for increased independent powers. I also agree with you on using "anti-immigration" as an appropriate label, as many articles use it still. I have yet to see it be taken down. So far that has not happened. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Euroscepticism (as a faction); as not all parties are fully eurosceptic and nationalism from ID group’s ideology should be used in the Patriots infobox, but the use of right-wing populism should not be used, until there is a proper third-party source (saying) and does not rely on a self-ref or a description of a political leader. I do believe that anti-federalism (meaning anti-EU federalism) should be used instead (meaning contrasting to what Volt Europa has), where one of their ideologies is European federalism (meaning more EU involvement), whereas Patriots are against this. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All parties are Eurosceptic. All parties are not fully aka Hard Eurosceptic, but all are at least Eurosceptic. Zlad! (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bull to that. Putting it midly. Your /and all sources I have ever seen on this/ argue that "Brussels bureaucracy equals European Union". Hence anyone opposing the bureaucracy it is opposing the European Union per se. That is a patently false argument. That is, unless one proclaims the EU being a Rome-style totalitarian empire ruled by Brussels. Which it is not. In a democracy, being against the policies of the current government/elite is called being in "opposition". Stating - in an encyclopaedia of all the places - that opposing the government policies is anti-state is what totalitarian states do.
On the merit: Sure, there are parties/members in the alliance who are specifically against the EU per se. And there are even more of those who are for the EU per se. But neither is the joining programme of this European Parliament alliance. The program - from what I have seen - is purely about specific policy positions. It is not right or left. Nor is it pro or anti-EU per se.185.5.68.137 (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, did not mean it personal - if was taken such, was not meant. I reacted specifically the blanket use of the work "all", not to the rest of the statement.
The statement a "all parties are something" is extremely broad, over-generalising, and I would not have a problem disputing it was there the time.
But this is not the place. The only thing all the member parties do have in common is disagreement with several oppensly stated specific policies of the current European Commission. That is it.
I am pretty confident to state that disagreement with the *current* EU Commission is not equal to "Euroscepticism" however one may define it. If it did, then the term would have no meaning anymore.185.5.68.137 (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereigntism I think it’s a very good ideology to also incorporate into the infobox. If we use that in the infobox, then we don’t need anti-federalism as it is rooted within the ideology. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-refs are frowned upon. It would be best to include an ideology section, with that in it. However, it shouldn't be included in the infobox, as that is for third party ref ideologies. If we were to allow for self-refs, most party pages here would be different. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ValenciaThunderbolt anti-federalism is not a self-ref. Sources have said that the parties consisting in this alliance want powers for their countries and less EU involved and it is deeply rooted in their manifestos. This is no where near a self-ref.
I’m not. It’s not a self-ref and meaning sovereigntism. Frankly, I believe that sovereigntism should be used in the infobox because it makes sense since that is heavily rooted in its ideology. I oppose the inclusion of RWP, but as a fair compromise to have a fair agreement, I would like to see sovereigntism be added to the infobox (in exchange) for RWP’s inclusion. - FellowMellow (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally used another example other than looking at the manifesto. What I was stating that I agree with @GlowstoneUnknown‘s point. However sources have repeatedly said that Orban’s alliance and the parties within it, are all opposed to big EU involvement. The contrast to this would be what Volt Europa advocates for (meaning federalism - more EU involvement).
A self-ref constitutes what the leaders say about their alliance. However manifesto is a bit different. When you actually look at the document it’s legitimate, but third-party source is even more legitimate. However, when you said that a description of Orbán equates to the official ideology of the alliance, it makes no sense. - FellowMellow (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the inclusion of all ideologies, except for right wing populism as there is no proper sourcing. A description of Prime Minister Orban is not valid. I do support comparison, but right wing populism doesn’t make too much sense. If you support the inclusion of anti-federalism into the infobox, then I would drop my opposition to RWP. I think that is a very fair compromise. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the (current) parties in this grouping are described as espousing right-wing populism; however, the issue is is that I have not seen sources that describe it as such. (Could someone provide a source that describes the EfP as such -- not a member party -- as right-wing populist?) However, regardless of whether there's consensus about right-wing populism, there seems to be a consensus about "nationalism" and "anti-EU federalism." KFan3 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to "anti-federalism". That is not an ideology, it is a policy position, and does not belong in the Infobox's Ideology field.-- Autospark (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already from the three founding parties - those who defined their manifesto all the others joined-in for - you have the ANO party from Czech Republic which, while self-describing itself as centre-right, is seen and described mostly as a populist center-left. At best, one can find references to it as populist-opportunist. The only references of it being "far right" are those relating to their formation of the PfE grouping. A circular reference par excellence.
The simple explanation is the PfE grouping was created - intentionally it seems - as undefined on the left-right spectrum making most of these arguments fruitless.185.5.68.137 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Babiš describes the party as "a right-wing party with social empathy". What the hell are you talking about?
"All of the (current) parties in this grouping are described as espousing right-wing populism"
Is not the same as:
"Babiš (self-)describes his party as right-wing."
Babiš was presenting his party as right-wing about 5+ years ago, then switched to "catch all party" etc. But that is all meaningless as third parties do not describe his party is "right-wing populism" which was the original statement I reacted to. His party is casually desciped as populist, leftist, centrist, opportunist but never as "right-wing populist". Not by itself, not by third parties.
The only articles I ever saw stating they are "right-wing populist" are articles where this label was blanket-applied in context of them creating the PfE which in the context of this article is circular reasoning. They are right-wing populist because they are part of PfE and PfE is right-wing populist because ANO is right-wing pupulist. Hope you see the issue in that.
Besides the reality that their policies are centrist for the most part and most commentators who describe them as right-wing, do not describe them as populist. Those who describe them populist, do not describe them right wing *precisely* as they see their "right wing" credentials as fake. But that is irrelevant. The "right-wing populist" not only lacks basis in reality (which speaking Czech I do know for a fact) it also lacks any WP:RS to back it up more importantly.
Yes, but the common ideologies that you are advocating for includes right wing populism, which I oppose. I am not against the other ideologies. However, I repeat that if you want to include right wing populism into the infobox, then I would also like to see anti-federalism also be included. - FellowMellow (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, it seems that we only have a consensus about including "nationalism" in the infobox, so I will go ahead and add that at this stage. (Again, if sources begin using other descriptors, this should be changed.) Regarding "anti-federalism" and "right-wing populism," I think it'd be helpful to distinguish the question of (1) why the former should be excluded (considering there are many European political parties on Wikipedia described as having a "Euroskeptic," "Pro-European," or "Federalist" ideology) and from (2) whether the latter is appropriate given that some parties involved (such as KDNP) are not populist (again, it'd be different if we had a source identifying the alliance as populist, but no one has produced one). I don't think we should engage in horse-trading here; we should just follow the descriptors news sources have been using. KFan3 (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't list the component member parties' ideologies – the new group is a separate entity, and this article (and by extension its Infobox) is about that, not its member parties. After all, just because a zebra is black and white, doesn't make it grey...-- Autospark (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added (and sourced) "nationalism" as one of PfE's ideologies in the infobox, since there's both consensus here and (more importantly) sources that are identifying them as such (like the one I've cited). I'd ask that we now do not revert this to just "under discussion." (Unless I'm missing something: are there sources that are disputing that they're nationalist?) We can then add other ideologies later once more sources begin discussing PfE's political orientation as a whole. KFan3 (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think both National Conservatism / Nationalism / Right-Wing Populism are fine. I'm fine with either three plus Sovereigntism and Euroscepticism. Zlad! (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FellowMellow and @Zlad!, the issue with "sovereigntism" (at this point in time) is that, in the cited article, that term is being used exclusively as a self-description (the term only appears in direct quotes from Orbán; the writer is not using it as his own description of the group). If news sources themselves start using the term "sovereigntism," that would be the time to go back and change that. The same goes for the other terms like "conservatism," "right-wing populism," etc. I haven't found any sources that describe the alliance in those terms. Have you?KFan3 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we haven't had much many descriptions of the alliance because there is little to describe.
However, I think the approach we should take is look at what are the ideologies of the parties that make up the grouping and find the overlapping ones. Out of National Conservatism / Nationalism / Right-Wing Populism whichever one is the most overlapping we should add and then Euroscepticism. It might be too early for Sovereigntism. Zlad! (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Orbán’s alliance and the parties have made it clear they want as less federalism as possible. The parties have persistently rebelled against EU decision and oppose further involvement. It should be there and it is not early. Right-wing populism should not be included due to poor sourcing. - FellowMellow (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KFan3 @ValenciaThunderbolt @GlowstoneUnknown here is proof. 3 sources provided by @JustAPoliticsNerd with Sovereigntism being described by a third-party. Here is another source saying it’s sovereigntism and not as self-ref [3]. Here is another source [4]. This one says "With the formation of Patriots for Europe, Orban is bidding to become the dominant hard-right force in the EU Parliament.
As well as campaigning for conservative family values, the group would push back against European support for Ukraine against Russia's invasion and immigration." - FellowMellow (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is quite simple: only recognised ideologies should be mentioned in the infobox. In this respect, "nationalism", "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism" are all acceptable features of the ideology parameter. Of course, I would have only a couple of them. I understand that "Euroscepticism" is quite telling for the group, but still it is not an ideology, but a policy. What I strongly oppose is "sovereigntism", that is surely not an ideology and at best a neologism for "nationalism". Moreover, it could also be quite confusing as there would be another EP group named "The Sovereignists". --Checco (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with User:Autospark. I have no problems with "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism", I could accept "nationalism", while I strongly oppose "sovereigntism" (a neologism meaning nothing else than nationalism or national conservatism) and "Euroscepticism" (policy, no ideology). However, as this is a an EP group, I could accept "Euroscepticism" as a compromise, as long as "sovereigntism" is off the table. However, it is true that some parties, including Fidesz, have also Christian-democratic elements. --Checco (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you believe Euroscepticism is an ideology or not, it is a norm for wikipedia articles to feature it. Therefore, I think if ECR is soft-Eurosceptic and ID is Eurosceptic, this party should have it written in the infobox as well not to confuse the readers. Zlad! (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I would disagree with you on sovereigntism is that, well, neologism or not, reliable sources have picked it up and use it constantly. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we include Russophilia as an ideological faction? Numerous parties have either overtly pro-Russian stances or are ambivalent towards Russia.[4][5][6][7]
I added a map, at this point as a photo (generated with Datawrapper). Didn't have time to figure out if I could also embedd the iframe to make further updates easier. Attilaalbert (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I was trying to add this color #4B0082 to the code of the page. It can be seen on the other translated pages, but I'm having trouble with adding the code. Zyxrq (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should ANO's "Former Political Group" Be Non-Inscrit or Renew?
Not a huge deal here, but it seems like there is a little disagreement over this. While yes, ANO had certainly been non-inscrit for about a week before joining Patriots for Europe, given the tight time frame, it seems reasonable to say that their time as non-inscrits was a rather negligable affair, in between them being in Renew and them being in PfE, and RS seem to frequently refer to them as former Renew members.
Honestly it won’t make sense putting Renew because ANO left Renew for a completely different reason. Regardless if Patriots were founded or not, ANO said it would leave either way. For Vox or FPÖ it is different. They left specifically to join the alliance. I think we should have it as Non-Inscrits. - FellowMellow (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Babiš withdrew from Renew/ALDE to formally merge with Orbán into a single European group, before that, Babiš already had an informal alliance with Orbán. In April this year, this was foreseen by Michal Šimečka, leader of the Slovak opposition and also a member of Renew/ALDE.[1]
This is inaccurate. One way or another, Babiš indicated that he would not be in ALDE or Renew. ANO said its departure from ALDE and Renew in the European Parliament, as its chairman Andrej Babiš, the former Czech prime minister, "declared his party would not be able to fulfil its program in its current European political family."
Another important point is another source close to ANO said it has yet to be decided in which political group ANO MEPs will land. Babiš said the ECR “is certainly not a solution for us. Representatives of other Czech political parties have a big say in the groups and the ECR is certainly not our choice.
(We will see, "maybe" a "new group will be created"".)
This is very legitimate to say that the reasoning for leaving ALDE and Renew was not because of Patriots. They joined when it was realistic, meaning when they negotiated. The source from Euractiv clearly states that they were deliberating still and hoped Patriots would be formed, while also seeing what other groups had to offer. This is different from FPÖ or PVV. They are still within ID and didn’t leave, but they say they are now leaving because of Patriots, a bit different from ANO. Vox is an even better example. They didn’t leave ECR until Patriots. They didn’t join NI. They had no intention of leaving ECR, until an invitation from Patriots.
I acknowledged Renew and ALDE in a note, which makes sense in the article.
[2]: " 'We will see, perhaps a new group will be formed,' the leader of the ANO movement said on Friday. According to Aktuálně.cz, Babiš was supposed to speak about the new group with Orbán and Fico's liaisons at the inauguration of new Slovak President Peter Pellegrini in Bratislava at the end of last week (15 June 2024)." MZH2020 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its only for a few days the parliament did not even had their first meeting yet, i don't see why it should be inaccurate Braganza (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the 2019-2024 period, yes. However, they have revoked their membership of Renew and ALDE on 21 June 2024. They aren’t sitting, as the previous parliament has been dissolved before the election and now parties are choosing their groups. It doesn’t make sense to place non-members as current members. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The columns are called Former European party and Former political group (even linking to the 2019-2024 period), i don't see a reason why we should not list ALDE Braganza (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I’ll explain you the reason. First of all, I’m not completely omitting out ALDE and Renew. That is the reason why the note is there. Second, as I’ve already provided two sources, no matter if Patriots was formed or not, ANO said they won’t be in Renew (regardless). They left before the formation. It absolutely makes no sense to why it should be ALDE and Renew, when they departed before. The situation with Vox is different. That is why it remains like that. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Formally speaking, the European Parliament has not been dissolved. The period 2019-2024 ends at the moment when the new period 2024-2029 starts (article 5 of the European Parliament electoral act). So as long as the MEPs of ANO have not requested to the parliament to sit among the non-inscrits, they remain in the Renew group until the new parliament is constituted. --Nablicus (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If ANO left Renew and ALDE for the purpose of joining the Patriots, that would make sense. However, they left for a different reason. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza Yes, very good point actually and one I did not think of that and this is because of the acceptance of TISZA into EPP, not because there was a new group. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn’t it matter? They left Renew not simply because of Patriots. Vox did it that way, so what they have now makes sense. I think there needs to be at least some recognition because it doesn’t make sense how Vox and ANO are labeled in the same way with different groups. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They left Renew not simply because of Patriots.
how can you tell that with certainty? There is only a 9 days difference, they were a founding member after all so there is a very high chance that they planned it before they left
doesn’t make sense how Vox and ANO are labeled in the same way with different groups
I told you with certainty based on what the sources says, and this is a third party source. Also you can keep quoting me. That’s fine. Vox and ANO are completely different situation.
The claim that the MEPs of ANO and KDNP have belonged to or are belonging to the non-inscrits need a reliable source. Just because political leaders publicly say they will leave a group, does not mean that the MEPs automatically become non-inscrits. They need to go through a formal procedure in accordance with the proceedings of the parliament. According to the official website of the European Parliament, the MEPs are currently not non-inscrits, but still members of the Renew group and the EPP group, respectively. --Nablicus (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take – list ALDE and Renew as the former affiliations for ANO 2011. The party essentially went from Renew to the new PfE group, and Non-Inscrits is not technically an organised group, merely the status for parties who lack affiliation to an EP group.--Autospark (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This argument makes more sense than the line of thinking I was using, though I came to the same conclusion. Seems like there is consensus for this now, also. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ abŠafaříková, Kateřina (2024-06-21). "Will Babiš merge with Orbán, Wilders and Le Pen? ANO may sit in a new group". Aktuálně.cz. Economia. Retrieved July 7, 2024. "We will see, perhaps a new group will be formed," the leader of the ANO movement said on Friday. According to Aktuálně.cz, Babiš was supposed to speak about the new group with Orbán and Fico's liaisons at the inauguration of new Slovak President Peter Pellegrini in Bratislava at the end of last week. The latest push to quit the Renew and participate in the new group was supposed to be the fact that earlier this week the ECR's key woman, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, again refused to allow Fidesz MEPs to join her group.
^Babiš, Andrej (2024-06-18). "Babis: Telička is the mistake of my life, just the fact that I met him at all. He got us into the Group in the EP by mistake". Retrieved July 7, 2024. We do not belong to the ALDE party with our programme, but we are negotiating for strong positions there because we have the most MEPs from the former ALDE, we have seven. And within the Renew group we are second only to Macron, who has I think 12 seats or something. So we'll see, but we have to stick strictly to the programme, and if a new group is formed, we'll see how it all turns out.
"Right-wing" or "Right-wing to far-right" or "Far-right?"
There seems to be some edit warring between a faction that would rather the position be stated as far-right, and another that would have it be stated as "right-wing." I, personally, am quite partial towards the "right-wing to far-right" description, as there are reliable sources for both, and it is a bit of an eclectic coalition ranging from more Liberal types in ANO to more radical, AfD-associated types in the FPO, with plenty of parties standing somewhere in-between.
Far-right ONLY. Every single party in the group is unapologetically far-right. Let's not pretend otherwise. The vast majority of sources call them far-right—only a handful timidly label them as right-wing. And let's be clear: this group was concocted by an extreme-right political entity that's turned Hungary into an authoritarian playground. Democracy? Not a chance. Cheers. Michalis1994 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are true and legitimate objections to his claim, such as that those descriptions are meant to be in an international context, so just make them; no need to be snarky. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if all of Europe keeps moving further right, Asia and Africa are already overwhelmingly conservative and in the USA Trump wins, would it be correct to say that from an international context progressivness is far left? 31.4.137.141 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn straight, son! The same shenanigans were happening back in World War II —assuming you’ve heard of it, unless you're too young and still think 90s music is ancient history. Those were the days! But I reckon you’re sugarcoating it—one might even say the left is a full-on terrorist spin-off from old progressive movements. Michalis1994 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we have to use the "reliable sources" that comment on this, which are basically the news channels that have been around long enough to have credibility, in which they hire journalists for having journalism degrees, and just about everyone to ever get a journalism degree is pretty firmly on the left, so, TBH, I am of the firm conviction that there is, indeed, a little bias here. We just kind of have to go with it, and be as neutral as we can. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little bias? Labelling left-wing as far left because some people don't understand a thing when it comes to ideology? Sounds very neutral! Michalis1994 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @JustAPoliticsNerd actually. I think having it just far-right is not correct, as not all parties are that at + third parties call it right-wing, as well.
Right-wing to far-right seems to be the most reasonable description, as both labels have been regularly used to refer to the group. As well, some parties within are usually considered far-right (such as RN), and others are usually considered right-wing (such as ANO). - MabelSyrup — Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly biased. Just because you don't like them and they win doesn't mean you can compare them to Hitler. You have to be objective. They are right wing to far right at best. 31.4.141.44 (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANO is not "far-right". It is a personal project of its chairman, that purposefully declares socially liberal, populist, socialist, right-wing, centrist and moderately sovereignist views as it suits Babiš and how it secures votes in elections. The party actually has no real ideology, only the interests of its chairman. --46.253.107.140 (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some are less direct, saying that (some of) the constituent parties are far-right; Reuters describes most of the member parties as far-right (as well as the ECR group). Some are mixed or don't explicitly label the group at all: Al Jazeera (which says some parties are far right, that ANO is centrist, and puts no label to the group itself), BBC (which gives it no label in its brief mention in this article)
I would note that almost all the news sources that have a specific Europe focus use the far-right label. Even from a wide range of sources there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of support for labelling them right-wing, and since this article is about the group itself, I don't think relying on descriptors of individual parties is hugely helpful (I'd also note to the IPs weighing in that consensus is not vote-based). Personally I would choose to just use the far-right label, given the number and weight of news sources that are also using it - there seems to be a fairly hefty consensus among news sources that the group is far-right. Having said that, I could also live with it being "right-wing to far-right" with a view to reopening discussion in the future if/when there is a more rounded view of the situation. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a subtlety here! If a group is "far right", it therefore automatically is "right wing". The far right is fully part of the right wing. It's a proper subset!
So if a source refers to the group as "right wing", that doesn't mean that it's a good source for "right wing to far right" being a better description. That's because "right wing to far right" implies that the group is broader, with a significant moderate right-eing faction and a significant far-right faction. But the source saying "right wing" can just be calling it "right wing" because it is far right, which is part of the right wing.
So to justify the "right wing to far right" label, we would need sources that actually make the claim that it's a broader group on the right. ID Group didn't meet that criterion. PfE seems more complicated, with groups like ANO in it, but the major parties in this group are definitely far-right.
Well, some are, some aren't. Generally, the consensus on Wikipedia in these cases is to use both, since if you use only "far-right" it implies to the casual reader that they are only far-right. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right wing should be ruled out immediately. Only real options are those including far right.
It should be right-wing to far-right. This new group is more than just a replacement for the ID group and it includes parties that are not far-right. Welkend (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the member parties are 'far-right' or 'right wing to far-right'.
in line with the way it's listed in other EP Groups for consistency. This isn't a political party, remember. EP groups don't have to follow the standard of party infoboxes. – GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)02:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well IDK how I missed that, might be going insane lol. Yeah, far-right with right-wing factions would be acceptable. However, it seems like the representation of "factions" allows for the representation of smaller amounts of members. There are also center-right factions in this party, then, in the form of Přísaha, an undercurrent in ANO, and some few remaining in Lega. Would Far-right with right-wing and center-right factions work? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe far right is an accurate description of this group, and would urge caution; sources that say the group is "right wing" don't imply that it isn't far right, because obviously every far right group is right wing. It's a proper subset.
That said, given that there are parties in this alliance that seem to be straddling the divide between ordinary right wing populists, I can live with right wing to far right.
If the few ostensibly relatively moderate parties in this group turn out far right too, I do hope that we won't shy back from reclassifying this as far right proper.
Finally, please keep the political position in the first line of this article. Media consistently describe this group by its political position first and foremost. It's the correct choice based on clarity and consitency with other similar groups. Leaving it out and only calling it "sovereigntist" is obscuring. Cayafas (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think GlowstoneUnknown's suggestion above (Far right (with right wing and centre right factions)) is an excellent description! Cayafas (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have "right-wing" alone as it is broadly the member parties' ideology. Of course, the are exceptions: Prihasa and ANO that are mainly centrist, the League that includes also centre-left politicians and so on. However, "right-wing" seems to me a good indicator, even though I would remove "political position" from political party infoboxes altogether. --Checco (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be far-right only because all key parties in this group are unapologetically far-rightist and against Western democracies. However, since there're a couple minor ones that are "only" authoritarian hard-right, I'd accept right-wing to far right. MaeseLeon (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right-wing only in Infobox; explain in article body that numerous member parties have been/are described as far-right, and that the group itself has been described as far-right (if said references explicitly describe PfE itself as far-right).--Autospark (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why Braganza claims that Filip Turek is the PfE Group's MEP and therefore, according to his logic, a member of the Oath movement, and on the other hand, he claims that the Motorists and Filip Turek are not members of the PfE group, even though Turek was the leader of the Motorists' candidates, just because he is not formally a member of the Motorists party. At least, I have added Turek to the table and changed the confusing claim that the Oath movement has two MEPs in this European group. MZH2020 (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did not know that Turek was Motorist member, i thought he was Oath member
He was the "superleader of the Oath and Motorists candidate list," according to their memorandum, that’s why he was nominated like this, here is a link to it: https://motoristesobe.cz/memorandum-o-koalicni-spolupraci-pro-ep-2024. According to the memorandum, the leader of the Motorists to Themselves candidates was Petr Macinka, so, I am sorry, but on the other hand, the leader of the Oath movement candidates was Bartůšek. MZH2020 (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Turek is inderpendent, nominated by Přísaha to lead the coalition. Many media call him "motorist" because he's a racing driver and fights for motorists' interests. He is neither member of Motorists or their nominee. IIiVaiNiII (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And about the video, CNN Prima News isn't a very good source, they do things like this pretty often, confusing others with misleading titles or info. IIiVaiNiII (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a good source. @MZH2020 is correct. The first thing you see. FILIP TUREK - MOTORISTS' PARTY. "Czech car collector and former motor racer Filip Turek's Motorists' party is a eurosceptic group not represented in the Czech parliament that says it defends the rights of drivers against EU climate policies.It formed a coalition with protest party Oath, together coming third in the EU election with 10.3%." [8] - FellowMellow (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's media listing his party wrong, because even Czech media do that (as it was done in CNN Prima News). The important thing is what volby.cz says, they are the only good source. He was nominated by Přísaha, but he himself is not a member of any party. IIiVaiNiII (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please prove to me that is wrong. There is no indication that this is wrong and exactly you just said it yourself, he was nominated by Přísaha, but he himself is not a member of any party. However it’s not Přísaha. The party did not contest alone. It’s Přísaha-Motorists alliance. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Czech electoral commission lists Turek as a member of the Přísaha and Motorists coalition affiliated with Přísaha and not with Motorists. That's it, the electoral commission of a country if by definition the highest autority over electoral affairs and the ultimate source for official information, so the issue of Turek's affiliation with Motorists is to be considered solved. Any further attempt to associate him with Motorists is driven either by wishful thinking or vandalism. A potential compromise could be to list him as independent, but consensus needs to be reached.
Minor issue, all things considered, but "Electoral alliance" column in the wikitable for the group's member parties – it's bloat and isn't needed. It surely isn't relevant to a list of a European Parliament group's component parties.-- Autospark (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning behind this column because it was done to resolve a dispute between MZH2020 and Braganza. They were consistently reverting both edits and went into edit warring. It seems to be necessary as both participated in alliances in Czech and in Hungary. No help to @IIiVaiNiII.
Because you're the only one who's willingly ignoring the information provided by the highest autority over electoral affairs, the electoral commission, to push his changes and that refuses any attempt of compromise (like Braganza's idea to list Turek as independent). This counts as disruptive editing. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect 100%. I have compromised and since most users agreed with Braganza’s edit, it was restored. It was reverted at first after consensus had not happened yet, now that most users agree, the edit was restored. You are purposely making baseless accusations, even though when ideology was talked about and the position, I engaged in the discussion and there were compromises there, if you give it read. So please don’t lie, that I’m not interested in listening to consensus and compromise. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listing Turek as inderpendent is nonsense. If you go for that, you need to list some ANO MEPs also as inderpendents (Hlaváček, Kovařík), as they are not members of ANO, they just got a nomination. IIiVaiNiII (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally am against that as well @IIiVaiNiII. I agree with you that it shouldn’t be independent. It is nonsense. However, the edit was restored because it seemed that most users agreed with it being independent. When you have users like @Fm3dici97 throwing false allegations at you, it was the right call to add it back on to
prove the user’s claims, as false.
@Fm3dici97 doesn’t understand that active discussion is currently ongoing and is reporting users, that he doesn’t like and trying to make (false allegations) into realities. Instead of doing this, the user should offer their own input. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have engaged in, is certainly not discussion. Input is placing your own stance, which you have failed to add, even when told to do so. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy for you to point that out, however "agreed" is not input. Input is a wider description.
As to contradict your lies on the edit warring page, after most users (it seems to be) did not agree with the table (that I proposed and added to resolve the dispute between @MZH2020 and @Braganza, it has not been re-added ever since, after users disagreed with it. You claimed that I don’t care about anyone else’s opinion. Again, that is false. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying from the edit warring page: you reverted Braganza's compromise attempt at 21:09 [9], and you reverted it back at 21:45 [10] because you claim "consensus had been reached in the meantime". During that time window, no comment has been added to the talk page regarding the "indepedent" status, so either your initial revert was unjstified and the consensus was already there, or the reason behind the second revert is made up. Fm3dici97 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying from edit-warring page, as well. Actually the discussion is still ongoing. Your refusal to engage in the talk page and provide input of your own raises concerns. When I had reverted it (as you described), consensus was not reached (at least not when I saw it). When I went back to check about any further discussion, to me it seemed there was consensus (not by everyone, but by most users engaged in the discussion). That is why I restored @Braganza‘s edit. Neither one of your allegations are true (in terms of the reverts).
Also yet again, you are not being truthful here ("if you were really interested in that discussion as a mean to reach a compromise, you wouldn’t have kept reverting any change that disagreed with your version even while the discussion was still ongoing.") If I wasn’t interested in having a discussion and finding compromise, I would have repeatedly refuse to engage in the talk page. You would be correct in that instance and I would be wrong. However, that is not the case. My discussion that I have on the talk page (and still is ongoing) strongly, contradicts your allegations.
Also, I personally do not think it’s fair for me to have all of my preferred options in the article. I am perfectly aware of that, that will not always be the case. That is the reason why there is a talk page, which I have persistently engaged in. You, on the other hand, have barely engaged in it, which makes your allegations even more illegitimate. If most users agree with what I propose, then it should be on the article, if majority say no, then it shouldn’t be. Most users did not agree with the table I had proposed to resolve the dispute between two users. After most users said they were against the table, it has not been re-added ever since. Your arguments are untruthful FellowMellow (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from accusing me of not providing my own stance on both topics (which is false), you keep missing the point: the issue is not that you did not engage in the discussion, the issue is that while you were doing you kept reverting edits what disagreed with your position over and over, while a discussion on the talk page usually corresponds to a pause in the edits until some agreement is reached. This is the behaviour I'm criticizing, and this is the reason why I reported it. Fm3dici97 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I said "input." Input is a wider description of your opinion. So no, it wasn’t false. I’m not missing the point. You’re engaging in baseless lies and what you have said and accused me of isn’t true.
This is a false claim: ("You kept reverting edits what disagreed with your position over and over, while a discussion on the talk page usually corresponds to a pause in the edits until some agreement is reached." I reverted it, because no consensus had been reached. When consensus and compromise is reached, then it is legitimate to place or omit information in the article (when majority agree on the talk page). As the users have been against the column I placed, it has no longer been re-added. This strongly contradicts your allegations that I am reverting to what I wish and not anyone else. Engaging in a talk page means you are willing to discuss and compromise. That is what I have been doing. You are purposefully alleging things, that aren’t truthful and I have indicated that on the edit warring page. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am now going to criticize your behavior because of the fact, that despite the contradictions of what you allege, you continue to perpetuate these baseless claims. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Members table format is incorrect
The members table is a mess, every other page for a European political group (see ECR, EPP, S&D, Greens-EFA, The Left and Renew Europe) uses the same consistent infobox format. This includes the state, national party, european party and colour band, and national MEPs.
There is no reason to include unnecessary information such as national party colour band and former group, it makes the infobox incoherent. Furthermore MEP numbers for each parties are supposed to be nationally, not as a share of the political group, someone keeps making this incorrect change and is refusing to accept that they are wrong. Furthermore, the use of European political parties is wrong, the current infobox displays Fidesz, ANO and Vox's former European political party memberships despite this being redundant information. Infoboxes for these pages should be consistent to allow the reader to easily understand the information being conveyed.
This is the infobox I have previously made which keeps being reverted:
I want to concur, at least to the extent that this table looks cleaner. And a big issue with the current table is fixed in this one: ANO and the KDNP are not shown twice anymore! Well done as far as I am concerned! Dg21dg21 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the Hungarian Our Homeland party
The Our Homeland Movement in Hungary is not considered as a rival for FIDESZ. It's more likely a satellite party cooperative with FIDESZ. Most of it's MPs bought from Jobbik party to weaken Jobbik and form a far right movement to split voters even more. 2001:4C4E:1384:A900:5479:14C9:DF0:FD4D (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our Homeland Movement was formed from members of Jobbik unhappy about the party's rejection of extremism and repositioning towards the centre-right. Our Homeland Movement is explicitly anti-Fidesz in its rhetoric and is described in most Hungarian political media as an anti-Fidesz rival, your assumption that it is a satellite party is not grounded in any evidence. 217.39.226.216 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not too familiar with Hungarian politics I assume and not even living in Hungary. Do some research please before stating that Mi Hazánk is anti-fidesz. Mi Hazánk only exists because it's good for the fidesz. 2001:4C4E:1384:A900:5479:14C9:DF0:FD4D (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Already done They have been moved to Former speculated members since the request was opened and there is now a note about establishing their own group. Jamedeus (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russophilia Addition
Should we incorporate Russophilia into the infobox (possibly as factions). A user had added with several sources attached. Please weigh in. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I argue for the additon of Russophilia here, as Factions. For some members, like PVV or DF it is arguably more of a gray area, so calling the whole group that would not be accurate. Mtlelas (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Differentiation from the former ID group
From reading the communiques, I notice the key difference between PfE and the former ID groups is the PfE grouping seems formed as an ideologically looser grouping to that of the ID grouping. That seems why it was not just some parties joining ID. Instead, those "new" parties created a PfE memorandum for most ID member to "join them". The only core concept I see all agree on /inside the grouping/ is the sovereigntist ideology. Outside of that the parties seem to universally present an understanding that topics outside the formal memorandum are on an "agree to disagree" basis within the group. Aka explicitly not on the agenda. Attributing those "non-policies" as policies of the group seems, at a minimum, disingenious.
We shall
refrain from gradually removing any content from before the grouping formation from the article - it was all a speculation which completely missed the "no policy" aspect as it was now known until after the group formed. And even with recent content we shall be careful with 3rd parties just assuming the policies/ideology of the group is the same as the former ID grouping while the group came to be precisely to change/remove many of those policies from the agenda.
not become the primary source here. The main reason a new group was created seems to be to remove the explicit right-wing ideology concepts present in the former ID grouping memorandum and replace them with an "Agree to Disagree" concept on the left-right political spectrum questions.
Trying to shoehorn those policies on the the group ideology/policies *solely* based on the fact some member parties objectively have those views is just wrong.
Would love to hear some comment on this. So far I see almost all commenters and 3rd parties miss this aspect and then get into endless discussions of what the policies of the group will be on agendas which are in the "no joint position on this" zone.185.5.68.137 (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Austria
Belgium
Czechia
Denmark
France
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
European Union
Already done They have been moved to 