Talk:Libertas (political movement)

Coordination on Libertas articles

I realise there has already been a lot of discussion on issues relating to Libertas (see archive). However, now that there are a number of rather confusing and, in some cases, repetitive articles on the topic, I think it might be useful either to merge some of them, relegating certain sections to History or Background, or to ensure better links and more consistency.

Indeed, until today, if you looked for Libertas (in connection with Declan Ganley), the only article on the disambiguation page that seemed applicable was Libertas (lobby group) - now Libertas (political movement). There was no reference to Libertas Party Limited (which is behind the Libertas.eu initiative) or Libertas Institute Limited (which in fact refers back to the Irish lobby group against the Lisbon Treaty referendum. I have, however, now included these on the disambiguation page.

If you start with the Libertas (political movement) page, despite a number of updates I have tried to work in, you do not really get a satisfactory view of the extent and coverage of the movement. There is hardly anything about the political agenda (expect that it started as a group against the Irish referendum), the increasingly successful extension of its activities across Europe, or indeed about the individuals behind the movement (apart from Declan Ganley perhaps). If you look at other European Parliament parties, even Independence/Democracy, you will find a lot more about objectives, members, affiliations, etc., etc.

I also think that the article on Libertas Institute Limited gives a much more one-sided picture of Libertas than the other articles which might be quite misleading for anyone who starts here.

As a start, I am trying to include more links between these various pages, including the List of Declan Ganley organizations, but we should really try to do more to tidy things up now that Libertas seems to be moving strongly forward on the international front. We should also have an article on Libertas Foundation Limited even if the organisation seems to be running into difficulties. And then how about links to the various Libertas country pages with explanations, e.g. Libertas Denmark, Libertas Sweden and more on Libertas France, Libertas Germany, Libertas Poland, Libertas United Kingdom.

I'll continue to do what I can to sort some of this out be much more help is required.Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ipigott, hi! Thank you with your message above. Dealing with your points as follows:

• General: Thank goodness somebody else has popped up to help with the bread-and-butter work on these articles.
• Libertas Institute: I agree with your points, but I'm not sure the putative one-sidedness of the Libertas Institute Limited article can be seriously addressed: the situation was Libertas Institute Limited thought it was a good guy and said so, the Irish media and every other party (even Sinn Fein didn't like them) thought they were bad guys and said so, and I don't know how you deal with that (unless you can dig out some quotes from Coir).
• Structure: I'll need to bleed off the sections about Libertas's attempt at EU recognition into its own article at some point, since that has legal repercussions for the other groups.
• Mergers: I'm OK with merging Libertas (political movement) into Libertas (European movement) or possibly vice versa, but I am not ok with merging Libertas Institute with anything: legally they are two separate entities and the funding legislation is different for each one. This will become important when the Lisbon II referendum comes up, since we do not know whether the campaign will be done by the lobby group, the political party, or both.
• Position: the best I can come up with for Libertas's position is The Libertas website and the speeches of Ganley state that the structure of the European Union is impaired and should be changed. National media, using the "state of dissatisfaction with the structure of the EU" definition of Euroscepticism (sometimes known as the "reform Euroscepticism" definition), characterise LPL as Eurosceptic. Libertas, using the "desire to leave the EU" definition of Euroscepticism (sometimes known as the "hard Euroscepticism" or "British Euroscepticism" definition), do not use that characterization and use the term "Pro-European" instead. The local parties hold disparate views: LP advocate freedom of transnational movement for the Polish workforce, MPF advocate the exact opposite. LPD emphasise traditional family values, LUK do not. A conference in Rome was scheduled for March 25 during which a common manifesto would be produced: that conference was postponed indefinitely. As of 12 March, no formal agreed common platform exists between the local parties. The Libertas.eu website and the websites of the local parties all advocate rejection of the Lisbon Treaty and an increase in accountability, transparency and democracy, the same formula that allows UKIP & the EUDemocrats to coexist within the IND/DEM group in the European Parliament.
• Players: As per your remarks about lack of info on other players, I'll try and expand the JPB biog if time permits.
• Disambig: What the articles badly need is a navbox: I'll work one up in the next two weeks.
• Committment: Which brings me to my next point: I'm trying to wean myself off these articles, since they are distracting me from my main sphere of interest (the Eurogroups, the Europarties, and the Eurofoundations. Over the next two weeks I aim to get Libertas Ireland, Libertas Czech Republic (Libertas Czechia?) and Libertas Malta (press conference scheduled for later this week, if memory serves) spun off into their own articles: I figure any candidates announced from April onwards will legally stand as Independents (national party) under the Libertas banner (pan-European party), in the same way as Mariam Harkin does for the European Democrats, since there will be serious time constraints for registration at that point (less than a hundred days to go). So it'll be good to know that there's somebody willing to do the serious work required at that point, and I can return to my main interest. If you need a hand over the next two weeks, just shout out. User:AndrewRT and User:Catalpa may also be willing to help.
• Other: Thank you for your kind comments concerning Independence/Democracy: I was the main author (did you like the map?) Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for laying out your stategy. I can agree to everything you propose. I sincerely hope you will manage to get through the various points within a reasonable time.- Ipigott (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there should only be two articles: Libertas Institute and Libertas (European movement). This page is very confusing, as well as the content of the other articles. They should be rewritten with focus on the policies and functions of the groups, not like something in a legal journal.--Sasper (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Sasper, hi! Thank you with your message above and on other pages. Dealing with your points as follows:

• Article names: I did not give the article the name Libertas Party Limited for partisan reasons: I called it that since that is the name it's registered under (election law is non-trivial). This will be important when it comes to the Irish Euroelections because as well as being an aspirant Europarty, it is also the national party in Ireland (effectively, it is its own Irish affiliate).
• Your move: I spent some weeks talking to the other editors trying to build consensus for the structures: you moved Libertas Party Limited five hours after it was first suggested, and you moved Libertas Institute Limited with no discussion at all.
• Policy discussion: It is a bad idea to expand the article to include a discussion of policy, since such things inevitably degrade into "they say this and this is RIGHT!!!! Others say that and this is WRONG!!!!". I don't want to see this article attain lolcat status.
• Accusations of bias: If I was biased I would have added into the articles the following:

• the observation that Libertas Poland is a virtual party hung round the Referendum Committee at the last minute and may not even try to field candidates nor register for the elections,
• the observation that an unofficial deal exists between the spectacularly homophobic LPR and the Libertas Poland organization, but that both parties are having major second thoughts (LPR think Ganley is too Eurofederalist, Ganley thinks LPR is too weird, but they may not have any other options), which is why we haven't seen any official Libertas Poland candidates or affiliated parties yet (although that may change this week),

• Addendum - Wikipedia scoops the Irish Times!

• the observation that that a recent (small) poll in Poland gave Libertas precisely 0% of the vote,
• the observation that Ganley was originally quite pleased to have Zelezny on board for Libertas Czechia but had to backtrack PDQ when the local media warned him Zelezney was a flake,
• the observation that Paul-Marie Couteux repeated the "Libertas is CIA-funded" allegation when Libertas France was founded.

• I don't put bias in my articles: that forces me to adopt a dry, spare style, which suits me down to the ground. If the articles I write have a legalistic appearance as a result, well so be it. And as I said above, I would prefer to return to my main interest articles in the knowledge that the ongoing Libertas article authors will also adopt NPOV. However, if a POV warrior starts putting "Libertas is really great and anybody else is just MEAN!" stuff in the articles, then I'll have to spend time putting "...but others say Libertas just SUCKS and here's the sources that say so (ref)(ref)(ref)..." to maintain NPOV, and all that will result in is a waste of my time which I'd rather be doing something else.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Name: I think it is obvious that "Limited" is a company suffix, but not part of the common name. The common name is the one used in the press, on the ballot etc. Other companies and organisations in Wikipedia are usually listed under their common name without the suffix. The full name including suffix should still be visible somewhere in the article, as it is in the infobox. inAlso, it seems that only the Irish branch is registered as a "Limited". The common name for the pan-European party seems to be primarily "Libertas" or, in some countries, "Libertas Party". However, if the bylaws say that the official name is "Libertas Party Limited", there might be a reason to include it (for the Irish branch, at least). Otherwise, the name is just "Libertas Party", and it is a Limited, but in that case it is not part of the name. The most useful choice is to pick the common name.

• See above. Rgds, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Move: I haven't found any earlier discussion regarding the move. Talk:Libertas Institute is empty. Talk:Libertas (European movement) (formerly: "Talk:Libertas Party Limited") is almost empty, the move has not been discussed there. Where can I find those weeks of discussion?

• 7 February 2009 to 23 February 2009, plus this. Rgds, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Policies: I think it is obvious that an article about a political entity should give a brief presentation of their policies and aims. That might be based on sources such as their website and objective articles in the press. If there has been a significant amount of critique in the press, this may be cited as well. Without info about policies the article will be very dry and almost useless. The company structure is not primarily what people will look up in Wikipedia, it is more: "Who are they and what do they stand for?"

• See above. Rgds, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Lolcat: I don't understand the meaning.
• Bias: Did I accuse anybody of bias?

• "negative spin", Rgds, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• "If the articles I write have a legalistic appearance as a result, well so be it." - You are not the only editor, we need a consensus, so it is not "the article I write", but our common work. Thanks. --Sasper (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• You tell me something I already know. Consensus cannot exist before the article is written. You did not seek consensus before writing The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements. By definition, consensus only applies after the article is created. Rgds, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I give up. You can't just say "see above" without answering my points. If you remove discussions from the talk page when the talk is only a few weeks old, it is a bit difficult for me to find it, isn't it? Describing the policies of the organisation does notmean to quote somebody for their being 'good guys' og 'bad guys'. Assuming good faith, I would say that the articles are maybe not biased, but dry and bizarre. What do you mean by "Consensus cannot exist before the article is written." They are written, aren't they? --Sasper (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply above. Dealing with your points as follows:

Point	Counterpoint
You can't just say "see above" without answering my points. Describing the policies of the organisation does notmean to quote somebody for their being 'good guys' og 'bad guys.	I felt it was better to direct you to the discussions above, rather than hold the same conversation in two places. However, you did not get this. So for clarity, my response regarding your point about Libertas's position was that a entry for Libertas's position was OK (in fact inevitable) but that there would be difficulties given the lack of a commonly agreed manifesto, the different positions of the local parties, and the fact that national media insist on defining Libertas as Eurosceptic and Libertas are adamant that they are not. My proposed solution to this quandary was the paragraph above that went "The Libertas website and the speeches of Ganley state...in the European Parliament." Similarly, my position is that the legal name of the party should be at least explicitly stated in full for disambiguation purposes (which in this case will be especially problematic, given the multiplicity of Libertases): however, I am OK with the article being called "Libertas Party" (the full legal name can go in the infobox)
If you remove discussions from the talk page when the talk is only a few weeks old, it is a bit difficult for me to find it, isn't it?	They weren't removed, they were archived. See blue link in box at top of page.
Assuming good faith, I would say that the articles are maybe not biased,...	Thank you. Although I would have replaced "maybe" with "definitely".
...but dry and bizarre.	I am not sure there is a response I can make to literary criticism of one's prose.
What do you mean by "Consensus cannot exist before the article is written." They are written, aren't they?	I was responding to your inference that I was advocating non-consensual editing of articles. The point I was making is that the first edit is the act of creating the article, which I did with political foundation at European level and you did with The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements (nice work, btw). At that point (the first edit) the article is the work of one person. After that point (i.e. the second edit onwards) the article is edited by others and consensus kicks in. By stating "not "the article I write", but our common work." you were inferring that I was advocating non-consensual editing or WP:OWN violations. I was not.

I hope that has addressed your points. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Heading inserted for ease of editing)

I have followed the above exchanges with interest. May I suggest the top priority is to merge Libertas (politiical movement) with what is now Libertas (European movement). This should also provide an opportunity for enlarging on the party's position, perhaps adding a word about the difficulties you list. (One thing I have noted BTW is that Ganley frequently speaks beside European flags, supporting his pro-European approach.) I think this would be more constructive than continuing lengthy discussions here. I am not too sure what the merged page should be called. There might be a case for keeping Libertas (political movement) as it is not truly a party in several of the countries where it is represented. (Another reason is that it appears higher in the search box than Libertas Party Limited (or Libertas Party) which no one can see. In any case, the other pages should simply become redirects to the merged page. I suggest waiting another 24 hours for reactions and then going ahead. If you are too busy, I could have a go at it myself. I have already redirected Libertas (lobby group) to Libertas Institute to avoid some of the confusion. Any comments?-Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Just seen an interesting FT blog on Ganley's position. See: [1]-Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ipigott! Yeah, I'm cool with that: the Libertas (political movement) page can be replaced by a navbox: I'll put the info about the Foreign Policy paper either at the top of Libertas Institute or as a subsection in the paper article and the funding info will go in Funding of Declan Ganley organizations (bringing the Institute, Party and Foundation funding info into one place). The rest can go in the Institute or Party pages, if they're not there already. I'll get the navbox done by 23:59UTC 19 March 2009 (approx 36hrs from now). On an aside, I'd like to re-rename Libertas (European movement) to Libertas (political party): it's current name was necessary when the "Libertas (political movement)" page existed, but now the page will be merged, no probs. Yeah, I read the FT blog also: the exact description of Libertas's political position will tie up academics for months to come - Ganley's position can be tied down quite precisely (souverainiste, national conservative, ant-abortion, eurocritical/eurorealist), but whether the party's position is synonymous with his personal position is moot. Libertas Czechia article is coming along nicely: SSO are on-again off-again about affiliation, and seemed to be courting Ganley's Libertas and Zelezny's Libertas simultaneously. Judging from Mach's speech to the party congress in February, he's decide to go with Zelezny - the Libertas brand seems to be unpopular in Poland (polling in low single figures) but more popular in Czechia (polling in teens/early twenties), but the need for it to be Ganley's Libertas (as opposed to anybody's Libertas) seems to be lessened. More reading beckons... Regards, (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK Anameofmyveryown, I'll leave the initial manipulations in your hands. I might come back in a few days to help with futher editing. Good to work with you - and yes, you have been doing a great job on Independence/Democracy.-Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And with you. Libertas Czechia done. Libertas Nederland info updated. Navbox in progress. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Navbox  Done 33 minutes early. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Origins of Libertas  Done. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done All info on this page now in other articles, this page now becomes redirect. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Great work, Will there ever be a policies page?

The Declan Ganley page needs serious updating, The funding issue has been raised again and he has appointed a CIA adviser, former US Gen Richard Myers to Rivada Networks board. Catapla (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Malta - and political agenda

On 21 March, in connection with the launch of Libertas Malta, the Times of Malta gave a useful summary of the party's agenda:

• A short treaty not more than 25 pages to be accepted by referendum in all member states;
• Democracy – all EU laws decided by MPs – national or European;
• Accountability – scrutinise the Commission and all other law makers;
• Transparency – everything open/transparent notwithstanding approved exceptions;
• True subsidiarity whereby national parliaments decide the legislative programme – bottom-up, not top-down.

Asked about the group's political ideology, Mr Ganley said it could not be categorised left or right since it was focusing on democracy, rather than issues. [2] - Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)