Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] May 26, 2008
Previous content archived.
[edit] Complexion or "associated"?
Anameofmyveryown made some edits I don't agree with (see Special:Contributions/Anameofmyveryown). I think that the best solution is still to have "ideology" and "complexion" in the infoboxes. In fact "associated" doesn't mean very much and make me think about the internationals to which the group is associated not the parties of which it is composed of. I think that everyone agrees that "complexion" was farily cleaer.
He was definitely right in replacing "complexion" with "ideology" in many cases, but I still prefer "complexion" istead of "associated". What do you think about it? --Checco (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that Soman and others have issues with this characterisation, for instance with UEN-NGL. "Complexion" is rather unclear, "constituent parties" is not entirely correct in the cases of UEN-NGL and I/D, and so on. I think "associated with" is the best compromise solution. —Nightstallion 11:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- For me it is incredibly incorrect, in fact most European parties are associated to political internationals. Would "composition" be better for all of you? --Checco (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- No it wouldn't, and not for trivial reasons.
- The question is whether
- a group is made up of its (full/associate) member national parties and the MEPs derive their membership of the group from their membership of the national party, or
- a group is made up of the individual MEPs.
- Consider the Hannan case. Hannan, (a member of the British Conservative party) was thrown out of EPP-ED by Joseph Daul, (a member of the French Union pour un Mouvement Populaire and chair of EPP-ED). Hannan is still a member of the British Conservative party (I think, and apparently still a Conservative candidate for the 2009 elections) but is not a member of EPP-ED. Labeling EPP-ED as being "composed of" a given national party/Europarty would indicate that all the members of that party/Europarty were therefore members of the group, and that is not the case. Legally the groups and the associated Europarties are separate entities. Using the phrase "associated with" sidesteps this problem and addresses the issues that User:Magioladitis, User:Soman and User:Nightstallion had with the term "complexion" (a phrase akin to "affinity" I think more often used in French, which nobody understood and was only causing confusion). Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- For me it is incredibly incorrect, in fact most European parties are associated to political internationals. Would "composition" be better for all of you? --Checco (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who started this as I misused the term complexion, by separating it from ideology here. I think the term complexion is too confusing. Furthermore I really prefer somehow linking the related Europarties to the European parliament groups. For the PES, the EG EFA etc, this is really rather logical. I think the best solution is to do the following
- keep a separate ideology line in the template
- add composed out of for those groups in the European parliament where there are strong links between Europarty and Eurogroup
- and add associated with for those groups in the European parliament where this is not the case.
C mon (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...Of course, if I'd used the English term "ideology" instead of the French term "complexion" (it's the European Parliament, and the phraseology rubs off...I found myself using the phrase "Having regard to..." in conversation the other day...ouch!) or the works-in-both-languages term "affinity", this discussion would never have arisen. If you want to indicate the related Europarties separately, then your case 2 above would be better served by using the term "Related Europarties" instead of "composed of". "Associated with" could then be kept for other transnational alliances. Are you going to do the changes, because I've got my hands full with this little piñata at the moment? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"Composed out", "composed of" or "composition" is ok, "associated to" is incorrect as it reminds to the associations to political internationals. We can work it out other solutions: everything but "associated to"! --Checco (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- See above remarks explaining why the term "composed of" or variants thereof is not a good idea. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Find another solution: "associated to" is unacceptable and fairly incorrect. --Checco (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Composed of" or "composition" is far more incorrect, insofar as there are degrees of correctness. —Nightstallion 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand: "associated to" means that something is part of something other (under language of parties) or linked to something other, while "composed of" means that something includes something. So, as there are degrees of correctness, "composed of" could be not perfect but "associated to" is completely incorrect. As we don't agree on this, can we find something acceptable for everyone? Would be "European parties", "European parties included" or "associated European parties" (I could even live with this) better? Other ideas? --Checco (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Unfortunately it does not address the issue. The problem is not the Europarties, it's the European Democrats (who are associated with EPP-ED but are not a Europarty) and the Nordic Green Left (who are associated with EUL/NGL but are not an Europarty). Did you not realise this? User:C mon mentioned it above. You have shared your feelings concerning the phrase "associated to", but nobody has suggested using the phrase "associated to". The phrase currently used is "associated with", which has a looser, informal meaning in English. Any looser and we'll have to use a phrase like "see also". Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- "associated European parties" sounds good to me. —Nightstallion 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- If we assume that there actually is a genuine problem, then "associated European parties" does not fully solve it. Have you considered the European Democrats and the Nordic Green Left, which are not Europarties but are neverthless associated with groups (EPP-ED and EUL/NGL). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't understand: "associated to" means that something is part of something other (under language of parties) or linked to something other, while "composed of" means that something includes something. So, as there are degrees of correctness, "composed of" could be not perfect but "associated to" is completely incorrect. As we don't agree on this, can we find something acceptable for everyone? Would be "European parties", "European parties included" or "associated European parties" (I could even live with this) better? Other ideas? --Checco (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Composed of" or "composition" is far more incorrect, insofar as there are degrees of correctness. —Nightstallion 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Find another solution: "associated to" is unacceptable and fairly incorrect. --Checco (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing the huge support for my proposal I will implement the following structure:
- "Ideology": after which follows a short characterization of the ideology
- "Composed out of": after which follow a list of European political organizations out of which this European group is composed
- "Related to": after which follow European political organizations which have organizational tie with the European group.
- C mon (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is consensus on your proposal. What is sure that I would support a two-fold solution: "Ideology" and "Composition". In fact, why not "composition" instead of "composed out of"? --Checco (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it is possible to reconcile your views. I've changed the three options to "ideology", "europarties" and "associated organizations". The "europarties" indicates the associated/composed/whatever Europarties, thus addressing User:C mon's requirement to separate them out. The "associated organizations" indicates those other associated European-level alliances/coalitions/federations that are not Europarties, and incorporates User:Checco's suggestion above. Hope that helps, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
The question of how the political groups of the European Parliament should be categorized was the subject of lively discussion between 9-25 May 2008. The diff is here, the talk page at the end of the discussion looked like this, and the discussion itself has been archived here. The results were:
- The categories are "Communists/Far-Left", "Social Democrats", "Liberals/Centrists", "Conservatives/Christian Democrats", "National Conservatives", "Far-Right Nationalists", "Greens/Regionalists", "Eurosceptics", "Non-Inscrits" and "Heterogeneous", although the Conservative/Christian Democrat category may be revisited after the 2009 elections should EPP-ED split.
- The placement of groups within those categories remains as before, except that CDI is to be categorized as "Heterogeneous" instead of "Green/Regionalist", and ERA is to be categorized as "Liberal/Centrist" instead of "Green/Regionalist".
- The word "complexion" (a French term akin to "ideology" or "affinity") has proven confusing for editors, with some interpreting it to mean "ideology" and some "constituent (Euro)parties".
The changes have now been implemented, with the exception of two pngs (I do not have the tech to change the pngs and have left messages with User:JLogan on en.wiki and User:Alankazame on Commons asking them to change them).
The changes were the results of over two weeks discussion and took several hours to implement. I would like to thank you all for your contributions and emphasise that, as changes take considerable effort to implement, I trust that any further changes will not be lightly requested.
Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Standard group colors after changes
| Standard Group colors | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category color |
Category | Category Color (hex value) |
Category Highlight (hex value) |
Group Color |
Group | Group Description |
Group Color (hex value) |
Group Highlight (hex value) |
| Conservative/Christian Democrat | #3399FF | #DDDDFF | CD,EPP (79-92) | Christian Democrats | #3399FF | #DDDDFF | ||
| Conservative/Christian Democrat | #3399FF | #DDDDFF | EPP (92-99),FE,EPP-ED | Conservatives and Christian Democrats | #3399FF | #DDDDFF | ||
| Conservative/Christian Democrat | #3399FF | #DDDDFF | C,ED,MER | Conservatives | #0000FF | #CCCCFF | ||
| Social Democrat | #FF0000 | #FFDDDD | S,SOC,PES | Social Democrats* | #FF0000 | #FFDDDD | ||
| Communist/Far-Left | #990000 | #EECCCC | COM,LU,EUL,EUL/NGL | Communists and the Far Left | #990000 | #EECCCC | ||
| Liberal/Centrist | #FFFF00 | #FFFFDD | L,LD,LDR,ERA*,ELDR,ALDE | Liberals and Liberal Democrats | #FFFF00 | #FFFFDD | ||
| National Conservative | #99FFFF | #DDFFFF | UDE,EPD,EDA,UFE,UEN | National Conservatives | #99FFFF | #DDFFFF | ||
| Green/Regionalist | #009900 | #CCDDCC | G | Greens | #00FF00 | #DDFFDD | ||
| Green/Regionalist | #009900 | #CCDDCC | RBW (84-89),G/EFA | Greens and Regionalists | #009900 | #CCDDCC | ||
| Green/Regionalist | #009900 | #CCDDCC | RBW (89-94) | Regionalists | #009900 | #CCDDCC | ||
| Heterogeneous | #999999 | #EEEEEE | CDI*,TGI | Heterogeneous* | #999999 | #EEEEEE | ||
| Independents | #999999 | #EEEEEE | NI | Independents | #999999 | #EEEEEE | ||
| Eurosceptic | #FF9900 | #FFEECC | EN,I-EN,EDD,IND/DEM | Eurosceptics | #FF9900 | #FFEECC | ||
| Far-Right Nationalist | #000000 | #CCCCCC | ER,DR,ITS | Far-Right Nationalist* | #000000 | #CCCCCC | ||
Key: * = changes
[edit] Pages that have to be kept in sync
| Pages that have to be kept in sync | ||
|---|---|---|
| Page | Changes required | Done/Not done? |
| Political groups of the European Parliament | Change category headings |  Done |
| Template:European Parliament groups | Insert changed version | Done |
| Template:EP79Results | "Complexion" changed to "Description", SOC changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats", CDI changed from Regionalists to Heterogeneous, with CDI's colors / changed to / |
Done |
| Image:PE1979e.png | CDI's colors changed to |  Doing... |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1979 - Delegation at 17 July 1979 | "Complexion" changed to "Description", SOC changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats", CDI changed from Regionalists to Heterogeneous, with CDI's colors / changed to / |
Done |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1979 - Electoral map at 17 July 1979 | "Complexion" changed to "Description", SOC changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats", CDI changed from Regionalists to Heterogeneous, with CDI's colors / changed to / |
Done |
| Image:European Parliament election, 1979 - electoral map.png | CDI's colors changed to | Done |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1979 - Timeline | CDI's colors / changed to / | Done |
| Template:EP84Results | "Complexion" changed to "Description", SOC changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats", ER changed from "Fascists and the Far-Right" to "Far-Right Nationalists" |
Done |
| Image:PE1984e.png | No change required |  |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1984 - Delegation at 23 July 1984 | "Complexion" changed to "Description", SOC changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats", ER changed from "Fascists and the Far-Right" to "Far-Right Nationalists" |
Done |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1984 - Timeline | CDI changed from Regionalists to Heterogeneous, with CDI's colors / changed to / , use "RBW" instead of "ARC" for abbreviation of Rainbow |
Done |
| Template:EP89Results | "Complexion" changed to "Description", SOC changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats", DR changed from "Fascists and the Far-Right" to "Far-Right Nationalists" |
Done |
| Image:PE1989e.png | No change required | |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1989 - Delegation at 25 July 1989 | "Complexion" changed to "Description", SOC changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats", DR changed from "Fascists and the Far-Right" to "Far-Right Nationalists" |
Done |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1989 - Timeline | No change required | |
| Template:EP94Results | "Complexion" changed to "Description", PES changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats", ERA changed from Regionalists to Liberals, with ERA's colors / changed to / |
Done |
| Image:PE1994e.png | ERA's colors changed to | Doing... |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1994 - Delegation at 19 July 1994 | "Complexion" changed to "Description", PES changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats", ERA changed from Regionalists to Liberals, with ERA's colors / changed to / |
Done |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1994 - Timeline | ERA's colors / changed to / , use "RBW" instead of "ARC" for abbreviation of Rainbow |
Done |
| Template:EP99Results | "Complexion" changed to "Description", PES changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats" |
Done |
| Image:PE1999e.png | No change required | |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1999 - Delegation at 20 July 1999 | "Complexion" changed to "Description", PES changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats" |
Done |
| Template:European Parliament election, 1999 - Timeline | ERA's colors / changed to / | Done |
| Template:EP04Results | "Complexion" changed to "Description", PES changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats" |
Done |
| Image:PE2004e.png | No change required | |
| Template:European Parliament election, 2004 - Delegation at 20 July 2004 | "Complexion" changed to "Description", PES changed from "Socialists and Social Democrats" to "Social Democrats" |
Done |
| Template:European Parliament election, 2004 - Timeline | No change required | |
| Image:Ep1979-2004.GIF (deprecated) | Image totally replaced with correct figures and colours (Image:Ep1979-2004.png) | |
| European Parliament election, 1979 | No change required | |
| European Parliament election, 1984 | No change required | |
| European Parliament election, 1989 | No change required | |
| European Parliament election, 1994 | No change required | |
| European Parliament election, 1999 | Change category names, move ERA to the Liberals | Done |
| European Parliament election, 2004 | No change required | |
[edit] Img changes
Okay, I never had the time to follow this discussion properly and as I've missed it I'm not holding up any major banners now its concluded, I just have a few comments. NI's have always been positioned on the far right, that would be my preference as that is now they are seated in Parliament and moving them to centre (when did that happen?) then creates the problem of us making a political decision on which centre parties are left of centre or right of centre. Second, now we have more groups with the same colour sitting next to each other of the same size, in this eventuality we ought to include some way of telling them apart - perhaps a letter code just the side of that slice of the chart or something? As for the depreciated gif image, I think I'd said I'd work on that ages ago in creating a whole new one but, like a lot of things, I never got around to it. I could give it a shot now unless someone else want to with better software. Whatever it is, it should be new and based on the new scheme with a space to put 09 in there. I also do not think it should include by-elections.- J Logan t: 14:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I said we should have gone with barcharts! <grin>. Hi, J, nice to see you back: you missed all the fun. I understand the urge to label the hemicycle, but it's not a good idea, for previously expressed reasons and the fact that it'd limit the use to en.wiki. As for who changed it, I guess it's User:Alankazame, for reasons best known to hirself. As for order of the stripes...er, dunno. (ROYGBIV order? Left-right order? Largest-smallest?). As for the deprecated gif....I'm trying not to think about that (it was wrong when it was added, and now it's just hanging around like a bad smell). A conversation is going on on Commons, but Alankazame is Francophone and my French is...limited. You're fr-1, so care to join us? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm Fr-1 because there isn't an Fr-0.5. Well, I probably could but it has been a while. And I understand your hemicycle point, which is why IW as just thinking a three letter code or something, not sure, certainly not a full name. Must be some way to sort it. But the order I think should be as they are in the parliament (theoretically that is, now in practice the NI and fascists get pushed to the far back rows (I think due to the dictatorial behaviour of EPP-PES who effectively control the procedures). But by following their order, we don't have to make political choices.- J Logan t: 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and how would bar chars have helped? On the gif, yes we know that's always been a problem. I'll try knocking something up later this week when I have a moment. Someone else can make it more fancy if they want. Any notes on it you want to make before I start, please do so here (and drop a note on my talk page just to make sure I don't forget to check back).- J Logan t: 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- My reply here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] /
Where did we decide to use / instead of and in the template? I would not have supported that decision. --Checco (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Some time ago, noone complained when ANOMVO proposed it. —Nightstallion 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did not understand that that was a real proposal and I did not agre with it. --Checco (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- As it seems literally noone shares your concerns on this, I'd ask you to tolerate it. —Nightstallion 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did not understand that that was a real proposal and I did not agre with it. --Checco (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I will tolerate it for now, even if "and" would be more precise as with "/" it seems that Liberals and Centrists, Christian Democrats and Conservatives, Greens and Regionalists and so on are synonims.
- Ragarding another issue you brought to discussion some time ago, the far right issue, I think that you were right: we should have "Nationalists/Far right" instead of "Far right nationalists". --Checco (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
It seems to me that only you now oppose "Nationalists/Far right", exactly as I am the only one opposing the use of "/" instead of "and". Consensus can't be vetoed by only one user, as I acknowledged... --Checco (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Your statement that I am the only one who prefers "Far-Right Nationalists" to "Nationalists/Far right" as a description of ER/DR/ITS is incorrect, as evidenced by the above diffs.
- Your statement that you are the only one who prefers the use of "and" to "/" is correct.
- Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I remember Nightstallion proposing Nationalists/Far-right. Let's wait to hear from him. --Checco (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm unsure, actually, but would probably go with the status quo for now (far-right nationalist). —Nightstallion 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
