Talk:2014 European Parliament election

This is not UKIPedia
What do you think about this version?

Barjimoa (talk)


 * There are literally dozens of comments on this issue above. I favour keeping the group leaders pictured, since they're the ones, who really wield power in the parliament. This was an election of the European Parliament, not of the European Commission. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We had a consensus to show EP groups, not Europarties, and EP group leaders, not "Spitzenkandidaten" (who were not nominated by the EP groups, but the Europarties, which are not the same!) There was a long discussion, and this is the outcome. Even under the Lisbon treaty, the citizens of the EU can only vote MEPs, not the Commission President. And this has absolutely nothing to do with supporting UKIP or not (if this is what you try to imply by "UKIPedia"). --RJFF (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that those outside the British right tend to hold views strongly opposing the one you just presented, which is why the campaigns, candidates, debates, and so on all took place in the first place, while the AECR and EAF did not participate. The current state of completely ignoring the election seems like a substantial breach of NPOV. --Yair rand (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again: this was an election of the European Parliament, not an election of the European Commission. The MEPs are elected by EU citizens, the commissioners are not. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And once again, that's not a view that's held by many people. I'm not sure why this needs to be repeated. --Yair rand (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Views" (that is, opinions) are subjective. But that this was an election of MEPs, not Commissioners, is an objective fact. No one voted on Commissioner posts on 25 May. Commission posts were not on the ballot. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It simply is not the case that the article "completely ignores" the question of who the new president of the European Commission would be. Those issues are covered at length and in depth: mention is made in the lead paragraph, the spitzenkandidaten selection process is dealt with at length, the debates are covered, and the nomination and election of Juncker is mentioned in the "New European Commission" section. In my judgement, it's a bit of an overemphasis. All of which is to say, it's just not accurate to say the EC presidency is ignored in the article.
 * Finally, it's not accurate to say that only the British right objected to the proposed Spitzenkandidaten system. The article quotes the well-known anti-Europe radicals Herman Van Rompuy and Jacques Delors opposing the system, and there are many others whose opposition is not noted in the article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We who live in the European Union know what the elections were about and who lead their parties during the elections. Manfred Weber, Gianni Pittella and Syed Kamall were not the leaders of European parliament groups during and before the elections. They got that position after the European elections. I don’t understand why they are listed as leaders of their groups during elections??? This is an insult to common sense. Also an insult is when a Canadian is trying to explain us, Europeans, what the elections for our European Parliament were all about. It is unfair and incorrect, the article about the European election is filled with false information and held this way by some users who will do anything to spread lies, motivated by reasons that are unknown to me. We all know that Junker lead his party(EPP), that Schultz lead his party, that Farage lead his party but was not the candidate for Commission President, and so on. Again listing Weber, Pattella and Kamali as leaders during the elections is an insult to human mind and common sense. If you are a eurosceptic don’t trying to change facts and spread false information on Wikipedia, please. Would God want you to lie? Of course not. I am not trying to change facts and spread false information on the article about the Canadian elections, so please don’t change facts and don’t spread false information here. Tnx. Tuvixer (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Assume good faith. Your personal attacks against other users are unacceptable and not advancing your position at all. With this aggressive tone you disqualify all of your arguments and make others completely unwilling to work towards compromise with you. --RJFF (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I clearly prefer this version. Factually this election was about electing, directly, MEPs and electing, indirectly, the president of the European commission. There was a (very small) consensus previously to say that the article should show that there was some opposition (from the United-Kingdom and from Hungary) or hesitation (few others) over this new aspect of the European elections allowed by the Lisbon treaty. It was right to do so. However some here exploited this consensus to over-minimise this factual aspect of the elections : this election, in 2014, was also about electing the president of the European commission. Hence my version based on consensus was replaced by a version who do not represent, IMHO, any consensus and is a breach on the non point of view principle.
 * Perhaps that we should have a formal vote over this aspect. Captain frakas (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I generaly agree with this infobox, but it is not necessary to write (pictured) in juncker, schulz and Verhofstadt, due to the fact that there is only one candidate for the EU commission. HughOttoBaesler (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been some time and no one objected to this infobox. Can we now change it? It is really irrational not to mention the candidates, and to present people that become leaders only after the elections as leaders during the elections.
 * The elections were held in May.
 * Weber became the Leader of the European People's Party in June. That is after the elections. Then how can he be mentioned as leader during the elections?
 * Pittella is the Leader of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats but from July 1st. That is after the elections. Then how can he be mentioned as leader during the elections?
 * Syed Kamall assumed the office of the Chairman of the European Conservatives and Reformists in June. That is after the elections. Then how can he be mentioned as leader during the elections? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "no one objected to this infobox"  With respect, you can find me, RJFF and Jaako Sivonen all objecting in this thread. And when this was first discussed there were others. The current infobox was the result of a long discussion which you were involved in. Unless the arguments have changed, I see no reason to revisit the issue. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then explain, why are Weber, Pittella and Syed Kamall listed as leaders? They were not the leaders of their groups during the elections. Candidates were listed and pictured all the time, and only after the elections someone changed the infobox. That is manipulation and an attempt to change history, but facts are facts, and you can't change that. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox shows the result of the election. The EFDD did not even exist at the time of the election, so according to your reasoning, it should not be shown in the infobox (same would apply to ECR and EFD in the 2009 election and other groups that were only formed after EP elections). Weber, Pittella and Kamall became leaders of their respective groups as a result of the election, which is why they are shown in the infobox. I don't think that the current solution is perfect, but there is no better solution. The alternative would be to show Euro parties instead of parliamentary groups, but (1) not all national parties were members of Europarties (UKIP being a notable example) and would therefore be disregarded and (2) not all Europarties named Spitzenkandidaten. There is neither an obligation for national parties to join Europarties, nor one for Europarties to name Spitzenkandidaten. So this solution would discriminate against the two categories. If you accuse others of trying to "change history", I might as well say that you try to place your wishful thinking (i.e. all national parties should organise in Europarties and all Europarties should name Spitzenkandidaten) instead of reality (which is more complicated). It would be great if you could stop flogging the dead horse. --RJFF (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the EFDD. If you want them in the infobox ok, i don't care. It is absurd that the leaders who were not the leaders during the elections and have become leaders after the elections are listed as leaders. That is an insult and a pure manipulation of facts. We will see what Wikipedia administrators have to say about this. Ignoring Candidates is another thing, and we all know why the far right users are against listing them in the infobox. We will see what they have to say on this actions of some users who have been terrorizing this article since the first day after the elections, threatening everyone who does not agree with them. The infobox needs to be changed. Listing the candidates, and the parties who did not have the candidates should have the leaders pictured. If the leaders were not on the debates, then sure we have to have the candidates listed and pictured. More important is that we change the infobox so that Weber and Pittela are no longer listed as leaders, but instead Daul and Swoboda. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your style of discussion is very inappropriate, accusing fellow editors of being "far right" and "terrorizing". Those can be seen as personal attacks, which are forbidden by Wikipedia rules. If you want to be taken seriously, you ought to treat other users with respect. I stand by the arguments put forth earlier in this discussion by myself and by RJFF and Gabrielthursday. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If i have insulted or attacked someone I apologize, it was not my intention. Sivonen, what is that argument? There is no argument to put Weber or Pittela as leaders because they were not the leaders during the elections. They become the leaders after the elections. That are the facts. You can't change that. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

2018 thread relaunch
Although this thread had been a bit harsh, I have to reactivate it. While in Britain e. g. it is common sense that the chairman of the party will also be its main candidate, this is not the case in many other countries, where a top candidate is specifically elected for the purpose of the election, thereby holding the natural right on a) an executive post and if this is not possible b) the lead of the parlamentary group. When after the election the Conservatives did not want to give Martin Schulz a post in the Commission while all Social Democrats in Europe jointly fought for him getting that post, he was instead elected Chairman of the parliamentary group (sic!). That means that even depecting Pittella in his position of parliamentary leader would be plain wrong as the first parliamentary leader of the new election period had been Schulz.

However, the point of the new election campaign circumstances, deduced from the frame conditions of the new European Constitution, was increasing the powers of the parliament by having the final say in who would get President of the European executive as well as many, many more executive posts. This is called "creative function" (translated from Kreationsfunktion) at least in German political sciences, which is the highest duty of any parliament in the world, especially in parliamentary systems, where a direct election of executives by the people does not exist but of course dominates not only election campaigns but also any WP article of national elections (and by the way of course the negotiations following the election) – even if the person is formally appointed by a monarch as in Britain. The purpose of an election has never been deciding on parliamentary group leaders, who usually are not so popular figures and rather technocratic back room negotiators and subworkers to government executives from their party or their party leaders – except when they're the party leader themselves. They have nill power without the backing from the party leadership. Although a parliament has many things to do, the highest purpose of an election in a parliamentary system definitely is creating or filling in government positions (remember "creative function"). (Here's a journal article on the creative function of the European Parliament.) The Bundestag elections in Germany have of course never been about the post of Volker Kauder but the post of Angela Merkel.

Oh, and factions that form themselves after the election while having had a completely independent campain should not be put together in the election results. In Spain or Italy e. g. it is very common for dozens of independent or regional party candidates to get elected and later form any faction at random to obtain more power in the parliament. Of course such post-election factions are not shown in Spanish or Italian election results.

The infobox for an election campaign and its results (not for parliamentary negotiations of the following months) must show the leaders of said campaign. Finally regarding the comments on the meaning of Europarties and parliamentary groups: When was the last time a parliamentary group or representatives of a group were up for election on the ballot paper? I can't remember such election conditions. Of course, it is possible to get elected without a party but minor participants do not wipe away the major players of the election. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a concrete proposal to change the article contents at this stage? If you lay it out plainly then your fellow editors can discuss it. Otherwise, beware of WP:NOTFORUM. — JFG talk 12:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You make very valid points. I think that given the likely consolidation of the Spitzenkandidat-system it will be necessary to reconsider the choices made 5 years ago concerning this article.Yuyuhunter (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

national election systems for the EU parliament election - help wanted!
I am currently working on the national election systems for the EU parliament election 2019, in form of a table. Your help is welcome, especially if you speak others languages (I use the national laws in foreign languages as references) C-Kobold (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)