Talk:Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy/Archive 1

Updates to former members
I've just updated the pages of former members to reflect that they are now de-facto non-inscrits. Please contact me and revert the changes if this is incorrect. On the Sweden Democrats I updated it to show "formerly Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy", this may be a more appropriate way to classify them until they are official declared as non-inscrit members. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

EFD2
A recent edit note claimed the group is never known as EFD2. However, that is how the group's own website styles them. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked at that link and their statement on "direct democracy", and it appears they are conflating election of EU representatives or other officers, or the powers such might have, with what is commonly considered to be actual direct democracy, like at the pnyx or modern tech based concepts. There's nothing in this article either to indicate they have a clue or don't. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Number of UKIP MEPs
Number of UKIP MEP seats was out of date. UKIP has 11 MEPs (Agnew, Batten, Bullock, Coburn, Collins, Finch, Hookem, Nuttall, Parker, Reid, Seymour.) Akers, Arnott, Farage, etc. are EFDD members, but not UKIP members. Initially UKIP help 24 MEP seats, but it lost 13 of them: Akers, Arnott, Atkinson, Bashir, Bloom, Bours, Carver, Etheridge, Farage, Gill, James, O'Flynn, Woolfe, (Helmer retired, but was replaced by Bullock - hence 11 seats remain.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countvonstauffenberg (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129103727/http://www.alde.eu/nc/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/alde-response-to-the-seven-conditions-of-the-movimento-5-stelle-43004/ to http://www.alde.eu/nc/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/alde-response-to-the-seven-conditions-of-the-movimento-5-stelle-43004/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

M5S quitting EFDD group
EFDD seems to seize to exist next week, if the Italian delegation ends up leaving the group as DiMaio announced.M5S-New EP-Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyaan (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Page structure
I think the 'political position' needs to come before the election history data, since it should be the thing most readers want to lookup first. Assuming that the main reason to go to that page is when you don't know much about EFDD at all (which probably would be non-British) and then you would not want to be stuffed with electoral data right from the beginning.

'Far Right' / ECFR source
One of the descriptions of the party's politics in the infobox is 'far right'. This was sourced twice: once to the BBC, once to the European Council on Foreign Relations. On 5 June added an 'unreliable source' tag to this, I assume relating to the ECFR source.

Yesterday, removed 'far right' entirely; this was reverted by another editor, as it is sourced content. I then removed the 'unreliable source' tag - it seems to me that the statement is clearly well-sourced by the BBC source, whatever one thinks of the ECFR source. restored the tag. Assuming their issue is with the ECFR source, I then removed both the source and the tag - there's no need to include a contentious source when a non-contentious one also exists.

This morning restored both the source and the tag.

This seems nonsensical - I'm fine with the source being there, or with it being removed; insisting that the source is included AND that it is tagged as a bad source makes no sense.

I've reverted this for now; please could participants discuss here rather than repeatedly removing content and reverting? TSP (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The anon is asking me to reach consensus on talk. I propose that we remove this source entirely. Any disagreement? TSP (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)