Talk:New Ecological and Social People's Union

Independent Workers' Party
French Wikipedia'a article for the Independent Workers' Party says it has joined the coalition but provides no sources to back it up. Can anyone verify this before I add it to the members table? Charles Essie (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"Reactions" (POV section)
"Reactions" section reads more as "Criticism" (WP:CRITICISM) than "Reactions", which would necessite also positive and mixed ones. Of course, it would not be a problem if the coalition received overwhelmingly negative reactions, but this does not appear to be the case, as we say "the negotiations were hailed as historic by the left", before moving on to include only criticim. Compare it with the French version, which at least includes positive, mixed, and negative. Davide King (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Member parties
Is it necessary to have an incomplete list of member parties in the infobox when we have a better and complete list in the main body of the article? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Page title
The title of this page (and all subsequent references in English to the coalition's name) needs to change 'ecologic', which isn't an English word, to 'Ecological'. In addition, while I think there is a case for using People's Union because of the two meanings of Popular in English (of the people, and well liked, of which the latter is by far the most common use), note that most news outlets have gone for New Popular Ecological and Social Union as a translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.53.32 (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct translation of the name
The correct of the name is New Ecological, Social and People's Union, not New Ecologic and Social People's Union. It is not about "social people"; it is about "social union" (ecological union, social union, people's union. Strictly speaking it shoud be New People's, Ecological and Social Union to maintain the original word order, but that would look odd because of the apostrophe. One way around that would be to use popular instead of people's, but people's is the establish norm in the names of political parties. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The logo that we currently have in the article has the logical structure, in terms of colours, with (Union populaire) as a single unit. That suggests that both "écologique" and "sociale" are descriptions of ((Nouvelle Union) populaire), which seems to be grouped this way because of the capitalisation. This gives ((Nouvelle Union) populaire) (écologique et sociale) as the grammatical grouping, it seems to me. If it were a new union that were (1) popular, (2) ecological, and (3) social, with (1), (2), and (3) as independent characteristics, then grammatically, the French name should have been « Nouvelle Union populaire, écologique et sociale » – including a comma to make a list structure. So "New Ecological and Social People's Union" is consistent with the French original.In any case, time will tell if the New Ecological, Social and People's Union or the New Ecological and Social Popular Union or the New Popular Ecological and Social Union or the New Ecological, Social Popular Union will split from the New Ecological and Social People's Union. Boud (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Internal Hamas feud
The Social Democrats have suspended their membership within this alliance due to internal arguments failing to come to a coherent position regarding the current war between Israel and Hamas. 2003:DA:C72B:6300:6003:6165:74FA:288 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)