Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament/Archive 3

Standard group colors
See Archive 2 for the discussion.

Forza Europa
A question has arisen concerning Forza Europa (94-95)'s categorization. It is currently categorized as National conservative, and given the trajectory of its MEPs (commence in FE, then move to UFE, then move to EPP-ED) this seems reasonable. Forza Europa was the Group by which Forza Italia MEPs expressed their will in the European Parliament. However, I've been looking on the Talk:Forza Italia page and they characterize Forza Italia as a Christian Democrat party. Presumably, the Group's constitutive document (if they had one in the 90's) would have followed the party's principles, so it's reasonable to suppose that Forza Europa's complexion would have followed Forza Italia. So the question I wish to place to the community is:-

"Should Forza Europa be categorized as a National conservative or Christian Democrat group?"

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've just had a look at Forza Italia's entry in it.wikipedia (see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forza_Italia) and it's got it in the same category ("centro-destra") as Lega Nord and Alleanza Nazionale, so perhaps the categorization of Forza Europa as National conservative is actually correct after all. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And just when you think it's sorted out, Forza Italia are not just members of EPP-ED (the group), they're also members of EPP (the europarty). Which would make then Christian Democrats. Aaargh. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ..and their entry in the International Democrat Union has them as an associate member. Which would make them more likely to be Christian Democrats. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rightist parties tend to be CD in southern Europe me thinks, NatCons tend to be their northern 'partners'.- J Logan t: 13:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Close. I think the center right in central and southern europe is Christian Democrat, in eastern Europe it's National Conservative, in northern Europe it's Conservative: although that's a simplified picture with exceptions (Czech republic?) and don't hold me to it. The Wikipage for Forza Italia labels it as Liberal, liberal-conservative, Conservative and Christian democrat, all simultaneously - which may very well be true but isn't helpful to this specific question. So I've looked elsewhere on Wiki. From my (albeit brief) readup of Forza Italia, it's in EPP (the party), in EPP-ED (the group) and in the International Democrat Union. So categorizing it as center-right seems appropriate, and (given its current position in EU politics), specifically Christian Democrat. This conversation between User:Checco and User:Nightstallion consistently labels FI as center-right, and given that they seem to be experts on (respectively) Italian politics and politics generally, that seems to reinforce that categorization as Christian Democrat. So it looks like I'm going to have to categorize Forza Europa as Christian Democrat, and its Wiki colors are going to have to change. That means the following page entries for Forza Europa (not for any other group!) are going to have to be changed FROM #99FFFF  for the main and #DDFFFF  for the wash, TO #3399FF  for the main and #DDDDFF  for the wash.


 * Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament ✅
 * Template:EP94Results ✅
 * Image:PE1994e.png ✅
 * Template:European Parliament groups ✅
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1994 - Delegation at 19 July 1994 ✅
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1994 - Timeline ✅
 * Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament ✅


 * Everybody's really busy with the upcoming Italian elections and Kosovo at the moment, so I'll leave it 'til the weekend to implement these changes, in case there's a last-minute rush. I can do the pages, but I don't have the tech to change Image:PE1994e.png. Will you be available over the weekend to make the change to Image:PE1994e.png? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK I've done the above but, as mentioned, I don't have the tech to change Image:PE1994e.png. If somebody could change Image:PE1994e.png so that one (not both!) of the #99FFFF slices is changed to #3399FF, then that would be great. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for your work.- J Logan t: 12:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

European Parliament groups
At Template:European Parliament groups there is a long list of political groups of the European Parliament. Most of these articles are well-referenced but badly written. There is a lot of mistakes and they all need to be rewritten and wikified. Good work to all of you! --Checco (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also this article and especially the "History" section needs a lot of wikification. The article is full of references and this is ok, but they are put almost everywhere and not wikified, as also the "Sources" section is not. A lot of work ahead! --Checco (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for consensus
User:Checco has made many changes to this page and associated navbox. Whilst input from other Wikipedians on this subject is to be welcomed, the changes left the article inconsistent with itself, and with other articles. This is a symptom of a wider problem which will only get worse as the 2009 elections approach.: Europe is home to a multiplicity of political thought and many Wikpedians will hold sincerely held beliefs about how each group should be classified, but those beliefs may be contradictory because Europe lacks coherent pan-european terms ("conservative" means something different in Denmark to Germany, "liberal" means something different in Italy to the Baltic states, "right wing" means something different in the UK to Poland and to Italy). Whilst this is a manageable problem for member-state based articles on national parties, it can cause major problems with the groups (for example, Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty is characterised in its article as simply "right-wing" even though it was one of the furthest-right groups ever in the Parliament).

I will therefore revert User:Checco's changes temporarily and will request input from User:Checco and other interested parties in order to build a consensus.

I have compiled a table below of all the groups. The table incorporates some of User:Checco's changes. If you agree with the characterizations, then please add your vote in the vote column. If you disagree with any of the characterizations, then create a new row with your changed version and add your vote to that row. Once we have consensus I will implement the changes to this article and the associated articles, navboxes, hemicycles, templates et al.

Pages that have to be kept in sync with this article

 * Template:European Parliament groups
 * Template:EP79Results
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1979 - Delegation at 17 July 1979
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1979 - Electoral map at 17 July 1979
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1979 - Timeline
 * Template:EP84Results
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1984 - Delegation at 23 July 1984
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1984 - Timeline
 * Template:EP89Results
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1989 - Delegation at 25 July 1989
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1989 - Timeline
 * Template:EP94Results
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1994 - Delegation at 19 July 1994
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1994 - Timeline
 * Template:EP99Results
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1999 - Delegation at 20 July 1999
 * Template:European Parliament election, 1999 - Timeline
 * Template:EP04Results
 * Template:European Parliament election, 2004 - Delegation at 20 July 2004
 * Template:European Parliament election, 2004 - Timeline
 * Ep1979-2004.GIF (deprecated)
 * PE1979e.png
 * PE1984e.png
 * PE1989e.png
 * PE1994e.png
 * PE1999e.png
 * PE2004e.png
 * European Parliament election, 1979
 * European Parliament election, 1984
 * European Parliament election, 1989
 * European Parliament election, 1994
 * European Parliament election, 1999
 * European Parliament election, 2004

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
I reverted too your reversts because they responded only to your consensus. I did many changes to the article and to the template. These changes, although not completely agreed by Nightstallion, were supervised by him, who did not find big mistakes. You made the problem bigger. Opening a discussion about one or two groups is ok, but re-discussing everything seems to me an exaggeration. In fact there were bad mistakes in the article, the template and the related pages: problems with redirects, no wikification and so on. However I am here to discuss.

First of all I don't like colours in the template: they only make confusion. Second I explained how some of your classifications are wrong or at least not accepted by me. --Checco (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this discussion is structured, i don't know how the votes and comments in the table are to be structured. My points briefly: PES (and predecessors): 'Socialists', GUE/NGL as 'Communists and Leftwing Socialists', GUE predecessors 'Communists', ITS (and related) 'Nationalist'. Words do have different meanings in different contexts, i think its best to stick to the most neutral descriptions. --Soman (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. I think that my classifications (the current version of the article and the template) are neutral descriptions, but I would agree to cancel any classification. --Checco (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can not agree with "nationalist" for ITS and related groups -- they're far more to the right than that, it should be "far right" or "far right / fascist". — Nightstallion 10:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with C_mon's characterisation in all points. — Nightstallion 10:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd especially like to emphasise that I agree with C_mon that Forza Europa, UEN and so on should all be characterised the same -- they were all equally national conservative / nationalist. — Nightstallion 10:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All the members of ITS were definitely far right, but that's a political position not an ideology. Their ideology is "nationalist". Forza Europa was the European group of Forza Italia, a christian-democratic and liberal party, not national-conservative!! --Checco (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mair, Laver and Gallagher classify Forza Italia in the following way in their handbook on West-European Politics: "As with liberal and Christian-democratic families, there are several strands within conservatism in Western Europe. One important strand includes what we might think of as "national" conservatism, which marry a conservative socio-economic appeal with an emphasis on the pursuit of national interest. This strand includes the Independence Party in Ireland Fianna Fail in Ireland, the French Gaullists, and the British Conservatives. All four parties which also tend to be the most succesful in the family stress the importance of national shibboleths and all decry the "anti-national" character of class or sectional politics. The new Forza Italia in Italy (note the book was printed in 2001) might also be considered to belong to this group."
 * I'd say a conservative label for the lot of them. C mon (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's indredibly wrong to consider all those paries as national-conservative. In particular Forza Italia is basically the heir of Christian Democracy, the Italian Socialist Party and the Italian Liberal Party. --Checco (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaking "heir to a political tradition" with "party ideology". One example: the Dutch GreenLeft was founded by the Communist Party, a Socialist Party and two leftwing Christian parties. I would describe its ideology as Green, but not as Socialist/Lefwing Christian. The party is more secular and more liberal than most parties in the Netherlands.
 * Moreover you seem to think that the parts (factions, where party members came from) is determinate of the whole. The members of Forza Italia may have a broad ranging background, but they share a conservative ideology.
 * Finally I would like to ask you to provide references for your claim of FI's ideology as a whole? Because wikipedia is not about personal opinion but verifiable facts C mon (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Forza Italia is a christian-democratic and liberal party, although it has a strong and well-organized social-democratic faction. These are its official ideologies (see party official documents linked in Forza Italia article) and also the expoused ones. --Checco (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Forza Italia can be considered a conservative party from an European point of view as also German CDU can be, but, differently from CDU, Forza Italia is clearly more centrist and liberal. I know that outside Italy Italian parties are not completely understood, but Forza Italia, with all its peculiarities, is a christian-democratic and liberal party, liberal-conservative if you want. --Checco (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Forza Italia and Forza Europa are not easily classified, the party does not fit well into any established ideological fold. Nevertheless, i don't see why that should be a problem in this article. I think the current mentions of Forza Europa are satisfactory, in fact FE was a rather shortlived phenomenon that didn't make a lasting impact. The fact that FE merged into U for Europe, here classified as national conservative, does not change the characterization of the that group as such. --Soman (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The official documents linked in the FI article either don't exist any more or are not the documents supposedly linked too. But that's not the real problem. You want to classify FE as Christian-democrat, while the section you base it one specifically states that it is a liberal-democratic party and never says it is Christian-democratic. Your sources simply don't support your statement. C mon (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Liberal-democratic? Never said this. Forza Italia's contitution states that Forza Italia is a liberal and Catholic party. --Checco (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still don't see the main problem. At the moment Forza Europa is just mentioned briefly in the Christian Democratic/Conservative section. The naming of the section aside, that is the chapter on the mainstream rightwing and probably the best place to list FE. The article text at the moment does not enter into any detailed analysis of Forza Italia, and doesn't really need to do so. --Soman (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because you did not realize that Forza Europa = Forza Italia. Only MEPs of Forza Italia joined that group, execpt three of them who decided to sit with ELDR. --Checco (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I know that Italians like to state that Forza Italia is not national-conservative, virtually all political commentators and analysts outside of Italy disagree with that assertion (similar with AN and LN, BTW). — Nightstallion 17:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How can one define Forza Italia national-conservative? Actually Forza Italia opposes most of the typically national-conservative policies, notably statism and nationalism: Forza Italia is in fact a small-government federalist party. --Checco (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that virtually all political commentators and analysts regard Forza Italia as a personalist-conservative party, but, apart from C mon's book, I never heard one speaking about Forza Italia as a national-conservative party. --Checco (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree that FI is conservative. Can we settle for that? C mon (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?
My proposal of compromise is summarized in the template below. What you see in the template is exactly what you can read in the article. This is now very similar to the original Anameofmyveryown version of ten days ago and coherent with the template. I used the same categories Anameofmyveryown used in the article: article and template should have the same categories. --Checco (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Explanation: I accepted to list "Gaullist groups" with National Conservatives because until mid 1990s the souveraniste faction within RPR was strong and because it gives a clear idea about the succession of groups (UEN is defintely a continuation of Union for Europe, and also, in part, of the eurosceptic Independents for a Europe of Nations - which is a little problem). --Checco (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One question: how is possible to speak of political groups of the European Parliament predating the founding of the Parliament itself? That's non-sense for me... --Checco (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And what about this? --Checco (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alteration, with all the conservatives in one group. C mon (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we have three options:
 * my proposal: National conservatives on one side, Christian Democrats and Conservatives on the other
 * C mon's proposal: Conservatives on one side, Christian Democrats / EPP-ED on the other
 * three sections: 1) National-conservatives, 2) Conservatives and 3) Christian Democrats / EPP-ED

What's the best? --Checco (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd want to say third as they are all distinct yet I think that is a problem for the current EPP-ED alliance so the first I suppose. And on the above point about pre-dating Parliament - well that note in the key should be removed. It is misleading as it suggests there was no Parliament before 1958, the 1958 body was essentially the same as the 1952 Common Assembly - that is the true beginning of Parliament.- J Logan t: 19:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with JLogan -- we should differentiate between the national conservatives, the conservatives and the Christian democrats. I'm okay with putting Forza Europa in "conservative", though, as a compromise. — Nightstallion 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You two (JLo and Night) are essentially proposing this: C mon (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think so -- would that be okay with the rest of you? — Nightstallion 21:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I can live with that (black, azure, navy blue, light blue, gold, red, dark red, green, orange and two greys): it's colorable, so we can do maps, timelines and hemicycles that make sense. It perpetuates certain annoying wikimisconceptions, particularly the constant elision of the groups and the europarties, but that's inevitable (There was a court case where a secretary sued the group she used to work for but the group had changed its name, and the question of whether there is legal continuity between a group and its successor arose. For the avoidance of doubt: a group and the europarty that dominates it are legally separate: a bottle of wine is not the same as wine).


 * More serious is the use of "Nationalist" for ER, DR & ITS: it's doubtful that Gaullist Wikipedians will object (not enough of them) but there are many Regionalist Wikipedians who hate the term "Regionalist" (remember, they identify as representing a nation, not a region) and when they discover we're using the word "Nationalist" for fascist/neofascist/far right groups, they will be very upset and they will edit war. I understand from the above that some don't want to use the word "Fascist" so, in a spirit of compromise, would you accept "Far Right" or "Ultraconservative" or "Authoritarian" or "Totalitarian" or "Xenophobic"? These are the usual terms used to describe such groups without using the legally actionable F-word.


 * Similarly, the absence of the word "Socialist" as a category to include the Socialist group and the Party of European Socialists is problematic. I note above that some consider les Socialistes vraiment to be those who joined the further left groups and, although there is an element of truth in that, the contrainsistence that the Socialist Groups were always purely social democratic is too far from the truth to maintain. I note above that some don't want to use the word "Socialist": again, in a spirit of compromise, would you accept "Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats", since democratic socialism and socialism have their own separate articles.


 * On an associated note, the groups are oft-overlooked so it has been a pleasure seeing so many people take part in this debate. Thank you all for the work you have put in. If consensus is achieved (and it looks like it will) then maps can be redrawn, timelines redrafted, hemicycles rephotoshopped, and we will finally be able to write European Parliament election articles in which we can answer the questions "who took part?", "who won?" and "what were the results?" without having to go into convoluted explanations or endless disagreements. The Americans, Chinese, Russians, Indians and Australians have been able to do this for years, and it will be a pleasure to see Europe finally being able to do so.


 * Lastly, to answer the above question: the three major groups are down as predating the Parliament because that's what the sources say. The Socialist, Peoples and Liberal groups began when the Common Assembly started (there is a friendly debate about which was actually the first), and sources and the groups themselves state that the groups remained in existence when the Common Assembly became the Parliament in 1958 (I disagree, but I wouldn't like to argue it in court). You can get the details from the EPP-ED, PES (the group, not the party) and ALDE websites.


 * Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "Far Right" -- I have problems with the other designations, though; "xenophobic" is not really a political category, neither is "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" (usually used to describe political systems, not parties), and "ultraconservative" might be applied to some Republicans or very strong conservatives in democratic parties, as well... In this case, I'd prefer having "Far Right". Yes, I know it's a political position and not so much a political program, but I think in this case, this is the best term to use.
 * "Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists" sounds fine to me, actually, yeah. — Nightstallion 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right-wing populism? Got its own article, covers it quite nicely, includes the usual suspects (FN, BNP, Euronat, Die Republikaner), avoids the f-word. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On these two issues: far right and social-democrat. If it was up to me. C mon (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with "Far-Right" too. "Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists" balances out "Conservatives and Christian Democrats" quite nicely, and emphasises the historical trend of the Socialist Group absorbing the center-left parties pretty early on (70's) and the People's Group doing the same for the center-right during the 90's, leading to the latter eventually becoming the largest group. Since the Socialist Group is consistently referred to on Wikipedia as the "Socialist Group", its official European Parliament title is the "Socialist Group in the European Parliament", its website refers to itself as the "Socialist Group in the European Parliament", and is constantly referred to in the real world as the "Party of European Socialists", then not having the word "Socialist" in the category would be problematic. Incidentally, are you saying that the Socialist Group has been entirely social democratic since the nineteen-fifties? The category has to cover the period from 1953-present. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally dislike the option with three groups (National Conservatives, Conservatives and National Conservatives) and I prefer simply to differntiate National Conservatives from Conservatives and Christian Democrats. Why this? Because the template (and the article) should describe in the European Parliament: what happened is that Conservatives and Christian Democrats did come together and that a separate "national-conservative" group remained. I think that my proposal explains better the succession of different groups. This is definitely the most important point for me.

About what Anameofmyveryown writes I'm sorry to say that I disagree with almost everything he wrote. I could even accept "Neo-fascists", along with "Nationalists", anyway, although no party has ever declared itself as such, but not "Far right": that's a political position, not a political ideology. I personally dislike "Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists" becase it is too long. I would use simply "Social Democrats", but I can even accept "Social Democrats and Socialists": this is incorrect, but at least less long than the other proposed denomination.

I finally agree with J Logan that the note should be removed. --Checco (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Open issues
Let's see, there's four open issues now. I'd say we simply gather approval voting votes for now and see where we stand, okay?

Far right name

 * nationalists &mdash; Checco (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * far right &mdash; Nightstallion  09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Anameofmyveryown (talk)
 * right-wing populists &mdash; Nightstallion  09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Anameofmyveryown (talk)
 * neo-fascists &mdash; Anameofmyveryown (talk)
 * nationalists and neo-fascists &mdash; Checco (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Anameofmyveryown (talk)

Neo-fascism doesn't sound entirely right to me, as some of the parties are completely non-fascist but still far-right. — Nightstallion 09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Far right is a political position not a political ideology. I also fairly dislike "right-wing populism". "Nationalists" is more precise and correct because this is the only common characterization of all the group members. --Checco (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are nationalists which are not far-right, however. (As argued above, many regionalists and separatists are nationalist, but not far-right -- that's an important distinction.) — Nightstallion 10:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And in fact some members of these groups were not far right (the Italian Social Movement for example). Moreover no regionalist parties ever joined these groups. --Checco (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * MSI is definitely considered far-right by the rest of Europe (yes, I know, in Italy it isn't). And the fact that no non-far-right nationlists ever joined th rgoup is a VERY good reason why it should not be simply called "nationalists", as many nationalists are in EFA instead. — Nightstallion 10:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's use "Nationalists and Neo-fascists" then... --Checco (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree, as nationalism is not necessarily the same as far-right populism, which is the common denominator of the group. I'd prefer right-wing populism to nationalism -- the parties in the "national conservatives" and "regionalists" groups could just as well be labelled "nationalists", so we need to be clear. — Nightstallion 11:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I completely disagree... --Checco (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My preferred option would be "right-wing populists", since, um,...that's what they are. My second choice would be "far-right", since, um,...that's what they are. I would accept "nationalists and neo-fascists" as a compromise, but if I get hate mail from the Scottish National Party, Partitu di a Nazione Corsa, Fryske Nasjonale Partij or Bloque Nacionalista Galego, I'm forwarding it to you folks and you can explain why you think nationalism is the same as far-right/fascist/neofascist. You can sign without datestamping by using three tildes instead of four. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

PSE and related groups' name

 * social democrats &mdash; Checco (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * social democrats and socialists &mdash; Nightstallion  09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Anameofmyveryown (talk)
 * social democrats and democratic socialists &mdash; Nightstallion  09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Anameofmyveryown (talk)
 * socialists &mdash; Soman (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think socialism should be mentioned in some way, for a number of reasons already stated above. — Nightstallion 09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The terminology used is a bit different in northern and southern Europe, however in the pan-EU context, 'socialist' is the term used. --Soman (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm... I think that you are confusing the name of the parties, which are named "Socialist" in some countries, with their ideology, which is definitely social-democratic. --Checco (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be correct that PES in 2008 is exclusively social-democratic (but I wouldn't like to argue it in court). The problem arises when describing the Socialist Group in the 50's - 70's: saying that it was exclusively social democrat then is a different proposition (despite what the eurocommunists of the period might say). Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * These are two terms which are largely overlapping. I think the main importance here is not to use 'and', 'socialist' and 'social democrat' are not mutually exclusive. I suggest using either or, but I'd prefer 'socialist'. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could "Social Democrats and Socialists" be a good compromise for you? --Checco (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I could certainly live with that and would ask Soman to accept that, as well. — Nightstallion 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can live with that too. It does raise an issue with GUE/NGL, currently labeled as "Communist", as some of the parties within it would reject that label. My preferred option for PES would be "Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists", since that way we could use "Communist and Socialist" or "Communist and Far Left" for GUE/NGL. But, as a compromise, I'm OK with "Social Democrats and Socialists" for PES, tho' I do have to point out that using "Communist" for GUE/NGL causes problems - if I get hate mail from the Socialist Party (Netherlands), Left Party (Sweden), Socialist Alliance Party, I'm forwarding it to you folks and you can explain why you think socialism is the same as communism. But it might not cause a problem. You can sign without datestamping by using three tildes instead of four. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of having "Communists and Far Left" for GUE/NGL. — Nightstallion 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the same reasons of above I reject "far left" and I propose instead "Communists and Socialists" or "Communists and Eco-Socialists". --Checco (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair enough, either one would be okay for me. — Nightstallion 14:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be 'Communists and Leftwing Socialists'. 'Eco-Socialists' is a bit of neologism in this case. --Soman (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be said that Eco-socialism predates Euroscepticism as a coherent political force. They've been around for over ten years now. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Communists and Socialists" for GUE/NGL and "Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists" for PES? I could sell that to the respective parties and reduce the risk of an edit war. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me too. — Nightstallion 14:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservatives/Christian democrats structure

 * national conservatives / CD and conservatives &mdash; Nightstallion  09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Checco (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Anameofmyveryown (talk)
 * conservatives / CD and conservatives &mdash;
 * national conservatives / conservatives / CD and conservatives &mdash; Nightstallion  09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Anameofmyveryown (talk)

For me, the distinction between national conservatives and the others is most important, so I'd be okay with merging the conservatives and CD as long as the national conservatives are differentiated from them. — Nightstallion 09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Christian democrats and Conservatives did come together at some point, while National conservatives are still a separate group. The first option is the best because it clearly explains the succession of groups. --Checco (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, for now -- but as soon as Cameron gets out of EPP-ED and forms the MER, then there'll be a conservative group separate from the EPP again... We shouldn't be following recentism that much, IMO. — Nightstallion 10:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As Cameron's party has been member of EPP-ED since 1992 (16 years!), I would recommend to insert that new European conservative group within the CDs and Conservatives section in that case. --Checco (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover to distinguish only National conservatives from CDs/Conservatives also reflects the current structure of the article, designed by Anameofmyveryown. --Checco (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saying that once MER is established, we'll likely have to distinguish between CD and other conservatives again. — Nightstallion 10:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saying that, once MER is established (if it will be established), I would not distinguish between CDs and Conservatives because the former had been member of the same group for 16 years. I actually prefer the current structure of the article. --Checco (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, no, sorry. The MER will likely be far more eurosceptic than the EPP, so we'll have to distinguish between them then. — Nightstallion 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At that point, if that happens, we'll see what to do. However I disagree with you also on this point. Sorry. --Checco (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * MER is going to be a headache, with everybody arguing about whether it should be in the Euroskeptic column or in the Conservative column. Latest gossip is that it won't exist, but gossip doesn't count. Under the simplified structure of the current compromise (see above) we don't distinguish between purely Green, purely Regionalist, and mixed Green and Regionalist groups (so only one shade of green then). Similarly, if we don't distinguish between purely Conservative, purely Christian Democrat, and mixed Conservative and Christian Democrat, then on purely logistical grounds (so only two shades of blue required, one for the National Conservatives, another for the Conservative/Christian Democrats) that would help the creation of standard colors, maps, etc. So I would accept "Conservatives and Christian Democrats". You can sign without datestamping by using three tildes instead of four. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. Better to sign with datestamping anyway. --Checco (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant "use three tildes for the votes above". Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact I meant "sign with datestamping" for the votes above. --Checco (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Note "predates foundation"

 * keep —
 * remove — Nightstallion  09:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Checco (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC), Anameofmyveryown (talk)

As argued above -- not necessary. — Nightstallion 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote. --Checco (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As the one who put it in in the first place, I agree that it's unnecessary and should be removed. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues, number 2
Okay, let's see.


 * Centre-left: I suppose we can agree on "Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists" or "Social Democrats and Socialists" for the socialists?
 * Left-wing: And either "Communists and Socialists", "Communist and Eco-socialists" or "Communists and Left-wing Socialists" for the communists?
 * Right-wing: Could we possibly agree on "Right-wing Populists" for the far right parties? It's officially a political ideology and is much more precise than simply "nationalist", which could apply to many parties in EFA or AEN, as well.
 * Centre-right: I suppose we can go with "National Conservatives" + "Christian Democrats and Conservatives" for now, and we'll see what happens with MER when it happens?
 * Removal of note: Seems straightforward.

— Nightstallion 14:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on everything but "Right-wing Populists". --Checco (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what are we going to do with them, then? I absolutely can't accept "Nationalists" or any kind of "Nationalists and ...", as nationalism simply isn't precise enough to classify them... Any compromise ideas? — Nightstallion 15:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no possible compromise between me and you. I would accept any kind of "Nationalists and..." and that is just what you completely rule out. --Checco (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then we'll simply have to go with what the majority prefers, I suppose, if compromise isn't possible. Sorry, but I really can not see how we could label them "nationalists" when that applies to most parties in the European Free Alliance and nearly all parties in the Union for Europe of the Nations. — Nightstallion 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on everything. The usage of "Left-wing Socialists" sets my teeth on edge, but I wouldn't revert it. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even I dislike "Left-wing Socialists". Definitely. --Checco (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, we'll take "Eco-socialists" then. — Nightstallion 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Colours
On other issue I've just thought of -- we *do* agree that we want to bring the colours back so that people can more easily navigate the maps and charts and identify the groups with their colours, right? — Nightstallion 15:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I strongly disapprove colors, which is better not to use in templates like this. --Checco (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to include them, but let's see what the others say. — Nightstallion 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fleshed out proposal

 * PES group: "Social Democrats and Socialists"
 * GUE/NGL: "Communists and Eco-socialists"
 * EPP–ED: "Christian Democrats and Conservatives"
 * UEN: "National Conservatives"
 * ITS: "Far-right Nationalists"
 * Note: remove it
 * Colours: leave them out

— Nightstallion 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on everything. --Checco (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on everything. The colors are not necessary for the template - they are only there as a guide to the maps. User:Checco,User:Nightstallion, would you accept "Right-wing nationalists and populists" or "Far-right nationalists and populists"for ER/DR/ITS (note the piping)? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I could accept only "Far right nationalists", while I reject any use of the "populist"-word. Obviously that's just my opinion. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with "Far-right nationalists" and I think User:Nightstallion would also accept "Far-right nationalists" for ER/DR/ITS, since it addresses his concern to differentiate them from the nationalists in UEN & EFA. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope so. However, having read Nationalism, I find very difficult to classify any of these regionalist parties as "nationalist". We should not confuse party labels (most parties use "National" and not "Nationalist" anyway) with political ideologies. Nationalism is a very different thing from the ideology expoused by regionalist parties all over Europe. --Checco (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the Regionalists would not. Regionalists tend to identify as representing a nation and regard the term "Regionalist" as demeaning the nation for which they stand (see this for an example). Gotta go, I have to buy things. Will pick this up later. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They speak of themselves as "nations" but they still speak of "Europe of Regions". --Checco (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Far-right Nationalists" sounds okay to me as a compromise. — Nightstallion 17:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose the usage of the term 'Eco-Socialist'. As per 'Social Democrats and Socialists', you could write it as 'Social Democrats/Socialists' instead. --Soman (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you accept Ecosocialists as a compromise? Please? I think they have no problem self-identifying with that. — Nightstallion 22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are the ecosocialists? SP Netherlands, Left party Sweden, Die Linke etc., cannot be classified as 'ecosocialists'. A solution might be to just rename the grouping as 'Leftwing', which essentially is the only common identity of the GUE/NGL group. --Soman (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously eco-socialist is supposed to refer to the members of the NGLA in the GUE-NGL-group, the Left party in Sweden and the Finnish Left Alliance (and also nicely covers Synaspismos). But you are quite right if you use the terms communist and ecosocialist you would still not include The Left, Sinn Féin or the Socialist Party (I think those are the only problematic ones). C mon (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm not sure about finland, but the swedish party is not 'ecosocialist'. it is socialist and feminist, and is not more 'green' than the germans or dutch parties. --Soman (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to consider the vote below. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a sec
Just a sec. You are moving very fast. I agree on everything but the merger of the CD and the conservative groups. Although I am not very fond of the term eco-socialist either.

My main point: merging the conservative and Christian-democratic group labels implies that
 * 1) these two are the same, while there are huge differences between the CD and the conservatives, but there are large differences between them
 * 2) and moreover it makes it very hard to follow which group followed which because the different developments of two different groups is put into one category.

I think three categories for the centre right would be a lot preferable. C mon (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By "three categories for the center-right" I hope you mean 1) National Conservative, 2) Conservative and 3) Conservative and Christian Democrat. I can cope with that set up (three shades of blue). I can also cope with the simplified 1) National Conservative, and 2) Conservative and Christian Democrat, since that only involves two shades of blue. Anything else starts becoming unmappable. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to consider the vote below. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

State of play
We are currently presented with two alternatives.

This one:

and this one:

The two remaining issues are: Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Should the right-wing be split into three strands (1:National Conservatives, 2:Conservatives, 3:Conservatives and Christian Democrats) or two strands (1:National Conservatives, 2:Conservatives and Christian Democrats)
 * 2) The left wing should be denoted by "Communists and something" and "Social Democrats and something", but what those "something"s should be is under debate.


 * I would say two - "National Conservatives"; "Conservatives and CD". The three-state soultion, implies a greater split between the groups and parties than is really the case. I know this may open up a whole new debate, but "Communists and Far Left" is possibly as close to a dictionary definition as you'd require, I think there surely can be nothing too problematic with this, given that the "Far Left" in some references includes Communism. I think you don't need "something" after Social Democrats. Look at it this way - the titles are supposed to sum up the groups therin; the only common theme in the SD section is the phrase "Social Democrat", so why not just call it that?doktorb wordsdeeds 09:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going for three groups in the centre right. The reason is that with more differentiation it becomes easier to follow organizational links between the different developments in the Conservative and the Christian-Democratic Movement.
 * And I would say Communist and far left and Social-Democrats. Because 1) all the parties in the GUE-NGL are the most leftwing parties in their respective party systems and a plurality of them (7 out of 16) are communist. The PES is united around social-democracy. Giving "socialist" to either one of them would be unbalanced, because they both represent strands of socialism.
 * C mon (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to consider the vote below. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

EUL–NGL: far left?
I think that "eco-socialist" is the most precise definition we can find for NGL and I hope that all of you will have a second though about the issue.

I'm surprised that most of you accept "far left" for two reasons:
 * this is a political position not a politcal ideology;
 * some of those proposing "far left" disagreed with me when I classified Italian Rainbow Left as far left: this is very strange as EUL–NGL has the same ideology of Rainbow Left, even if it is probably more moderate than Rainbow Left. --Checco (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is all very simple. The parties which could be characterized as eco-socialists with GUE-NGL are very limited, moreover if we just use those two terms "communist & ecosocialist" several parties would be left out of the characterization. Of the 15 8 are communist, and only 3 are ecosocialist. - C mon (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Progressive Party of Working People Communist
 * Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia Communist
 * Left Alliance (eco)socialist
 * French Communist Party Communist
 * The Left Socialist
 * Communist Party of Greece Communist
 * Synaspismos (Eco)socialist
 * Sinn Féin Socialist/Republican
 * Communist Refoundation Party Communist
 * Party of Italian Communists Communist
 * Socialist Party Socialist
 * Portuguese Communist Party Communist
 * United Left (eco)communist
 * Left Party (eco)socialist
 * Left Bloc socialist


 * All parties from EUL are communist, all parties from NGL are eco-socialist. That's way we could define the group as "communist and eco-socialist". I would prefer anyway simply "communist". --Checco (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Communists and Leftists"? Matches "Liberals and Centrists". Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the using of the term 'ecosocialist' is a bit OR. Where is the source for labelling the Swedish or Spanish parties as '(eco)socialist'? Moreover, I agree that 'Communist and Leftists' is analogous to 'Liberals and Centrists', and would be an acceptable wording for me. --Soman (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we use simply "Communists and Socialists"? --Checco (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because nobody here is going to get exactly what they want, but everybody is going to get something. Calling GUE/NGL and its predecessors "Communists and Socialists" will cause problems with the consensual term "Social Democrats" used to describe the various Socialist groups (see below). The Socialists are split between the center-left tendency (who sit with PES) and the further-left tendency (who sit with GUE-NGL). Ascribing "Socialist" to either strand will require a similar assignment to the other, and we'll end up having to use phrases like "social democrats and democratic socialists" versus "communists and left-wing socialists" again. By not using the word "Socialist" in either strand, we prevent having to split hairs and reduce the chance of a Wikipedian supporter of a party assigning their party to the wrong strand because "they're the real socialists, not like the others". Additionally, I'm fairly sure the others will accept "Communists and Leftists" since it's not too far a stretch from "Communists and the Far Left". Additionally, the consensual phrase "Liberals and Centrists" to describe ALDE and its predecessors allows the use of the similar phrase "Communists and Leftists" to describe GUE/NGL and its predecessors. To summarize, "Communists and Leftists" is a good idea because a) people will accept it, b) it works with the other categories and c) it reduces the chance of an edit war. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the GUE/NGL website talks of itself and its predecessors as 'the non-Socialist left'. --Soman (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is interesting: I read thru the GUE/NGL website when I was looking for their constituent document, but I missed that. Thank you, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As even social democrats are leftits, I would use simply "communist" for EUL/NGL. --Checco (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As User:C mon points out above, parties in GUE/NGL that do not identify as Communist include The Left (Germany) (Socialist), Synaspismos (Ecosocialist), Sinn Féin (Socialist/Republican), Socialist Party (Netherlands) (Socialist), Left Party (Sweden) (ecosocialist) and Left Bloc (socialist). It is pointless creating a category that will be rejected by knowledgable editors. This discussion is intended to create categories that will be generally agreed and stable, which will enable us to write articles without having to spend time on coping with edit war. "Communists and Leftists" is a good idea because a) people will accept it, b) it works with the other categories and c) it reduces the chance of an edit war. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those parties indeed identify themselves as socialists (as also http://www.parties-and-elections.de classify them)!!! That's way the best solution would be "Communists and Socialists". "Leftist" is too generic and ldefinitely ess encyclopedic thatn "Socialist". --Checco (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that you are deriving your classifications in toto from http://www.parties-and-elections.de/contents.html: hence the contention that "Liberals and Centrists" is acceptable but "Communists and Leftists" is not, and the contention that the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (the parliamentary wing of the Party of European Socialists, who are members of Socialist International) contains no Socialists. I welcome your use of sources in a debate but I need to point out that Wolfram Nordsieck, the writer of http://www.parties-and-elections.de, is a lawyer (compare http://www.parties-and-elections.de/contents.html and http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://wolfram-nordsieck.de), and so may not meet the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source (given that he presumably does it in his spare time but is not subject to peer review, he may in fact be less reliable than us, who do it in our spare time and are subject to peer review). Although there is one thing I agree with him on: he refers to the strands using "/", so "conservatives/christian democrats" instead of "conservatives and christian democrats". I note that User:Soman has recommended this format previously, and I agree.


 * If you call the GUE/NGL strand "Communists and Socialists" and I get hate mail from the Bulgarian Socialist Party, French Socialist Party, the Greek Socialist Party (whose party president is also president of the Socialist International), the Hungarian Socialist Party, the Spanish Socialist Party and the Democratic Left (Italy), all of whom are full/associate members of PES, not GUE/NGL, then I'm forwarding it to you and you can tell them why they are not socialists/democratic socialists.


 * Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nordsieck is an expert of comparative politics and so tell me why the fact that he studied also history and law is problematic for you. I think that "socialist" is the most precise description, but, as you can see below, I agree on everything but those proposals containing "far left", which is a political position not a political ideology. --Checco (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You set up a straw man argument. I did not say that he had studied law and history. I did not say that the fact that he studied history and law is problematic for me. I said that a lawyer who runs a website (presumably in his spare time) may not meet the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source.


 * I don't have time to thoroughly check Nordsieck's website, so I gave it a quick 5-minute onceover. According to Nordsieck, the results of the 1994 EU elections were 215/150/54/44/31/31/28/24/20/19, total 626(see here). This would be difficult, since the number of seats in the 1994 elections were 567. The actual results were 199/148/59/43/37/24/22/14/13/8, total 567(see here), (before regrouping, June 13) and 198/157/43/28/27/27/26/23/19/19, total 567(see here), (after regrouping, July 19 constitutive session). Check the sources if you don't believe me. And that's what I found in the first 5 minutes.
 * I gotta go: will communicate further if time allows. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He is indeed right, as also your source tells us: he counted the MEPs of Austria, Finland and Sweden. --Checco (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be difficult for the source to count Austria, Finland and Sweden's MEPs in the 1994 elections because a) Austria, Finland and Sweden didn't hold EP elections in 1994, and b) Austria, Finland and Sweden weren't in the EU in 1994.


 * Nordsieck may have included the observers in the count, which would explain his numbers, but you know that's a misrepresentation: there weren't 626 MEPs in the EP in 1994.


 * Will pursue further if time permits, regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nordsieck's table is titled 1994/1996, a title which explains clearly that the table included the results of both 1994 and 1996. --Checco (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming we are referring to the same table then I have to point out that the table in  doesn't mention 1996, and neither does the link leading off it . Are we looking at the same source ?Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "leftist" is very difficult as well. Because it implies that the PES, EGP/EFA do not contain leftists, which they obviously do. All the member parties of the GUE/NGL and the GUE/NGL in the EP are furthest to the left, therefore "far left" is fitting. C mon (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that you agree with me. --Checco (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you do not agree with him (unless you've changed your mind concerning the suitability of "Far left"?) Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on everything but those proposals containing "far left", which is a political position not a political ideology. The only thing I can accept containing "far left" is "Far Leftists" or "Far-left Socialists". --Checco (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with "Communists and Far-leftists" or "Communists and Far-left Socialists". Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Chocco - I have a problem with "Far Leftists", because surely somebody who is an "ist" has to be a follower of a philosophy - socialist, communist and such. The term "far left" as I understand it takes into its wing those who may be to the left or gradual right of the larger Communist field without being a strict follower; or indeed being far more strict! To use "far leftist" seems to imply a woolly, general labelling, whereas "Far Left" is a fairly clear term for the group of people in and around Communism. I hope we can come to an agreement, for one I think we have shown a great maturity in coming to agreement on a lot of contentious issues. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, although I prefer "Communists", "Communists and Socialists" and "Communists and Eco-Socialists", I can agree on everything but "Far Left" or "Communists and Far Left" for a simple reason I stated above: far left is a political position not a political ideology. --Checco (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

2 or 3 on the centre right
No one has given an argument for making two groups or has rebuked my arguments in favour of three. Wikipedia is not a democracy, I would like to see some arguments before moving to two. C mon (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave my arguments above. --Checco (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to see the implications below (see here) on coloration of the number of strands. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Vote 2008-05-11
The two remaining issues are:
 * 1) Should the right-wing be split into three strands (1:National Conservatives, 2:Conservatives, 3:Conservatives and Christian Democrats) or two strands (1:National Conservatives, 2:Conservatives and Christian Democrats)
 * 2) The left wing should be denoted by "Communists and something" and "Social Democrats and something", but what those "something"s should be is under debate.

I've looked thru the above and listed all the suggestions (apols if missed any). Please cast your votes below:

Name of the GUE/NGL strand

 * It appears that the two options are "Leftists" or "Far Left". If the former is chosen, I have no major issues, although it does seem to have an implication of derision about it, as though those on the hard left are not quite a recognisible group. "Far Left" is clear, instant, but I can see the issue of an umbrella term being used for what is a significant part of the spectrum. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also slightly prefer "Far Left", as there's a difference between Leftists in general and the Far Left in particular. "Far Leftists" does not sound like really proper English to me, sorry; just 12,000 Google hits to "Far Left"'s million Google hits, so "Far Left" is the more proper term for this. — Nightstallion 05:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of strands for the right/center-right
I need to point out the impact of the number of strands on the colors.

If you think that the Conservative groups (C, ED, FE and probably MER) should be colored and the Christian Democrat/Conservatives&Christian Democrats groups (CD, EPP and EPP-ED) should be colored, then you should vote/have voted for a three strand solution for the Right/Center-right, since that would give us  for the Conservatives,  for the Christian Democrats/Conservatives&Christian Democrats and  for the National Conservatives.

If you think that the Conservative/Christian Democrat/Conservatives&Christian Democrats groups (C, ED, FE, probably MER, CD, EPP and EPP-ED) should be colored with one color (say for example), then you should vote/have voted for a two strand solution for the Right/Center-right, since that would give us  for the Conservatives/Christian Democrats/Conservatives&Christian Democrats and  for the National Conservatives.

I don't want somebody to vote for a strand and then object to the color schema implied by that strand. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor detail
It should be "and Allies", not "and allies", in my opinion. — Nightstallion 14:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? --Checco (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Manual of style regards if nowt else. Small case "a" tends to imply inferior status, capitals imply equality. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly: here we imply an "inferior status". --Checco (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting). I am aware of the Manual of Style issue regarding capitalization. However, "Communist and Allies Group" (note the singular "Communist"and the capital "A") was the formal name of the Group and therefore can and should be capitalized (see NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen for an example) without violating the MOS. The sources that state that the formal name of the communist group was "Communist and Allies Group" (capital "A", and "Communist" not "Communists") are the Italian Communist Party, the Council of Europe, The Official Journal, the European Parliament, the Archive of European Integration, academic sources, the MEPs who served under it and the Group itself. Further details are given below: you may check them yourselves if you wish.
 * Ok, it should be "and Allies". --Checco (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources for "Communist and Allies Group"

 * "Musica E Sistema Dell'informazione in Europa: Ricerca, Produzione, Consumo Milano", authors Partito Comunista Italiano, Istituto Gramsci, Luigi Pestalozza, Francesco Rampi and the Communist and Allies Group of the European Parliament, ISBN 8870618854 / 9788870618853 / 88-7061-885-4, Publisher UNICOPLI, link


 * "China and the European Economic Community: The New Connection" (1986), authors Harish Kapur, publisher Brill Archive, ISBN 9024732301. See the exchange on page 153 "...I call Mr Mascagni to speak on behalf of the Communist and Allies Group. Mr Mascagni. - (I) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Communist and Allies Group.." and on page 154 "...The Communist and Allies Group of the European Parliament, representing the vast popular, democratic and progressive forces in Europe, will strive to seize...", link


 * "European Union: Power and Policy-making" (2001), author Jeremy John Richardson, publisher Routledge, ISBN 0415221641, see page 125. Link is


 * "SECURITY AND ARMAMENTS: THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN RELATION TO THE WORK OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND EUROPEAN POLITICAL COOPERATION", (1985) author Directorate General for Research and Documentation, the General Secretariat of the European Parliament, accessed from the Pittsburgh Archive of European Integration. Link is


 * "RESOLUTION ON THE VIOLENCE AT THE FOOTBALL MATCH IN BRUSSELS ON 29 MAY 1985" (1985), author European Parliament and CERRETTI, BROK, LARIVE-GROENENDAAL, NEWENS, ARNDT, PLUMB, PAPAPIETRO, in the Official Journal (C 175, 15/07/1985 Page 211), accessed via Eur-Lex, link is at


 * "European Yearbook 1973" (1975) author Council of Europe Staff, Council of Europe/Conseil de L'Europe, see page 455. Published by Martinus Nijhoff, ISBN 9024717736. Link is

MEP profiles for "Communist and Allies Group"

 * European Parliament profile of Gustave ANSART
 * European Parliament profile of Tullia CARETTONI ROMAGNOLI
 * European Parliament profile of Altiero SPINELLI
 * European Parliament profile of Giorgio AMENDOLA
 * European Parliament profile of Dimitrios ADAMOU
 * European Parliament profile of Alexandros ALAVANOS
 * European Parliament profile of Paul VERGÈS
 * European Parliament profile of Vassilis EPHREMIDIS
 * European Parliament profile of Guido FANTI
 * European Parliament profile of Joaquim MIRANDA
 * European Parliament profile of René-Emile PIQUET
 * European Parliament profile of Konstantinos FILINIS
 * European Parliament profile of Danielle DE MARCH
 * European Parliament profile of Pancrazio DE PASQUALE
 * European Parliament profile of Angelo CAROSSINO
 * European Parliament profile of Sergio Camillo SEGRE
 * European Parliament profile of Maria Lisa CINCIARI RODANO
 * European Parliament profile of Giancarlo PAJETTA
 * European Parliament profile of Francescopaolo D'ANGELOSANTE
 * European Parliament profile of Pierre-Benjamin PRANCHÈRE
 * European Parliament profile of Carla BARBARELLA
 * European Parliament profile of Aldo BONACCINI
 * European Parliament profile of Louis BAILLOT
 * European Parliament profile of Georges MARCHAIS
 * European Parliament profile of Leonidas KYRKOS
 * European Parliament profile of Vera SQUARCIALUPI
 * European Parliament profile of Protogene VERONESI
 * European Parliament profile of Francis WURTZ
 * European Parliament profile of Natalino GATTI

Accordingly, I will move the relevant article back to its original location at "Communist and Allies Group (European Parliament)". When time permits, I will perform a similar exercise for the Liberals and Allies.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that such research is necessary. You're definitely right also on "Liberals and Allies". --Checco (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Three things

 * 1) I do not have access to a computer that I own and have to use those of others during the times which they permit. I will have good access to the Internet until approx 20:00 UTC May 12 2008, then limited/no access thereafter until approx 21:00 UTC May 18 2008. If consensus is achieved before approx 20:00 UTC May 12 2008 then I will be able to start implementation of those consensual changes across the multiple relevant templates/gifs/pngs/pages that have to be kept in sync with this article (see here), otherwise I cannot until after approx 21:00 UTC May 18 2008.
 * 2) As an interim measure, I have brought Template:European Parliament groups‎ into sync with the article AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS and implemented those changes for which we currently have consensus. This is without prejudice to any final consensus the community may come to.
 * 3) If you decide to go with the two-strand representation for the right (1:National Conservative, 2:Conservatives and Christian Democrats), then we'll have to decide which color to use for the Conservatives and Christian Democrats: we currently use three strands like this:
 * 1:Conservatives
 * 2:Christian Democrats/Conservatives and Christian Democrats and
 * 3:National Conservatives
 * For a two-strand solution I would suggest
 * 1:Conservatives and Christian Democrats
 * 2:National Conservatives
 * ...but you may disagree.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to toddle off now: will try to log in over the next week, but can't guarantee anything til I get back next Sunday. If no progress, on my return I'll try and get everything into some sort of shape that's at least consistent with itself. If you can't come to any consensus, you may wish to try dividing them on the left-right spectrum:




 * or dividing them geographically:




 * or dividing them by international organization:




 * Just suggestions. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose linking 'Euro-parties' in the listing. In the case of GUE/NGL, only five full members of GUE are full members of PEL. GUE/NGL is not the parliamentary wing of PEL. --Soman (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of interest, is there an international organisation that they are all/most members of? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, its actually quite heterogenous, and several parties fit in no clear international grouping. More details on the talk page on GUE/NGL. --Soman (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All three proposals are unacceptable for me. The current solution is the best and we need simply to find consensus on the last two or three things. --Checco (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. We just have to decide on the number of conservative strands and the name of the leftists, then we're good. — Nightstallion 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, these are alternatives offered as fallbacks in case consensus cannot be found on the existing structure. Generation of alternatives is an important part of consensus building, as it helps break logjams created in those situations where parties fall back on constantly repeating their position (a.k.a. "broken record" technique) and do not attempt to find common ground. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but these "alternatives" are far from consensus. --Checco (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A parachute is far from a plane, yet the wise pilot knows where his is. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good joke, bad "alternatives". --Checco (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Leftists issue
The viable options right now seem to be "Far Left" and "Leftists".

As I've stated above: I'd prefer "Far Left", as there's a difference between Leftists (which can include anything from the centre to the extreme left) in general and the Far Left in particular. As to Checco's proposal: "Far Leftists" does not sound like really proper English to me, sorry – just 12,000 Google hits to "Far Left"'s million Google hits, so "Far Left" is the more proper term for this.

Unless anyone has got very good reasons why we should not take "Communists and Far Left", I'd thus say we should take that as the most likely compromise solution. — Nightstallion 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record: Everyone but Checco and Soman stated above that he would like that option, so I'd like to hear from those to whether they would accept (or at least grudgingly tolerate) that solution. — Nightstallion 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that solution, but if the majority agrees I can't do anything against that. I am particularily disappointed because I don't understand how it is possible to classify GUE-NGL as "far left" and The Left – The Rainbow not. I can agree on any other solution: "Communists", "Communists and Left-wing Socialists", "Far left Socialists", etc. --Checco (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to try "Far-left Socialists", but I'm not sure what the others say. — Nightstallion 10:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be ok, but even if I don't agree with the final solution, I will respect the majority vote. --Checco (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar with me, I could grudgingly tolerate such a solution, and won't revert changes made in this direction. --Soman (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I'd say we have a final vote between those two options and see where we stand. — Nightstallion 10:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Communists and Far-left Socialists
 * 1) — Nightstallion  10:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Checco (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Communists and Far Left
 * 1) — Nightstallion 10:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) doktorb wordsdeeds 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) C mon (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

While the result is not too conclusive, I'd say this is slightly in favour of "Communists and Far Left", so we'll take that, I suppose...? However, this reopens the debate on whether we shouldn't simply label the far right parties "Far Right", if we're already using the analogous term for the far left...? — Nightstallion 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to C_mon above, the non-Communist members of GUE/NGL are
 * Left Alliance (Finland) (eco)socialist
 * The Left (Germany) Socialist
 * Synaspismos (Eco)socialist
 * Sinn Féin Socialist/Republican
 * Socialist Party (Netherlands) Socialist
 * Left Party (Sweden) (eco)socialist
 * Left Bloc socialist


 * Which description will upset them the least: "Communists/Far-left Socialists" or "Communists/Far-left"? As we're evenly split on the naming issue, and I suspect any further fine-tuning will be hair-splitting to the nth degree, we should choose the one that'll cause the least problems. I suspect that reopening the "far-right"/"far-right nationalists" debate will not be productive. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They would be upset by "Communists/Far-left", I guess! --Checco (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Evenly split? It is still 3 vs 4! (1 vs 2 if we take out those who voted twice). I think it is upto those who cast two votes to decide this issue by choosing sides. If I understand Nightstallion's comments correctly it would be 1 vs 3 already then. C mon (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To make things more decisive, I've made a split decision to support "Far Left". — Nightstallion 13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a shame not more people have not taken part in this discussion really. I underline my vote for Far Left doktorb wordsdeeds 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More people!? You don't hang around this article as much as I do: normally, you can stand in Main St. and watch the tumbleweed blow by. We've had, what, eight, nine, possibly even ten people involved: round here, that's a party... Joking aside, I find myself in a cleft stick: I agree with Checco that if only for the sake of consistency, it'd be better to have "Communists/Far-left Socialists". But, in the spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to live with "Communists/Far-left" and have struck my vote accordingly. Anybody want to wrap this up? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh take your point. It has been a great little discussion, mind, and I think we've got to a natural conclusion. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Last little thing
I hate to stop our final decision, but I've got one last issue -- as we have now agreed to use "Far Left", shouldn't we be using "Far Right" for the neo-fascists? Having "Far-right Nationalists" and "Far Left" in the same template looks very strange and incongruent to me... — Nightstallion 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. A good reason for not using "Communists and Far left" in my view! --Checco (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes...and no. I think the best way to look at it is - politics and political pursuasions are never going to be easily boxed and labelled. For all our best efforts, we have come up with names which work for one side, and work for the other, without using the complete standardisation we would all prefer. As a comprimise, it has been worked out within an inch of its life; things may even change post-2009. So not perfect, not standardised, but after so much discussion, I think the best we can do is "Far Left" and "Far-right Nationalists" doktorb wordsdeeds 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can live with both solutions (far right nationalist and far right and nationalist). C mon (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who else would be okay with using "Far Right and Nationalists"/"Nationalists and Far Right" instead of "Far-right Nationalists"? — Nightstallion 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, sorry, no - most far-rightists are nationalists, but not all nationalists are far-right. "Far-right nationalists" describes everybody in DR/ER/ITS and few outside it, but "Far-right and nationalists" describes everybody in DR/ER/ITS and many outside it (many nationalists are not far-right and those nationalists would not want to be associated with DR/ER/ITS). Please don't make me create another list of "people who will be upset if we go with that option": there are lots of nationalist parties (every country/region has one/several) and it'd be pretty depressing. I agree with User:Doktorbuk above: I'm not deliriously happy with "Communists/Far-Left" and "Far-Right Nationalists" but I can live with those categories.
 * On an associated point, when I implement the changes I'll use the "/" construction instead of the "and" construction - hence "Communists/Far-Left", "Social Democrats", "Liberals/Centrists", "Conservatives/Christian Democrats", "National Conservatives", "Far-Right Nationalists", "Greens/Regionalists", "Eurosceptics", "Non-Inscrits" and "Heterogeneous". User:Soman mentioned it above and so does Wolfram Nordsieck - ironic, given my low opinion of Nordsieck - and it'd avoid certain problems. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. — Nightstallion 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, what do you dislike about Nordsieck? — Nightstallion 21:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, why? --Checco (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

''(Note to readers). This thread then veered off-topic into a discussion about the suitability of Wolfram Nordsieck as a source. The subheading "Nordsieck" was accordingly inserted below under the "help both readers and participants understand the flow" clause of WP:REFACTOR so that the discussion about the "Communist/Far-Left" strand could continue. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)''

Nordsieck
''(Note to readers). The thread above veered off-topic into a discussion about the suitability of Wolfram Nordsieck as a source. The subheading "Nordsieck" was accordingly inserted above under the "help both readers and participants understand the flow" clause of WP:REFACTOR so that the discussion about Nordsieck would be separate. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * Whether Nordsieck is a respected political scientist or a lawyer (compare and ) who put together a website in his spare time is an interesting question - indeed, one may be both. But the question is not about Nordsieck the person, it's about his website, and his website has problems as follows:


 * {|class="wikitable sortable"

!Year !Total seats in the EP according to Nordsieck !Actual total seats in the EP !Comment (sources:, ) (sources:, , , , , ) (sources: ) (sources:, , , , , ) (sources:, ) (sources:, ,, ,,) (sources: ) or 625 (sources: ) (sources: ) or 567 (after elections) (sources:, , , , ,) (sources: ) or 625 (sources: ) (sources: ,,, , , , , , ) (sources: ) (sources:, ) or 788 (2004/05/05, immediately before elections) (sources:, ) or 732 (after elections) (sources: ,,, , , )
 * 1979
 * 434
 * 434
 *  410
 * So he got 1979 wrong...
 * 1984
 * 518
 * 518
 * 434
 * ...and he got 1984 wrong as well...
 * 1989
 * 518
 * 518
 * 518
 * ...although he did get the total for 1989 right...
 * 1994
 * 626
 * 626
 * 518 (before elections)
 * ...but no, he then got 1994 wrong, and he was inconsistent with himself...
 * 1999
 * 626
 * 626
 * 626
 * ...then he got the total right for 1999 on one page, but wrong on another...
 * 2004
 * 785
 * 785
 * 626 (2004/04/30)
 * ...and then he got 2004 wrong (although it was a complex year).
 * }


 * As is shown above, his website doesn't match other sources nor, in certain cases, itself. So regardless of his personal status, his website is not really useable for composition of the EP.


 * Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh, that does look rather embarassing... However, he does have very up-to-date news on party changes in Europe. ;) — Nightstallion 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Responding to User:Nightstallion's statements) The question of reliable sources on new party changes is interesting. Academic sources (via Google Books or Google Scholar) are to be preferred, but there is often a time-lag. The American anglophone news sources with an international reach (Time, IHT) may be adequate and give distance, but may not go into detail. I don't speak French or German well enough to gauge the suitability of Le Nouvel Observateur, L'Express, Le Point, Der Spiegel, et al. Anglophone broadcast news media with an international reach (CNN,BBC) may assist but may interpret in a way comprehensible to their domestic audience. National media will interpret parties along a left-right spectrum consistent with their own nations's concepts (witness user:Checco's honestly-held conviction that Forza Italia was not of the right) which may not match a pan-european internationalist perspective. Whether a single source can be regarded as scripture is doubtful: the approach I tend to adopt is to search for and obtain a multiplicity of consistent sources and cite them - that way at least I don't introduce inconsistencies and can divorce my own perspective from the writing process. As I have observed above, below and ad-nauseam, Nordsieck's figures are (at best) incorrectly labeled and compiled (see Checco's defense below) and their inconsistencies with themselves and other sources make me concerned as to their usability. I cannot judge his utility with respect to new parties, although I refer you to my remarks at the beginning of this paragraph. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Anameofmyveryon, you are rather embarassing on the issue: the data introduced by Nordsieck include the totals of members including the off-year elections. --Checco (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to User:Checco's statements as follows:
 * WP:NPA. Read it.
 * Explaining how Nordsieck got his figures wrong doesn't make his figures any less wrong. Including the Greece MEPs (Greece acceded 1981) in the 1979 figures doesn't make his 1979 figures right, it makes them wrong. Including the Spain/Portugal MEPs (Spain/Portugal acceded 1987) in the 1984 figures doesn't make his 1984 figures right, it makes them wrong. Including the Sweden/Austria/Finland MEPs (Sweden/Austria/Finland acceded 1995/96) in the 1994 figures doesn't make his 1994 figures right, it makes them wrong. Including the Bulgaria/Romania MEPs (Bulgaria/Romania acceded 2007) in the 2004 figures doesn't make his 2004 figures right, it makes them wrong.
 * Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it makes them more complete, precise and correct. --Checco (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See remarks above and below. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I don't see the mistake in Nordsieck's data. See http://www.parties-and-elections.de/eu2.html. --Checco (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is interesting. Compiling a timeline as follows:
 * 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC): diff
 * After spending some time I can ill-afford going thru Nordsieck's figures and finding their problems, I post a message on Wikipedia pointing them out. At that point, http://www.parties-and-elections.de/eu2.html is incorrectly labeled 1979,1984,1989,1994,1999,2004 (see here)
 * 13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC): diff
 * User:Checco relinks to that page, but now it is more correctly labeled 1979/81,1984/86,1989,1994/95,1999,2004/07 (see here).
 * That Nordsieck has corrected that page is, of course, to be welcomed (although I would still like to check the 84/86 label - would 84/87 be more correct?)
 * On an associated point, User:Checco, the fact that you have stated that Nordsieck was "a researcher at university"  and "studied history and law", two pieces of biographical data the origin of which I am not aware of, raises the possibility that you know him/are in contact with him. If that is the case, you may wish to inform him that a) if he doesn't want his site to be archived, he'll need to change robots.txt, although that will reduce the academic value of his site considerably, and b) I enjoy looking at his site, but a site map would be helpful, and a number-by-number sourcing of his figures would also be helpful, (since it's difficult to tell which of his figures he got from European Parliament, which from U. Ante, Wahlatlas Europa, and which from himself), and c) if he could come up with the logo for the Socialist group during the 70's (looked like an elongated double-track "S", if memory serves), then that would be good, and d) "completions" is spelt "completions", not "completitions". Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've since worked out where you got the "studied history and law" statement from. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since he appears to be reading these comments anyway:
 * Here in 1984 his entry on the Netherlands is wrong: D66 did not win any seats; a combined list of CPN, PSP and PPR called Groen Progressief Akkoord won two seats. The top candidate Bram van der Lek remained in the EP the full five years and the second seat was rotated between the CPN and the PPR. The whole delegation joined the Rainbow group. The CPN delegate did not join the Communist and Allies group. Moreover the SGP entered the elections with a common list with RPF and GPV. C mon (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover in the same year.,The VU did not join the RED but the RG. C mon (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When you say "he appears to be reading these comments" are you referring to Nordsieck himself? If he is, then that would explain why the site changed (I thought it was a cache not being updated). If Nordsieck is reading this (Guten Abend, Wolfram, und begrüßen nach Wikipedia) then I'd better moderate my tone and point out that compiling EP results is horrendously difficult, and even experts get it wrong (see this for examples of inconsistencies). It also has to be stated that he's a good source for the group logos (although see remarks about the Socialist logo above). Even so, I'm not sure that Nordsieck's current preferred solution (1979/81,1984/86,1989,1994/95,1999,2004/07) will be tenable: leaving aside the fact that even that solution is inaccurate (presenting 1981 figures as 1979/81 is misleading, presenting 1986 figures as 1984/86 is misleading, presenting 2007 figures as 2004/07 figures is misleading, and so on), the fact remains that group membership and the groups can vary widely over a given period. The only realistic solution to this problem is to state the composition of the EP on a specific day and, if he is reading this, it is a solution I would recommend (the day after the elections, and the day of the constitutive session after the elections are my favorites).
 * Incidentally, does Nordsieck have a wikiID? The only (other) instance I'm aware of of a compiler uploading his figures and persona to Wikipedia was when User:Electionworld moved his stuff from Electionworld.org to Wikipedia in toto. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and it appears he is reading this page (or is otherwise aware of it), as he has corrected the "completitions" spelling mistake mentioned above. Guten Tag und Danke, Herr Nordsieck. Möchten Sie sich als Mitglied der "Wikipedia" und werden Sie Mitglied bei uns?. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think that Nordsieck's website is the best and complete databes of electoral results in the web and that he's also a high-profile political parties' comparatist. If anyone of you dislike something of his website, why not sending him an e-mail? As far as I know in his website's home page there is written: "News, suggestions and corrections are always welcome.". --Checco (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no proof that Nordsieck is more than a hobbyist. Does he have a position at a University? Or a PhD in comparative politics? No, he is a lawyer who does this in his spare time (nothing wrong with that BTW), but that does not make him a "high-profile political parties' comparatist (sic)", because those people would actually be called Simon Hix (LSE), Christopher Lord (Reading) , Alan Ware (Oxford) , Peter Mair (EUI) , Michael Laver (NYU) , Ian Budge (University of Essex) , Hans-Dieter Klingemann (Free University Berlin) , Klaus von Beyme (University of Heidelberg) etc.
 * Any way this discussion is getting way off topic, so I think we should quit it or move it somewhere else. C mon (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, (and thanks for the names, BTW) and have refactored the discussion above, inserting the subheading "Nordsieck". Discussion can now return to the salient point of what the "Communist/Far-Left" strand should be called. Regards Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservative strands issue
It seems voting won't get us anywhere, so let's try discussing it instead. I'm not in principle against having a common category for CD&cons at the moment, but I'm not sure whether the non-CD part of EPP-ED won't split off in 2009 -- and if that happens, I'd be absolutely certain we'd have to split the categories in CD and cons separately, again... — Nightstallion 10:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I already said I am for a common "CD/Con" category and, as the British Conservatives had been part of EPP/EPP–ED for 16 years, even if they will split in 2009, I would definitely leave the new conservative group in the same category of EPP–ED. I don't think that there will be such split, but if it happens, the new group will be the continuation of ED, which had been in the same group with EPP since 1992: I don't see any reason for splitting the category in two. --Checco (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One simple reason: The EPP has always been europhile, and the new MER (or whatever it will be called) would definitely be eurosceptic. And that, in my opinion, is one of the single most important issues in European politics, especially in the EP. — Nightstallion 11:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If that happens, we will discuss. In any case I think that it is better to distinguish groups in the template by ideology not by their Europhile/Eurosceptic credentials. There will be definitely several changes in the European Parliament in 2009: UEN could be short of MEPs to form a group, as also IND/DEM, EDP could leave ALDE and join a group with PES... Let's discuss about these possible changes when they will happen, in 2009. I'm not sure about the formation of MER and I don't think that this is the time to speculate on it... Obviously that's just my opinion. --Checco (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right that all of that could happen -- but if UEN and/or I/D are disbanded, I'd bet good money that Cameron would pick up enough support to form MER.
 * Either way, I would be willing to accept two strands for now if we can agree to reopen the issue for discussion after the 2009 election without prejudice, i.e. without assuming we have to act from a status quo of NatCons / CD&Cons. Okay? — Nightstallion 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. --Checco (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify that: I meant that the definition of EPP vs MER would actually *BE* "CD/cons and europhile" vs "CD/cons and eurosceptic"; as you can see, even now we have a group whose ideology is euroscepticism, and that's unlikely to change in the next EP (though the name and complexion of the group will likely change). — Nightstallion 13:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that's because the parties forming IND/DEM have no other common ideology, as they rande from far right to far left, encompassing almost every single political ideology. --Checco (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but it [will also be/would also be] a way of separating the conservatives in EPP from the eurosceptic conservatives in MER. — Nightstallion 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) I can live with three strands, (natcons/cons/cons&cd). I can live with two (natconscons&cd). I would prefer three (less work redrawing maps), but can live with two. The only problem with two from my POV is what color do we use to describe the cons&cd strand, and what color(s) do we use to describe the groups within that strand (I'm itching to fill out the /meta/color thing for the groups). However, two does have its attractions (clearer maps and we don't have to split epp into pre- and post- 1992) From a conceptual point of view, the problem is EPP (group) and EPP-ED: it's broadly christian democrat, but it's been absorbing conservative groups (think of it as the center-right reunification) If we could say "it's a CD group" then everybody would be happy: the cons would be cons, the CDs would be CDs, and we wouldn't need this discussion. But EPP-ED is a hybrid: mostly CD, but with a vocal cons minority, which is why we have the Frankenstein "conservative&christiandemocrat" category. Categorizing by ideology causes problems like this, tho' i agree it's the best approach we have. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then we can close this issue with the result: two strands for now, but we will discuss this again should the group structure change after the 2009 elections. Agreed? — Nightstallion 12:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. C mon (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. --Checco (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)