Talk:Europe of Sovereign Nations Group

Why is Republic Movement movement of Slovakia Listed as 1 MEP

I noticed that this page as well as many articles indicate that Republika only has 1 MEP. However, they won 2 in the 2024 EU Parliament elections. Is this possibly because of the expulsion of a member like in the case of AfD and Reconquete? OguHunter (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

One of their MEPs (Milan Mazurek) was barred from joining because he denied the Holocaust in 2019. Let's not forget that these guys are a split from the openly neo-nazi L'SNS 31.22.201.205 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

a secound AfD MEP (Petr Bystron) could also end up being expelled from ESN pending ongoing investigations that he took russian and chinese bribes. This would put pressure on them to get NIKI and SALF on board to avoid falling below the 23 MEPs threshold. 31.22.201.205 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology

Okay what should the ideology of this group be?

I think for position far-right (alone) is pretty uncontroversial. Zlad! (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

We should wait half a year at best, to make other additions to far-right or extreme right to the ideology, as we then have the knowledge of how they REALLY act DerEchteJoan (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed for the far-right descriptor, it is the most explicitly far-right group since the European Right (or the short-lived Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty). I’d just leave the ideology field blank to be honest; far-right is possibly an adequate and simple description.— Autospark (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The ideologies listed in the article are referenced and should remain as such. “Leaving for at least 6 months” “waiting to REALLY see” are not considerations as per the Edit Policy and would constitute WP:OR.

I see no reason to change the Ideology section. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 20:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would place the ideological descriptions (with references) in a separate Ideology section, to be honest.— Autospark (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a great Idea, as it does not overcrowd the box and explains these ideologies thoroughly DerEchteJoan (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sovereignistism should absolutely be included in the infobox, as it there are numerous third party sources, describing it that way. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The info box is a template and should be used as such to ensure consistency as per the WP:MOS, MOS:IBX. The info box headings should be used. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Then for now, there shall be one Ideology and that is confirmed: Sovereigntism. Any other ideology should be discussed further in here if that is alright. DerEchteJoan (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And Hard Euroscepticism or just Euroscepticism, as all parties are that way. FellowMellow (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is one source for Sovereigntism. [1] - FellowMellow (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It is an op-ed article, not a neutral news story, and honestly, I’m don’t think it is a reliable source in this particular case.— Autospark (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Russophilia is very common in the group. Mi Hazánk for example opposes any sanctions against Russia, wants closer economic cooperations with them, and has called upon Ukraine to give up territories and end the war. The AFD has just recently been in a Russia and China related scandal. Republika has also spoken out about the war in Ukraine in a very similar manner. Zemmour, the leader of Reconquête also called for France to distance itself from the United States and cooperate more closely with Russia. Russophilia, at least under "Fractions:" needs to be included. Mtlelas (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree to the inclusion of Russophilia, but not as factions and fractions (in my opinion). There is no party in this alliance, that hasn’t called for more cooperation with Russia. For Patriots of Europe, it makes sense to have factions, as there is a split on that, but ESN does not have it. - FellowMellow (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an established List of political ideologies on which the content of these info boxes should be drawn (as linked to in the info box template page Template:Infobox political party).

"Russophilia" is not listed in the political ideologies and as such, as per MOS, should not be included. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jo Jc Jo well in Patriots of Europe and other European parties, it was accepted inside the infobox. Why are they able to be included there, but not here? - FellowMellow (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct @FellowMellow, I agree it should not be included there either. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yet it is. @Jo Jc Jo, as there is consensus there. If you think it should not be included there, then I strongly suggest you indicate this in the Patriots talk page. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

We're going off topic here: inclusion elsewhere does not justify inclusion here.

I have rationalised my argument above clearly for why it should be here.

As per WP:CON, please address the points of the argument if you disagree. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you’re mistaken. We are not getting off topic. As long as there is consensus, on other talk pages, it doesn’t legitimize that it shouldn’t be on here. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not included in that list, but it is included in the ideology of several political parties all over the world. Russophilia is an important foreign policy platform. The list of ideologies needs to change, not thousands of pages using it. Mtlelas (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, one of the parties using it is ESN member Mi Hazánk. Mtlelas (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree with @Mtlelas.

it seems to be a 3-1 decision at the moment. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That's great but as per WP:CON, we achieve consensus through discussion not majority. Pease see Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT for further info on the consensus process. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What a silly comment this is. I am perfectly aware that it’s consensus. However, so far and most users did not agree with your option. It seems a bit that you are trying to ignore what other users think. Also, no reverts have been done. I strongly encourage you to pay more attention about what other users believe. @Autospark @Zlad! please weigh in also, as you both have also commented. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Russophilia is adequate. Zlad! (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jo Jc Jo We can not reach consensus if one person simply objects. Do you maybe have an idea for a compromise? Mtlelas (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! 4 people support this and 1 doesn’t. What is your proposal as a compromise? - FellowMellow (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mtlelas:. I think the concerns around MOS need to be addressed for its inclusion with fear of the Ideology box getting out of hand. If we start to branch out from the constraints of the agreed list then the concerns of the start of this thread (becoming messy) are more likely. If we include everything they dislike with a “phobia” suffix and everything they like with a “Philia” suffix what are the limits? I can think of 20 others we could add.

As a compromise I would propose finding the closest ideology from this list and including it and, assuming russophilia meets WP:NPV and WP:DUE then it should be included in the article body. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow skips right over me… definitely good consensus and talk. Very sad. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

But sure please do find the closest ideology possible. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And if @Jo Jc Jo can't find an ideology that is close enough, then in my opinion, the same consensus should be reached as on other pages where this was a contested issue. Mtlelas (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mtlelas: also, I propose the proponents of the inclusion post a reference for the claim here too. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 21:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are a couple: [2]https://rtl.hu/belfold/2022/03/03/oroszorszag-mi-hazank-karpatalja-toroczkai-laszlo-vlagyimir-putyin-ukrajna

[3]https://www.lakmusz.hu/putyin-haborus-propagandajat-viszi-magaval-a-parlamentbe-a-mi-hazank/

[4]https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/wie-russlandfreundlich-ist-die-afd,U9Satrx

[5]https://taz.de/AfD-und-Russland/!5911068/

[6]https://www.diepresse.com/18541649/eine-russophile-partei-aus-bulgarien-koennte-auch-zu-einem-problem-fuer-europa-werden

[7]https://cz.boell.org/en/2023/09/12/zahranicnopoliticka-agenda-v-programoch-strany-najviac-rozdeluje-pristup-k-moskve Mtlelas (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! They all appear to all be from before the creation of the EP group and do not make any reference to ESN. Including Russophilia on this basis would constitute original research. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 22:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty, I do not see why the ideology of the parties within the group, most if not all of whom are quite pro-Russian, should not count towards the overall ideology of the group. After all, they became a group because they agree with each others policies. But as long as the souce provided by @FellowMellow is accepted, fine by me. Mtlelas (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Mtlelas. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you too @FellowMellow Mtlelas (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Anytime! - FellowMellow (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mtlelas @Zlad! @Jo Jc Jo

Here is another one. [8].

"A collector of ultranationalist parties, hinged on the Germans of Alternative für Deutschland (who have half the membership), with Reconquête and Konfederacja." "Not even 48 hours after the birth of Patriots for Europe, yet another sovereignist far-right group has been formed in the European Parliament: “Europe of Sovereign Nations”, a collector of ultranationalist, eurosceptic, and pro-Russian parties led by the Germans of Alternative für Deutschland."

Here is another source, but ultranationalism also could have a place in the infobox, if agreed too. Or perhaps National Conservatism, if you prefer to go softer on what to use. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jo Jc Jo this one was written, as ESN was formed. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Then I think that's fine to use as the basis for the list (providing it's WP:RELIABLE?) ! Thanks FellowMellow. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome @Jo Jc Jo and thank you. So is it able to be added, along with ultranationalism? I don’t want to add anything without confirmation. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming the reliability of the source I think they should be listed as they are in the source. IE, Far-right, sovereignist, ultranationalist, eurosceptic, and pro-Russian. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 22:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I question the reliability and applicability of that source, given it is an an op-ed article, and refers to the component parties of the group rather than the group itself. Obviously the group contains unquestionably far-right parties, but we need to use reliable sources that explicitly describe the ESN group.— Autospark (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Russophilia definitely isn’t a defined political ideology (at a stretch it’s a foreign policy perspective, if that) 2. The eunews.it article currently cited doesn’t even include the term “Russophilia” in its text.— Autospark (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think for Russophilia to be adequate inclusion in the infobox it has to be a central idea of the party. Like with some pro-Russia Moldovan parties. Here I'm not sure it meets that criteria. Zlad! (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be right adding neo-fascism to fations. Much parties that take part of this group are describes as neo fascist. Democrático Slovak (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I have only seen the Slovak Republic Movement and the SPD be described that way. I would also say that a source is required, that is a third-party source, stating that this is a neo-fascist alliance. Do you have one? @Mtlelas @Jo Jc Jo please weigh in also. FellowMellow (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would not add it. I have seen two parties described as neo-fascist in this group, Republika and Our Homeland Movement. Both are indeed far right parties, but I'd argue they dont actively preach racial superiority, authoritarianism, or opposition to capitalism, which tend to be important for neo-fascist parties such as CasaPound. Mtlelas (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The AFD,[9] the Freedom and Direct Democracy (see it's page) and Revival[10] are also described as neo fascists parties. How ever, neofascism is not allways oposed to capitalism. Democrático Slovak (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It can justified have neo-fascist ideology in the factions. Democrático Slovak (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jo Jc Jo please weigh in. - FellowMellow (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective I don't think there's any need to rush to include neo-facism.

I think it's quite strong language to include unsourced and I don't think it's going to be long until there a reliable source describing the group in those terms anyway so once there is I think it can be added.

I'll be following this story in the Euro bubble press and I'll keep an eye out for it there. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 07:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is a source which call some members of the group neo-fascists.[11] Democrático Slovak (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Write a sentence in the lead about it. Zlad! (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Open a new parameter? Here si another one.[12] Democrático Slovak (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

No I'm saying write a few sentences about how the party has been accused of neo-fascism. Zlad! (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think
Factions:
Libertarianism
should be added. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly and unambiguously describe the ESN group as having libertarian factions?— Autospark (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, New Hope is a Libertarian Party. They're in IALP and they were founded, by arguably the most known polish libertarian Janusz Korwin-Mikke. 109.243.69.71 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Social conservatism can also be added, maybe under Factions: . Mtlelas (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly and unambiguously describe the ESN group as having social conservative factions?— Autospark (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

All parties seem socially conservative there, why the need for factions Zlad! (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

We’re not here to invent descriptions which aren’t based on reliable sources. Please learn how academic referencing works.— Autospark (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? I don't think social conservatism is that necessary for the ideology section even if there were sources as Ultranationalism seems to be a more apt descriptor. But I even more explicitly oppose including it in the ideology section as a faction as that would give people the impression that the group as a whole is socially liberal, but some factions are conservative which would be total bollocks. Zlad! (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology in Infobox Proposal

I propose listing no ideologies in the Ideology field of the Infobox, merely the Position of far-right. The group is composed of far-right parties, but is still relatively heterogeneous in terms of the identical slant of its member parties. Also, that would avoid inventing ideological descriptions and/or misreading journalistic sources which are available. Any ideological descriptions of the party should be left to a specific Ideology section of the article body, and if there are not enough reliable sources to yet justify an Ideology section, keep the descriptors in the article lede. This would be more accurate than a bloated Infobox full of inaccurately referenced sources.—Autospark (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Disagree

@Autospark: This is a duplicate of the above discussion topic- Ideology. Consensus has been reached around the ideologies to be included and consensus around some that should not be included. This was a compromise to find consensus (and it happens I agreed with you in that discuss).

Those that have been included have not been "Invented" and those that have been included have been done through compromise and after discussion. Again, see above.

Your argument to leave "ideology section to a specific Ideology section article body" also has no standing as the ideology box conforms with the MOS and is inline with the agreed Infobox parameters.

If you have specifically questioning the reliabilities of the sources used then this is a seperate matter that should, again, be discussed in the above thread.

I oppose your suggested edits. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 14:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I’d argue the single op-ed article currently used as the sole cited work is not a neutral, reliable source for those ideologies listed. (Yes, the component parties of the group are far-right, but reliable sources are needed which explicitly and unanimously describe the group as an entity as thus.)— Autospark (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Membership Map

This page should have a Map with its members. Can somebody make a map like that. I got some person to make a map for Patriots for Europe, It would be good if this page gets a map as well.Muaza Husni (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Just created one. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you DvcDeBlvngis for making one, have a nice day.Muaza Husni (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why Was SALF added to members and with 1MEP?

SALF has previously stated that they had no connection to AfD and instead wanted to join ECR or EPP but were being vetoed by the spanish conservative parties Vox and PP respectively. Now that Vox has left ECR its very likely theyll focus on joining ECR. Moreover, while early sources of information did list SALF as members soon after these claims were taken back. So why is SALF currently being added as one of the members, given only 1 MEP when SALF has 3, and finally if the 1 MEP had joined ENS would have 26 not 25 as listed. OguHunter (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

According to the EU results page, ENS was updated, but not with SALF as a member. – FellowMellow (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Number of MEP’s per party column

I think it should be added under the “Membership” section. It is standard procedure to include it for other groups like European People's Party Group or Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. 2A00:1110:234:A048:4DD5:6F3A:758A:A50F (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Russophilia as an Ideology or Faction?

There does not seem to be any basis to indicate that Reconquest or the People and Justice Union are russophilic, New Hope is avowedly anti-Russia like the rest of the Polish political spectrum, and the AfD's positions on this have been complicated and sometimes contradictory. It is undeniable that russophilia is a significant element within the party, however, like with Patriots for Europe, it should likely be placed as a faction. Does anyone disagree? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Fair point for the People and Justice Union and New Hope, but Reconquest, the AfD, Our Homeland, Revival, Republika, and Freedom and Direct Democracy all have Russian ties and pro-Russian policies. This means 4/25 MEPs are not pro-Russian, which is a small minority.

On top of that, in the source on which the "Ideology" part of the infobox is based, the group itself is described as russophilic. Russophilia is the mainstream opinion within the group.

Atlanticism, neutrality, or any other name under which New Hope's position can be described should at most be included under Faction, while Russophilia remains with the ideologies applying to the whole group. Mtlelas (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The referenced source (an op-ed on eunews.it neither uses the term “Russophilia” (or “russophilic”), nor claims that the group has any particular factions. We should not invent false information, but reflect what the referenced articles actually state.— Autospark (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Mtlelas. referenced source (an op-ed on eunews. It indeed does use a "consisting of pro-Russian parties" and one of the platform, the alliance advocates for is more Russia-friendly and more anti-Ukraine and anti-aid. Parties within have also called for the EU to relax sanctions against Russia. This is not false information or fabrication. Describing it as so, is not accurate. If users take issue with the source, @Mtlelas also had sources, that were provided. - FellowMellow (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are those sources if you wish to read up on them @Autospark

[13]https://rtl.hu/belfold/2022/03/03/oroszorszag-mi-hazank-karpatalja-toroczkai-laszlo-vlagyimir-putyin-ukrajna

[14]https://www.lakmusz.hu/putyin-haborus-propagandajat-viszi-magaval-a-parlamentbe-a-mi-hazank/

[15]https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/wie-russlandfreundlich-ist-die-afd,U9Satrx

[16]https://taz.de/AfD-und-Russland/!5911068/

[17]https://www.diepresse.com/18541649/eine-russophile-partei-aus-bulgarien-koennte-auch-zu-einem-problem-fuer-europa-werden

[18]https://cz.boell.org/en/2023/09/12/zahranicnopoliticka-agenda-v-programoch-strany-najviac-rozdeluje-pristup-k-moskve Mtlelas (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I can read only the German articles that you link to. The German language articles describe several component parties of ESN as pro-Russian in policy (which I would not and have never disputed), not the group itself: The articles were written months before this new EP group was even formed, and therefore do not mention even ESN. Again, we need sources that refer to the ESN group specifically, and "Russophilia" is not a political ideology.-- Autospark (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

In the source by @FellowMellow, the following is written: „Not even 48 hours after the birth of Patriots for Europe, yet another sovereignist far-right group has been formed in the European Parliament: “Europe of Sovereign Nations”, a collector of ultranationalist, eurosceptic, and pro-Russian parties led by the Germans of Alternative für Deutschland.“

The sources I linked to prove that Our Homeland, AfD, Revival and Republika are all pro russian. If you want me to, I can get sources for the other parties as well. But you can‘t just disregard a source because it was written a few months before the formation of the group, especially not when the position of the parties has not changed since then. What are the groups policies determined by, if not its members?

So the group was formed 2 days ago, has already been described as Russophile in one source, with nearly all of its constituent parties having held that label for years, and thats not enough evidence for you to have the label „russophilia“ included? Mtlelas (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, feel free to translate the articles. The one about Revival is also in german, and the one about Republika is available in english. Mtlelas (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah and one last thing: „We need sources that refer to the ESN group specifically“ As of right now, the number of articles on ESN is in the single digits. They have not put out any meaningful policy announcements, party programs or anything of the sort. Including Ultranationalism or Euroscepticism stands on just as a flimsy foundation as Russophilia does. Yet those ones are not problematic? Mtlelas (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

So how about a faction that is "russophobic?" JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You could say that a faction is Russophilic if said faction made up a minority, or small majority of the group. Russophiles currently make up 84% of the groups MEPs.

„Faction“ could only be used to describe the stance of the remaining 16%, or 4 MEPs. Mtlelas (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@JustAPoliticsNerd Well, if you think that the article should be filled with nonsense, then please go right ahead. How does it make any sense to add russophobic? Has any party called to support the dislike or fear or hatred of Russia, Russian people or Russian culture? No. - FellowMellow (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Russophobic is not the right word, sorry. I'm looking for an antonym of russophilic that would be reasonable. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh my bad for misunderstanding. My apologies. - FellowMellow (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally dont argue for the inclusion of „Faction:Russophobia“, rather against putting Russophilia under „Faction“. It is the mainstream opinion held within the group.

To bring up a similar example, the Left Alliance (Finland), a member of the The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, exhibits no eurosceptic views. Yet the group as a whole is described as soft eurosceptic, because that is the mainstream opinion within the group. I hope you understand my reasoning. Mtlelas (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize as well, I misunderstood the core of this discussion, and I over-argued the point I was trying to make. :| Mtlelas (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Of the 8 constituent parties, only 3 (Revival, Our Homeland Movement, and Republic Movement) have Russophilia listed on their ideology page, and of those three, only one, Our Homeland Movement, has a citation for it. As far as I can tell, all of the English language WP:RS (such as Euronews[19], Politico[20], and Reuters[21] describe the alliance either with zero mentions of Russia, or, at most, simply "pro-Russia". Multiple WP:RS have also described Angela Merkel and Gerhard Schröder as "pro-Russia" or "friendly to Russia", but neither the CDU nor the SPD has Russophilia mentioned in the ideology list, not even as a faction. If critique of Ukrainian aid or sanctions was all that was required to constitute Russophilia as guiding ideology, then why not include it on the Republican Party (United States)'s page? Adding Russophilia as a prominent ideology of the entire group is WP:OR, and adding it as a faction (as is done for the Patriots for Europe page, a group chaired by the National Rally, a party which Reuters states holds "...anti-immigration views and scepticism over support for Ukraine [which] differ little from the agenda of [the AfD]..."[22]) is a much better solution which relies on the actual sources rather than op-eds and original research. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I was about to agree with Mtelas on this, but the concerns around WP:OR are novel and valid, though maybe WP:SYNTH is a more specific expression of them. @Mtlelas, @Autospark and @FellowMellow, any comment? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but as a relatively new editor, I dont have extensive enough knowledge of the WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to address them. I hope someone more experienced will do so.

However, I would like to note that while the bulgarian revival‘s inclusion of russophilia has no source attached, one of the articles I provided does describe the party as russophilic as well. Same goes for the AfD in the articles I have linked. Eric Zemmour, the leader and founder of Reconquete, also repeatedly pleaded for distancing france from the US and closer ties to Russia. [23]https://atlantico.fr/article/decryptage/eric-zemmour-et-la-russie-vladimir-poutine-la-france-n-a-pas-dit-son-dernier-mot-moscou-guillaume-lagane

I admit that I dont know wikipedias policies on whether it can/should be included or not, but with the sources I provided, I believe not including it would be actively misinforming/disinforming the public. Mtlelas (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

If a source doesn’t mention the ESN group at all, and actually pre-dates the existence of the group, it should not be used to describe the group, end of. See WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH – en.wiki is an encyclopaedia, not a freeform blog. It works on rules and procedures.

(FWIW the German language sources that Mtlelas linked are probably fine for referencing in the articles of the individual parties mentioned in those sources. But nor this article, as those sources pre-date the ESN group’s existence and therefore don’t refer to it.)— Autospark (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The Euronews source [24] describes the group as such: “A friendly stance towards Russia is another recurring theme among the ESN members.” Again, numerous sources prove that the members of the group are russophilic, and this article also describes the whole group as such. I would assume you will have a problem with the exact wording. A news article written by a journalist is not a listicle of all the things the group is. Rhetorical devices will be used to describe their stances. As soon as their manifesto will be released, we can make a final decision about the removal. Until then, it should stay. Mtlelas (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a reliable enough source and a specific enough statement to make "russophilia" undeniable. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not describing the group's ideology, that's describing a stance (undefined) members of the group hold independently. As well, "a friendly stance" constituting political Russophilia as an ideology seems tenuous at best. Why not add Russophilia to the CDU's page for Nord Stream 2? There is a reason the AfD does not have Russophilia as an ideology, nor RN, nor most any of the parties in ESN as well as PfE (which has Russophilia listed as a faction ideology). For example, look at the recent Guardian Article[25] on the group, which describes only Revival as "pro-Kremlin" and does not mention Russophilia for any other party. Unless the group is explicitly and ideologically motivated with express advancements of Russian interest as a guiding ideological pole, it seems frivolous to include Russophilia as an ideological stance. The header exists for a reason, and the member groups' individual stances as parties can be listed, but until the manifesto, I see no reason to keep the inclusion because a negative cannot be proven. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright so let me use an analogy to signal how unusual your opposition seems: You are baking a cake. You have a tub of flour at home, plus some leftover gluten free baking powder. You finish your cake, and your celiac friend comes over.

He asks you „is this cake gluten free?“

you tell him „yes“ because none of the ingredients specifically said that they include gluten on them.

So he eats from the cake and gets sick.

It has been very widely reported on and understood that normal flour contains gluten. And flour is the main ingredient in a cake.

Every party in the group except new hope, freedom and direct democracy, and the people and justice union have been explicitly described as russophilic in the past. None of them have changed policy since the 2-3 months those specific articles came out. Just like flour doesn’t magically lose its gluten content. And a cake wont be gluten free because an article hasnt been released on that specific cake containing gluten. Mtlelas (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A political group is more than the sum of its parts, the same way the New Popular Front isn't an ideologically communist alliance despite having communists in the alliance. Again, of the 8 parties, 3 have Russophilia explicitly listed on their ideology page, and there is no sign of the alliance being formed with ideological Russophilia as a pillar. Should we add Ukrainophilia to the EPP just because they all are friendly to Ukraine? Saying that incorrect information will only be removed when the manifesto is released is NOT how Wikipedia works, you gather the reliable sources for a claim first, then add it, not add a claim and hope the reliable sources justify it being added. You are working entirely backwards to keep the inclusion of a label based on WP:SYNTH. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree with DDB as per above. This is Wikipedia, it’s meant to be an encyclopaedia, and therefor it uses verifiable, reliable sources as evidence. Not WP:SYNTH. We don’t use sources that don’t describe or mention the topic of the article in question. Also, an EP group is an entirely separate organisation and entity from its competent member parties, and articles on en.wiki have always treated them separately. These EP groups are variously heterogenous in composition and often alliances of convenience, particularly EP groups of the extreme right – see how historically few have lasted more than a single EP term. (Also, this goes to show why “far-right politics” should ideally be the only descriptor used in the Infobox.)— Autospark (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@FellowMellow Wrt to your reversions, I don't see how I'm disregarding the talk page with "edit warring" when I have been actively engaging with it, bringing multiple new sources to the article, and building consensus. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Building consensus is something completely different from what you were doing. There doesn’t seem like there is much agreement to what you are editing and you keep reverting it, which is leading towards edit warrring. - FellowMellow (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does the source use the term “Russophilia”? And if it does, how does it make it an ideology?— Autospark (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Color too similar to ECR?

The color we have given to ESN is very similar to that of ECR. Should we make the ESN color a bit darker maybe? Ccat3 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I used the parliament creator diagram to make sure the colors are not the same. PLATEL initially made colors that were completely close to Patriots and too light. ECR is a bit darker than this one of ESN. - FellowMellow (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

" Not every member of the party has joined the group."

Not every elected member to the EU Parliament? Is that what you mean? The party's article says it has 15 members in the parliament and 14 members in this political group. So is it literally just one member who is in another group? And if so, who is that and which group is this single member in? Flesh this note out a bit more. Criticalthinker (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I see it's literally just Krah. Maybe that should be stated explicitly in the note. Criticalthinker (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Radical Right

@Autospark, to clarify, the source cited for the term "radical right" is the same one as the one on the AfD page itself. I assumed that, as that page has had a longstanding consensus reached on the ideological box, that it would be alright to carry over here. The book itself also lists the other parties mentioned, or previous formations of them. The term itself is not a new one, of course, and helps to explain and clarify the exact meaning of "far-right" as it related to European politics, as specifying that these groups are willing to work within democratic systems is an important distinction (hence why the term exists in the first place). DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a misinterpretation: The source is actually a very good one for explaining the modern right-wing populist trend, particularly given its relative age. My point was that given the source pre-dates the ESN group by almost a decade, and by that fact doesn't mention the entity in its text, it shouldn't be used to describe the group. I am not doubting at all that the ESN group contains radical right-wing parties (that is unquestionable), merely that a source that isn't about the group shouldn't be used to describe it. I appreciate that there is still scant sources about the group, and all those current ones are of a journalistic rather than scholarly nature, but we need some level of quality control here.-- Autospark (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a fair point, would it be best to include radical right as a faction then, or would it be best to wait for more information on the group itself? DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait. We shouldn't invent information, or deliberately misinterpret existing information.-- Autospark (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, it absolutely wasn't my intent to come across as doing either of those. It seems like the biggest issue for a lot of disputes is just waiting on more information, either in form of a manifesto or a much more detailed writeup. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made a bit of a WP:BOLD edit removing the footnote because I feel it is more than safe to call it far right, and the infobox was a bit of a mess. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, the Infobox should just describe the party as "far-right", the only regular description of the group (and then only from journalistic sources). There has been a rush to prematurely describe the group in ideological terms using a range of sources which don't even mention the group, and pre-date its existence in some case by years. An encyclopaedia needs to reflect what is contained in reliable sources, not falsify them.-- Autospark (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Neo-fascist?

Libertarian has been removed because only two seats of 25, both from New Hope, can be considered libertarian. Neo-fascist can also only be considered true for two, one from Hnutie Republika and one from Mi Hazánk Mozgalom, both with some political experts contesting this description. Despite the insistence of some IP editors, one cannot classify "the majority" of these parties as neo-fascist, especially since the AfD, the largest party within the group, is most definitely not. Unless the Libertarian label should be restored and we take a more granular view of factions, neo-fascist should be removed. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not think so. All memeber parties have neo-fascist elements. Freedom and Direct Democracy, Mi Hazánk Mozgalom and Repúblika are widely describes as neo-fascists. The AfD si not widely described, but can be clasified as neo-fascist (some analists believe that). Also the AfD has a faction which can be legaly describe as fascist (Der Flügel). Neo-fascism is a large faction within The Sovereignists. Democrático Slovak (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that parties with neo-fascist elements are members of the ESN group (that is indisputable). However, we should not use references that do not explicitly describe ESN as containing neo-fascist elements or organised factions, or the group itself being neo-fascist. The article is about the group itself, not the component parties. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are to be avoided.-- Autospark (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The references talk about the European group and mention that they have neo-fascist parties. It seems to me that it is clear that what they mention is that there is a neo-fascist faction but with other words. Democrático Slovak (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

In addition to what Autospark has said, Der Flugel, while being on the hardline side of things, is not described as fascist, as far as I can tell. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is.[26] However, that is not related to the discussion. Democrático Slovak (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a New York Times opinion piece close to four years old. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not refering to the NYT note. In that article it has been mentioned that a judicial chamber says that the group is legally considered as a neo-fascist one. Democrático Slovak (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the article says. The article says that protestors can legally call Björn Höcke himself a fascist. That is all. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

He permanentley adds wrong sources to the page and wrong information can you do something about it? Ensyloium (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

<The User Democrático Slovak constantly vandalizes this page and others with false information even tough it was agreed in talks upon not adding certain information>

--Ensyloium (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore he uses sources which often don't prove anything and are just opinions of certain journalists Ensyloium (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I do. . . actually agree that there isn't quite enough sourcing to say neo-fascist as a faction. If you could find more sources for that claim, I would agree. This is not something that can be added lightly, though. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed the admin help request as it seemed to be messing up the indentation for the rest of this page. Sorry but full protection will have to do for the moment. In a day or two I will be able to investigate further. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected this article for a week due to the edit war. Editors who repeat changes without clear consensus on this page may be blocked. Please use this time to pursue dispute resolution. Feel free to ask questions in this section but do not discuss article content here. This follows a request at WP:RFPP. Semi-protection would not help as participants would not be affected. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox ideologies clean-up

The ideology parameter of the infobox contains too many items, including some that are not ideologies. I would remove "sovereigntism", that is little more than a neologism for "nationalism". Furthermore, I really do not understand the need to have "ultranationalism" and "ultraconservatism", when we could simply have "nationalism". "Euroscepticism" is not an ideology, but I understand that it is a strong character of this group. Surely "Russophilia" has to go, as it is not an ideology at all and I would not like to see "Atlanticism" elsewhere. Infoboxes should be short summaries of the articles! -- Checco (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with removing Russophilia given that 2 of the 8 member parties are openly anti-Russian, and only 3 parties are described as Russophile on their article pages. If needed, this can be moved to the article body. I am fine with nationalism or ultranationalism, with a preference for the former, since not all the members are 'ultra'.--Jay942942 (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

In the context of the EU I would consider Euroscepticism to be an ideological stance, and Sovereigntism is a more specific term than nationalism, which helps in defining the group's position. Otherwise, I agree, as long as the sources support it. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Euroscepticism stays. You failed to change the consensus. How sad! Zlad! (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Party Color

For distinguishability, it may be a good idea to use brown (the color increasingly commonly used by the European press) for this party, over blue, as there are already two other groupings that use blue (and one that uses a nearby dark purple). Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be erroneous to not use the group's color. Brown is not their color. One could argue that brown would be considered to be a customary color, but it would not be their primary one. As well, sources would have to be provided. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Official Platform

We now have the actual official platform of the ESN, as per their paperwork.[27] Should be useful for sorting the infobox ideological fuss. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

They also have it in English on their website: https://esn-party.eu/political-program Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposing semi-protection

Hi everyone,

I am proposing to semi-protect the following pages: The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, European Conservatives and Reformists Party, Renew Europe, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Europe of Sovereign Nations (party), Europe of Sovereign Nations Group, and Patriots for Europe. The same message is copy-pasted on all of the relevant talk pages, so that the merits of this proposal can be discussed for each of these pages.

My reasoning is the same for all pages: all of them have been the victim of recurring vandalism over the past few weeks, where (mostly) anonymous users change the ideology of the party/group without sources or discussion. Mostly, this is done to remove "far-right" (often when the ideology is "right-wing to far-right"), change "far-right" to "right-wing", remove "center-right" (when the ideology is "center to center-right"), change "center-right" to "center-left", or change "left-wing" to "far-left". These changes are often quickly reverted, but their continued occurrence is problematic. Semi-protecting the page would prevent anonymous users from making such edits.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of quality edits are made from registered accounts, which would not be affected by the semi-protection. This is particularly true since these pages are part of a rather niche group (European parties and parliamentary groups) that is very rarely edited by non-wikipedians. As a result, I do not think that the semi-protection would have a negative impact on the continued development of these pages.

Happy to discuss! Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's better to ask for a temporarily protection to all. It is not such big problem or persistent problem to discuss it. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the protection policy does require a discussion on the talk page before requesting the protection, regardless of the protection level. Just trying to follow the right procedure. And it has indeed been a notable problem. On this page it's been happening every day lately. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I didn't find a requirement for a discussion first. In fact, yesterday I requested protection of a page, and it was done almost immediately. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Turns out I did read that wrong. Still, I don't mind taking a minute to ask for people's input. Julius Schwarz (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)