Talk:Identity and Democracy

Is anti-immigration really needed?

European Conservatives and Reformists doesn't have it and a lot of parties in that EU group are anti-immigration. And every party bar Freedom and Direct Democracy and Conservative People's Party of Estonia in the ID group have no anti-immigration in their infoboxes (as its already denoted with right-wing populism). Plus those 2 parties have a discussion ongoing about reducing the amount of ideologies (especially EKRE). @Simonm223 ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

So what? This isn't those pages, this is this page, and this us a clearly anti-immigration party, reliably sourced as such. Simonm223 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm just bringing it up as the ECR is also an anti-immigration party, but doesn't have it listed within its infobox. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"Right wing to far right" vs. "Far right"

Just adding some context, since someone undid my edit labelling the grouping as "Far right". I&D contains only parties labelled "far right" and is regularly referred to by media from the left to the right as a far right group in the European Parliament. There are no sources that contradict it being in the far right purely; some refer it to being part of the right (which the far right obviously is). Sources that are vague on its status are from 2019 when this group had literally just been created. As it stands, labelling the group as "right wing to far right" rather than just "far right" is very misleading. Cayafas (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that refer to the party as simply right-wing. You need to get a consensus before removing this correctly cited content. I'll note your first reasoning was actually because the sources were, according to you, "very, very old" despite only being from 2019 (and now there are also sources from 2024). This on top of the fact that there are multiple sources for far-right from 2019, but you didn't remove them for being "very, very old". Helper201 (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The 2019 sources were from just after this thing was founded, when things were very unclear. Yes, that is very, very old in this political context. Moreover, the sources you added fell into two categories: 1. Sources that only vaguely referred to I&D as part of "the right". That includes pure far right groups, and so these sources don't actually support your point. The label "right wing to far right" suggests that here is a more moderate wing, and I see no evidence of that. 2. Sources that don't actually mention this at all, and therefore should be removed regardless.

Moreover, as I mentioned, all parties represented in this group are marked "far right". That is one of the things distinguishing I&D from ECR, which does include non-radical right wing parties or broad parties with a far right wing and a wing closer to the centre-right.

I'm a bit distraught you would turn this into an edit war. Are you sure you can't find yourself in this line of thinking? If not, can you provide sources clearly saying that I&D is a right wing to far right group - not just a far right one? Sources that don't just say it's part of "the right", which even fully far-right groups are? And are you sure you aren't letting your own political beliefs affect your judgment here?

I don't want to waste editor's time with a RfC, but as it stands I believe the label "right wing to far right" is misleading. Cayafas (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely disagree with 2019 being "very, very old", and there's no precedent for removing sources of this age on Wikipedia. And, as I said before, you didn't remove the 2019 sources calling the party "far-right", so that comes across as quite contradictory. As further sources that I have added show, there are still sources as recently as this year calling Identity and Democracy "right-wing". I added sources that explicitly call the party "right-wing", which are compliant with WP:SYNTH. There is no requirement beyond that. As long as the source explicitly calls Identity and Democracy right-wing and are reliable sources - which they are and do - then this can be added to the Wikipedia article. And no, my political views are not affecting this as I am not a supporter of the group. When it comes to parties in the group, most of them are actually defined on their respective page as "Right-wing to far-right", not purely as "far-right". Helper201 (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You do

n't seem to be arguing in good faith; you're not refuting my arguments, backing uy uour claims or responding to anything I'm actually saying, so I don't think this is going to be a productive conversationThe central point stands: if a source referd to a far right party as "right wing" or "on the right", that does not mean it actually has a moderate flank. The entire far right is "on the right". . If a third party could comment, that'd be very welcom Meanwhile I'll make sure there's no disinformation on election day. Cayafas (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC).o

It looks like nearly every source refers to the group as "far-right". I agree "right-wing to far-right" is misleading. BenjaminChadwick (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no sources that describe ID as "right-wing to far-right", there are only sources for "right-wing" and "far-right". Far-right already implies that it is on the far end of the right-wing, therefore right-wing is redundant. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

All right, with that consensus I'll change the infobox and the first paragraph (which now doesn't even mention "far right" at all anymore, just "eurosceptic"!). Sorry for the bad readability in my previous post by the way, my phone browser was acting up. Cayafas (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with adding only far-right. Hidolo (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus as Wikipedia is not a democracy. The opinions of editors don't get to override what seven reliable sources explicitly state, which flies in the face of WP:BALANCE and WP:NEUTRALITY. We go with what reliable sources say and plenty say right-wing. To omit this is deny balance and neutrality and favour opinion over cited content from reliable sources. Helper201 (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous position. None of those sources describe the party as right wing to far right. Moreover, WP:BALANCE and WP:NEUTRALITY don't forbid anyone from describing a far right group as far right. And yes, asking for a third party opinion was the correct way to resolve this conflict and to prevent an edit war per Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. I'm going to revert your unjustified censoring of this page. If you try to make it an edit war again, I don't think there's any recourse other than to escalate this with an RfC or the DRN. Cayafas (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"None of those sources describe the party as right wing to far right", so that permits the one you select but not the other (i.e. far-right but not right-wing)? There's also never been any consensus across a vast array of pages that we can't have more than one position. If you don't like the fact that the sources simply don't use the connective "to" then list both positions in a list format and don’t have “to”. Secondly, I'm not for a moment saying that having far-right should be forbidden, which is evidenced by the fact I have not removed far-right. I'm not censoring anything, ironically it is actually you who is doing that by removing well cited information. I'm not trying to remove anything but retain what numerous reliable sources state. Again, far-right has not been removed. Helper201 (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If none of the sources describe the party as "right wing to far right" they are irrelevant citations. They do not in fact back up the claim they are supposed to back up. These citations either do not mention the political colour of ID at all, or they describe it as "right", which includes the far right.

Let me make this crystal clear. ID is a far-right group. There are citations backing that up. There are no citations backing up the position that it is a broader group on the right, a "right-wing to far right" group. The sources you lean upon either don't mention this at all, they are sources from the very founding of this group (when its political position was not as clear as it is now and it is described very vaguely) or they just say it's "right-wing", which again, doesn't defend your point, because obviously every far right group is right wing. Neutral media consistently describe this group as far right.

I have tried to engage with you and create a consensus. I have already asked for third party comments to resolve this. Kind wikipedians @Vacant0 and @BenjaminChadwick have provided them. They agreed that there is no source backing up that this group is a broader right wing group. You keep reverting, and you keep holding on to sources that don't back up your claims. Your fellow wikipedians have repeatedly explained this to you.

If you can provide neutral, reliable sources that make this point - that ID is a broader right-wing coalition that isn't just far-right, then the label "right-wing to far right" would be justified, and me and the others would accept it. There don't seem to be any. I've been looking for it as well. As it is, provide new sources that actually back up your point, or stop reverting the edits to the page.

Cayafas (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've said there are sources for right-wing and for far-right, if you don't like that they don't say "right-wing to far-right" then list each position in a list format. They are thus clearly not "irrelevant citations" as there are sources that back up each of the two claims. Any other objections are just you putting your own criteria and requirements to sources and not a Wikipedia requirement. We go with what reliable sources explicitly state and plenty explicitly say right-wing. "or they describe it as "right", which includes the far right" this is your original reaserch and personal criteria you are applying. The far-right also includes the right if you want to take that route. It does not justify you to have one position that matches your opinion while excluding what reliable sources state. There is plenty of neutral media that describe it as right-wing, as I've demonstrated. There is a clear distinction that sources make as very few for example call National Rally right-wing in comparison to the enormous number that call it far-right, so simply the far-right label is justified in the case of National Rally. However, there are plenty of sources that explicitly call this group right-wing, so that is justified here, as well as far-right. Helper201 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, there are sources that describe ID both as right-wing and far-right (as well as radical right etc.). We could potentially include both positions in the infobox if there is due weight among scholars or experts that say that ID takes a broad position between these two positions, that on the spectrum it spans from the right-wing to far-right or something similar that would indicate that the ID is a broad grouping and that it is not entirely far-right. This, however, appears not to be the case with ID. If I'm wrong, someone could correct me and point out to scholarly sources that have identified ID as such.

I would discourage from edit warring and recommend someone uninvolved to weight their own opinion if the dispute continues (see WP:DRR), so that this could actually be settled down. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition! I agree. If there is due weight among experts that ID takes such a broad position, then the label "right wing to far right" is justified. I don't think this is the case, but would not mind being proven wrong.

If no consensus can be found, we might the next step in dispute resolution; that would be a pity, though, because it takes up volunteers' valuable time. Cayafas (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And definitely stop removing the phrase "far right" from the first paragraph of the page. There's absolutely no reason for that. Cayafas (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No mention of "far-right" in Ideology section?

Nearly every listed source mentions "far-right" right there in the headline, and yet the only use of the term is in the infobox - and even there, it's listed as "right-wing to far-right". Shouldn't it be mentioned in the Ideology section? This sentence strikes me as genuinely misleading: "Political commentators have variously described Identity and Democracy as nationalist, right-wing populist, anti-immigrant, and Eurosceptic". I would edit directly, but I don't want to trigger an edit war and it seems there's already some controversy around how to classify the group. What do people think? BenjaminChadwick (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You can be bold and add anything relevant in the ideology section if reliable sources back it up. If someone disagrees with the addition (with a clear reasoning in the edit summary, otherwise it is vandalism), discuss it here on the talk page and find a compromise if possible. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

End of group?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ID only having 2 remaining members (as a result of numerous defections to Orban's new group) mean they are set to lose official group status? Groups are required to have a minimum of 23 MEPs from at least 7 member states, so surely ID's membership being reduced to France/Italy means they can no longer continue? AxioChrono (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Once the EP gets constituted, they'll cease to exist if the membership stays unchanged (as it is right now). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

the group has been dissolved and merged into Patriots for Europe, the wiki pages for the EU political blocs and the ID group need to edited to reflect this. Several members of Patriots have said this is a continuation of ID, under a new brand/bloc

“According to our intention it will be a new party, with [a] new structure, more professional work and big impact,” said Balázs Orbán. He described the Patriots as a “whole new ecosystem in Brussels for patriotic forces.” -- Politico

A second ID official agreed: “There will be a totally new group, no rebranding exercise at all.”

But an ID MEP said: “We’re using the old vehicle,” and “It’s basically just a bigger group under a different name.”

It's clearly ID but larger, with the introduction of Fidesz led by Orban -- Identity and Democracy may as well be "dead" as a political bloc and Patriots for Europe is now taking its stead. Least as far as reports have confirmed.

https://www.politico.eu/article/marine-le-pen-national-rally-eu-parliament-far-right-patriots-for-europe/

Also no page for the new AfD group? Surely there must be sources confirming its existence. 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:E924:E768:E7BA:300F (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There is some text about the AfD group at 2024_European_Parliament_election#New_groups. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)