Talk:Identity and Democracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

PVV seat

User:Ec1801011, if something you write is controversial, you should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page. The planned seats allocation refers to the case in which Brexit had happened before the European election of 2019. Now since Brexit has not happened yet (and, by the way, is not at all certain that it will in fact happen, let alone this October), there is an official plan but there's no reason why we should add potential parties which probably will join the ID group in the Parliament, if the Council decides to keep the allocation established before the election. There are too many ifs and buts and I thing it makes no sense to add PVV to the table. By the way, this situation belongs to more than one of the cases listed in WP:CRYSTAL. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ec1801011 keeps reverting without bothering to reply to my points. Finally I decided to compromise: I moved the details about PVV membership into the text, and removed the entry from the table of members of the Parliamentary group. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The page for Ninth European Parliament has stated exactly what I have featured on this page and has not caused any issues, as of now the information I have included regarding the PVV is the official plan. I will say no more on this as you clearly keep ignoring what I am stating by immaturely reverting all my edits in this ridiculous and nonsensical crusade of yours. Stop making disruptive edits. Ec1801011 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finally replying! On Wikipedia we do not show predictions of possible future events per WP:CRYSTAL. PVV is not a member of the ID group at the moment, and it will only become one in case two things happen: 1) Brexit, 2) the EC decides on the post-Brexit apportionment of seats. When and if both things happen I will be happy to add PVV to this list. Until then, it makes no sense, also because in the text now it's specified that PVV would be part of the group. (And by the way, the immature person is the one insisting on putting content against other users and without participating in discussion!) --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The PVV is stated as a member on the page I linked. Ec1801011 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

PVV cannot be a member of a European Parliament group because it's not in the EP. Also, other Wikipedia pages are not a valid source. And by the way, nowhere in the article Ninth European Parliament it is stated that PVV is currently a member of the ID group (simply because it's not true!). --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Ritchie92, "MEPs post Brexit" column should be removed.--Facquis (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I would also agree as it is not consistent with other pages, the only reason I added it was so Ritchie92 would see that PVV is an affiliated member that will join Post-Brexit. Ec1801011 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of the sources, there is no need to add content in order to make a point to another user. My point, that you keep evading, is that there is no certainty at all that the PVV will ever join the group, and it shuold not belong to the table. The information that PVV might join is already present in the text, and that is enough. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There was never any certainty that any members would join prior to the first sitting of the EU parliament as ID was a new group without official membership details made fully public and yet they were listed because Wikipedia bases information from what is currently the reality, the reality then was that these members stated their intention to join and the reality now is that according to official EU Parliament plans the PVV will gain a seat in October and Geert Wilders has stated that this mep will sit with ID. The pages for European Conservatives and Reformists, Greens-European Free Alliance and Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats includes members who like the PVV do not currently have meps in parliament. This further shows that the PVV's inclusion is no way problematic.Ec1801011 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's discuss only here. PVV has not entered the EP yet! And nor it will, until Brexit happens. Even then, it will join only if the apportionment is confirmed. As far as I know this is not certain. Of the pages you list (and passing over the fact that other pages can also be wrong), European Conservatives and Reformists has only two Polish parties with zero members, but that's because their members ran with Law and Justice and are included there. So those parties actually are in the Parliament (unlike PVV). For the other two pages (Greens and S&D): here you're being dishonest, because those show many legislative terms in one single table, so obviously there might be parties that had MEPs in the past and today they don't. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No parties that were members of Identity and Democracy or Renew Europe had entered the Ninth parliament before they were included on their respective pages, this is because as of the information given at the time they were to join. The same justification is being used for the PVV. The official policy of the British government is that by October Brexit will happen, it is also the official plan of the EU parliament that once this happens the parliament will be recognised from 751 meps to 705 mps. This will still be the same ninth EU Parliament just reorganised and under this new reorganisation one mep from PVV will sit therefore the PVV should be included until this is no longer true. For example, the page for the EFDD included parties that at some point did not have any political representation in the Eighth EU parliament (Libertarian Party being an example). However they were still included in the infobox because at some point they have been represented. At some point according to the official plan the PVV will be represented. When it comes to the EU parliament nothing is assured as meps have been able to leave parliament, switch groups, switch parties and sit independently etc.

The example of the ECR is relevant as the party does not have any representation in parliament, the meps officially sit under Law and Justice and yet both parties are still affiliated members like how the PVV has no representation and yet is an affiliated member. The ECR's website states that both parties are members and yet have no representation. The inclusion of the Greens-Free and Socialists & Democrats is not dishonest, both pages show in the infobox parties with no mep political representation just like the PVV currently has no mep representation, the only difference being thse parties included have had past representation whislt the PVV will have future representation.Ec1801011 (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what the official position of the British government is, we can't speculate on uncertain future events. Brexit may not happen. Europe may fall into total climate chaos before October. An asteroid could hit Paris. We just don't know. As such, we should avoid speculating. Wikipedia is a past-looking document. It's an encyclopedia. It does not profess to predict future events, even ones we may believe to be certain. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

But this is not speculation it is the official plan. Is nobody here listening to what I'm saying.Ec1801011 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you just don't understand Wikipedia policy Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The "official plan" was to have Brexit in March I guess, but guess what? It did not happen even though it was official. PVV is part of EAPN as a European party, but this is the article about ID. At the moment PVV is not part of ID, because ID is a Parliamentary group and PVV is not in the Parliament, and neither will be at least until October (if everything goes according to "plans")! How difficult is this? --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Simply put, it doesn't matter how certain you as an editor are that an event will happen in the future in a certain manner. Wikipedia is mute on it. However, the second these seat numbers change in the real world, at that point this article can reflect those changed numbers. Simonm223 (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

References

European Party

In the table, EAPN is mentioned as a European party, but it is not officially recognized as one. On the contrary, the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom was recently renamed to the "Identity and Democracy Party", see their homepage. --Glentamara (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This article needs to be moved to "Identity and Democracy Group" and the name "Identity and Democracy" should be used to describe the European political party of that name. --Glentamara (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Politico

It's WP:BLUESKY that a nationalist party run by a far-right leader is a far-right party. It's not WP:SYNTH to source that to Politico. Furthermore, these deletions smell faintly of WP:POINT and they're very nearly WP:DISRUPT - please cease. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

No where in the source does it state that it is explicitly far-right, this Politico source https://www.politico.eu/article/parliament-groups-vow-to-stop-far-right-meps-chairing-committees/ should be used instead as it is more up to date and explicitly labels ID as far-right. Ec1801011 (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Since Ritchie92 has found another Politico source that is more explicit, I hope this will be the end of this matter. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What a coincidence that he "found" the exact article I just posted after I posted it. Ec1801011 (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Look at the timings at least before saying this, oh my God... And even if I was after you, what would be wrong with that? --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

EC - You realize I was posting that in (edit conflict) with your post where you mentioned it. Perhaps ease up on the WP:BATTLEGROUND a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ec1801011: We don't need to list all the sources in the world that state something reported on WP. We have already enough sources, let's not overdo this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I hastily came to a conclusion without checking times so I apologise, anyway if the pages for Identity and Democracy and Identity and Democracy Party are going to include so many sources stating they are far-right (8+ sources on both pages) why should they not include just as many that state they are right-wing. You may believe it is overdoing it however I believe it presents a more neutral stance. Ec1801011 (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the far-right is part of the right wing, you do realize that it's not like some sources calling them right wing precludes them being far-right, right? Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Simply because there aren't as many RS stating that it is only right-wing. This is overkill and, as Simonm223 was saying, it looks like you are doing it just to prove a point. In a nutshell: "When citing material in an article, it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones." --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What point am I trying to make? Why is it that whenever you two attack my edits you claim I am doing them maliciously, Identity and Democracy Group and Identity and Democracy Party both include far-right and more moderate right parties therefore I was just expressing my opinion that to be neutral there should be focus on both of them as ranging from "right-wing to far-right" as stated in their respected infoboxes. I feel like you two go out of your way to create issues with my edits as this has happened numerous times.Ec1801011 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Naw, I just like to make sure that Wikipedia reflects a neutral perspective and reliable sourcing with regard to right wing extremist groups. You know, since they're a major existential threat and since they devote vast resources to attempting to soften public perspective of them. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

So you are admitting that you are biased, you believe this group to be an extreme "existential threat", wow i'm amazed you're allowed to make edits toward subjects that you clearly are not neutral towards. Now I see why you have been reverting my edits and engaging in pointless debates over nothing. Somehow you believe i'm far-right troll tasked with "softening" public perspective. I'm just a random user who has an interest with current European politics lol.Ec1801011 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Every single editor has a POV. Every single editor should be aware of their POV. Every single editor should be honest about their POV and every single editor should strive for neutral content on Wikipedia. That's the principle I uphold as correct and the principle I try to live. I'm very open about my pov; my userpage lays out my opinions on a lot of matters in some great detail. And the neutrality of the project is my objective both in what I do in articles and talk pages and what I do on my userpage with notifications. However you can tell a right-wing extremist is lying because their mouth is moving. One of the preferred lies of the right-wing extremist is, "I'm a centrist." As a result, when we have sources that call a group far right, and weaker sources that call the same group right wing, we have to treat the "just right wing" claims with skepticism. Because we know that far right groups try to present themselves as if they were mainstream in a way that far left groups do not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I mostly edit on right-wing parties because I believe with the rise in right-wing groups Wikipedia should stay up to date. The fact remains that Identity and Democracy outside of English speaking news sources is more often described as "radical right" with a clear difference from the traditional "far-right". This is due to right-wing populist's public and ideological rhetoric being different to far-right groups such as Golden Dawn, National Democratic Party of Germany and other Neo-Nazi parties. These populist parties are described by political observers as more moderate and this should be noted with them described as "right-wing to far-right". Many of the sources use "far-right" as a buzzword for headlines anyway. Ec1801011 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ec1801011: You just described what point you're trying to make. The claim for "right-wing" is already sourced, and the claim for "far-right" is better sourced. We already report both in the infobox. Now enough of this, there's no need to gather all the possible sources on the web. Unless one finds new and better ones. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It's WP:OR for us to adjudicate whether a high quality reliable source called an organization far-right, radical right or right wing. We should only be assessing: is the source reliable? To what extent? And what did the source say? If a preponderance of sources say one thing, we go with that. If it's clear there's disagreement, we include statements from both positions, but we don't need to over-ref an infobox (and can I say again I detest infoboxes) to prove a WP:POINT. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Political Orientation

The template categorizes the group as "right-wing to far-right", but the article introduces it as exclusively "far-right". This needs to be fixed, either the group is clearly far-right, in which case it needs to be named as such in both instances, or it isn't clearly far right, in which case the opening paragraph has to also describe it as "right-wing to far-right" or just "right-wing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E8:73F5:F440:FD82:8A5D:6C69:9D31 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. I edited the page using references to fix the issue and got my edit reverted. Is there reasoning as to why the infobox says “right wing to far right” while the lead only says “far right”? Victor Salvini (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There are two sources for "right-wing". The first is an English-language post on a French-language website for an organization called EU-Logos Athéna. I do not know one way or the other if this is a reliable source, but either way this appears to be a relatively weak source for presenting this a definitive and exclusive trait. I will also note that sources cited by that link describe the group as "far-right", and nothing in that link contradicts or contextualizes this description.

The second source calls this group right-wing, but it also call this group "far-right":

However, it seems that the other groups are ready to apply the so-called cordon sanitaire against them to prevent the far-right group from taking key posts in the Parliament, a tactic that has been used in the past. Some socialist MEPs confirmed this and centre-right sources didn’t deny it.

Is is clear from this that the source is treating "right-wing" as a superset of "far-right". It is therefor more precise to simply use "far-right" per the many, many additional sources. We evaluate all sources in context, and in context it is clear that these sources do not consider this "right wing" in contrast to being "far-right".

I have therefor removed "right-wing" from the infobox. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

From the ideology section of the article:

“The group broadly lists its core priorities as creating jobs and growth, increasing security, stopping illegal immigration and fighting EU bureaucracy.[11] Political commentators have variously described Identity and Democracy as nationalist, right-wing populist and eurosceptic, although the group emphasises itself as sovereigntist as opposed to “anti-European.”[2]”

How does this qualify the party to be far right? If you ask me, listing it as far right only is UNDUE Victor Salvini (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually your reasoning sounds like WP:OR. You're deducing the fact that ID is "right-wing" (and not far-right) from a source stating what are the "priorities of the group" (?). That's not how sources are used (third-party sources should be preferred: self-descriptions are not valid sources) and in general not how WP works. PS: Also, from your username (which I guess is inspired by far-right politicians Viktor Orbán and Matteo Salvini) someone could think that you have a POV plan in mind about it, so if I were you I would double-check your own bias on the matter. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to explain what makes either of those politicians or this parliament group “far right”? I admit Orban can sometimes be borderline far right but other than that all 3 are right wing. (And FYI, with me, just because a source said something is something doesn’t make that something something else, I require to see logic and argumentation used to come to a conclusion). Victor Salvini (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources say ID is far-right, then that's what we write in the article. We don't report our own personal theories on WP, please read WP:OR. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also WP:NPOV , which I fear this article violates in only listing the party as “far right” while there are a great many people like me who would argue the party is right wing ( albeit with far right factions). Victor Salvini (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

there are a great many people like me who would argue the party is right wing nobody cares about the opinions of "many people", we only care about what reliable sources state, and present their statements in a WP:NPOV fashion. Also, please, try to use indentation when replying in talk pages. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A passing mention in something like Spiegel is not good enough to ascribe a position. Are they even called right wing in the Euractive source? I only seen a mention of a "cordon sanitaire against the nationalist group Identity and Democracy (ID)" by the EPP. And the Balkan Insight source... taking the right-wing, without the nationalists, out of the headlines will also not do. None of these sources should be good enough to call them "right-wing" in Wiki voice. When the sources call them right wing (mostly with the qualifier nationalist), if even that, they do so just in passing without any analyses in stories about somewhat unrelated things. Victor, you yourself have objected to the same thing in multiple articles recently. This should be no different than the 'ultranationalism' label of the AfD or Greek Solution. And by the way, the Spiegel is pretty much on the left, so by your own preference, better not use that source to describe something on the right. The sourcing does not seem adequate at all for the claim. In depth coverage about european right-wing politics that clearly includes ID or a tertiary source about ID that describes it as right-wing would do. This, will not. 2003:D6:2729:FF9F:81E3:D836:355E:F212 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

These sources are all taken from another wiki page about ID. Since grayfell and others insist on using passing mentions I am doing the same thing. They choose to ignore what I say about how the bias of the source should be looked at, therefore I will use what best fits mine regardless of their bias. I’m using these to describe the party as right wing the same way they use sources to describe it as far right. Victor Salvini (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, save your whataboutism. I did not ask about anyone or anything else. One of your sources even turns around and calls ID far-right in the very next paragrah and just nationalist before(the euratic one). I would invite others to comment on the matter though. Here you want it one way, when on other articles, like Finns Party, AfD or Greek Solution, you want to remove a label and you want it another. Which is it? 2003:D6:2729:FF9A:81E3:D836:355E:F212 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Victor Salvini is looking for a way to insert the "right-wing" adjective in the text at all costs. First of all, most of the sources that they added also mention the adjective "far-right" for the ID group in the text, meaning that they use the "right-wing" term as embedding "far-right" (as it's logical). So I think "far-right" is the most appropriate descriptor. It goes without saying that it would be better to have academic sources instead of news articles as sources (and those sources could change the situation). But also let me say this: we have well-established news sources like Reuters, Bloomberg, AP, The Guardian describing ID as "far-right", and the sources for "right-wing" are articles from EU-Logos, Euractiv, Balkan Insight which are of course very good sources, but I would not consider them as authoritative as the former ones. The Spiegel article is not about "right-wing" but actually "right-wing populism", which is an ideology not a position. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Each other the sources I used came from this page that is also about ID: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_and_Democracy_Party

Unless we’re going to go a to remove edits over there that have been in place for a very long time (enough I think to count as WP:ETERNITY,) then there should be an RfC.

Edit: I don’t know why it’s showing up as red, I know I saw it brought up at another discussion Victor Salvini (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Are those two articles (by which i mean this article and this one) about the exact same thing? The alliance of far-right nationalist parties in the EU parliament called ID? Or is there another national party with the same name? Don't those articles look like they should be merged? Or am i missing something here? Things surrounding the EU parliament, its parties, alliances, party groups and their names etc. can get a little confusing. 2003:D6:2729:FF9A:81E3:D836:355E:F212 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m an American, so I may just not know how EU politics works, but from what I understand they’re both identity and democracy (the EU party, not a national party with a similar name), and for some reason it’s split between two articles.

Also it’s right wing to far right smh Victor Salvini (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

As am i, at least half ;) But i suspect one article might be about the parliamentary group and the other article about the european party. Just that the articles are not very good and basically repeat eachothers information. I may be wrong though haha. 2003:D6:2729:FF9A:81E3:D836:355E:F212 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Neither this source nor this source mention Identity and Democracy, and both predates the formation of this group. Using these sources would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The other sources have already been discussed. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, your reversion message violates WP:AGF, you have no evidence of me practicing any “advocacy” or “whitewashing”. Secondly and again, all 4 of these sources (two of which do in fact mention ID and call it right wing) come from another article also about ID, and have been there for a long time. Unless you are going to revert very old edits there there is absolutely no reason for the same sources that call it right wing there not to be used here. Victor Salvini (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Spiegel source does not mention the group by name at all, that is a fact. Same for the Balkan Insight one. And the Euractiv (got that name wrong every time prior and just realised... lol) called them far-right in the same article. In an article about which parliamentary groups seek which positions. And the EU-logos article talks about right-wing populism as an ideology of the group primarily, in my opinion, but they do at least use the term in connection to the group. Is that enough to make such a claim in Wiki voice? Doubtful, no? 2003:D6:2729:FF9A:81E3:D836:355E:F212 (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Eu-logos called the party “a new right wing alliance” and uses the term “right wing” multiple times. The term also gets used in euractiv, who calls them “newly-formed right-wing group Identity and Democracy”. Victor Salvini (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a little bigger quote, all regarding this group, from euractiv "The newly-formed right-wing group Identity and Democracy (ID) picked two relevant committees chair – Agriculture (AGRI) and the Legal Affairs JURI committee.However, it seems that the other groups are ready to apply the so-called cordon sanitaire against them to prevent the far-right group from taking key posts in the Parliament, a tactic that has been used in the past." This is what you want to use to call them right-wing? 2003:D6:2729:FF9A:81E3:D836:355E:F212 (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

As a warm advice: if you don't even know what the article is about, as a general rule, do not intervene. Now, this article is about the political group in the European Parliament called Identity and Democracy. This group corresponds to an European political party, called Identity and Democracy Party (ID Party), which is the new name of the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom (MENF). A party is not the same thing as a political group in a Parliament, so there are two articles (the European-level party includes also national parties which are not represented in the Parliament, for example). Some of the sources in Identity and Democracy Party therefore refer to the MENF (the ancestor of ID Party), and that's why the Spiegel and so on do not mention ID. So those sources cannot be used for the ID parliamentary group (i.e. this article) which was born only in 2019 when the 9th European Parliament was formed (after the 2019 European Parliament election). --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, the group has only the parties represented in EU parliament, while the party also contains parties not represented in it? And this factors into why one is labeled “right wing to far right” while the other is just “far right”? Victor Salvini (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the fact that another article on Wikipedia states something does not mean that the rest of Wikipedia must adhere to that (see WP:OTHER): that might also be wrong. Keeping this in mind, the point is that the ID Party is the new name of the MENF, so some of the sources reported there are the ones valid for the MENF. These are obviously not going to be valid for the ID group: for that we can only use sources regarding the ID group, i.e. starting from after the election of the new Parliament. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I can agree with that. ID (the group) the the successor of this group ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Nations_and_Freedom ), which has sources listing it as “right wing”, does this mean those sources can be used here as sources about MENF were used for the ID party? Victor Salvini (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Victor Salvini: I suggest you to learn how to use internal links like this: Europe of Nations and Freedom instead of web links like you are doing. The obvious inexperience with basic things like this and the indentation makes me wonder if there is enough WP:COMPETENCE to edit on Wikipedia... Anyway. The ID group is a new group, it can be considered the successor of ENF, but it's a new construction. Instead the ID party and the MENF are the same thing, only renamed. And again, regardless of all (I'm tired of repeating this): the fact that something is written in some other article does not mean it's correct and should be applied everywhere else. Other articles can be wrong and are not a measure of good encyclopedic content. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

All Victor does is go around and remove labels from far-right parties and figures basically, often(always?) for OR reasons. Just look at his contribs for the constant whitewashing, often on spurious grounds, OR and their personal opinion. When is enough enough with the far-right pov pushing? I mean, there clearly is a pattern... And i had enough of it. Will not post here again unless there is any question directed at me. Have a good one everyone and happy editing. 2003:D6:2729:FF9A:FDA5:157F:5A04:910D (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"far-right" sounds more like left-wing smear

How about conservative? or patriotic? right-wing? Try to be more reasonable and objective.

80.131.48.107 (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"far-right"?? Really?

Come on, try to be more reasonable and less left-wing populistic. Try conservative right-wing.

62.226.83.95 (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Conservative People's Party of Estonia

Estonia appears blank in the map of Europe showing countries with parties that are members of this group, even though EKRE belongs to this group and it's on the Estonian Parliament.

To add to this, I noticed that Latvia does show in the map even though they don't have any party on this group, so that leads me to believe that whoever made that map confused Estonia with Latvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.237.192 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Corrected. Wykx (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)