Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament/Archive 1

different organization of historical groups

The view that the historic group list gives is, somewhat mistaken at several points. Most importantly in 1979 no Greens were elected into the EP at all (see here). It would be mistaken to claim that the group of independents is a predecessor of the greens. It may be better to discuss for each period which groups there were for each period, instead trying to show continuity, where sometimes there isn't. C mon 20:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, would be simpler, but there is continuity. If Nightstallion would kindly cite the paragraphs you can see form the source the development of the groups to the current form. Although it is a bit simplified. Also, @Nightstallion, I know you only have French names on that website, but for groups that exist now I think we know what the English names are! - J Logan ^t: 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, unagreed. If we were to go year by year it would get a tad confusing. It ought to be a list of groups. However we should just take about groups that no longer exist. For example, the Socialist group has been the same, just developed, no need to mention. We should talk about groups such as ED as an independent group and Forza Europa.- J Logan ^t: 20:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, can only comment briefly: am on wikibreak). I note with considerable interest that people are now working on this, since an understanding to the groups is necessary to an understanding on how the EP works. The current structure (listing the groups by complexion) will eventually break, since interests coalesce into groups and then separate. IMHO, you'll need to list each group as per the example below

Greens/European Free Alliance

• abbreviation: G-EFA
• full name: The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament
• created: July 20 1999
• dissolved: n/a
• chair: Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (The Greens practise co-presidency)
• No of MEPs: 42? as of January 1 2007
• complexion: Green, Regionalist

Do that for every group (current and historical), and the article will write itself. This approach also lends itself to infoboxes (another thing on my to-do list, sigh...)

Incidentally, I get the impression that the groupname "Technical Group of Independent Members" or "Group for the technical co-ordination of groups and the defence of independent members" is kind of a boilerplate name for groups (like calling a dog "dog"), since I think it's been used twice: once for the Greens' predecessor, once in 1999.

I looked into the subject of groups earlier in the year (before I ran out of time) and inserted some links onto the page which contain group details, past and present. Those links can be found via this diff. Hope that helps, regards, Anameofmyveryown 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I've been meaning to do infoboxes - something we need - however I wouldn't want to combine current and historical. Perhaps in terms of history we should actualy have a proper prose describing the changes throughout history, rather than blocks of "Socialists, changed name in x then again in x then again in x. Conservatives, change name in x, again in x, merged in x." which isn't very interesting. However current groups I think could do with a rejigging. Have a larger table with the above kind of information about chairs and MEPs. - J Logan ^t: 10:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Still to do

• Bring in Rule 29 (the procedural rule under which Groups are formed) Done
• Integrate detail from previous versions of the article, and add refs where required Done
• Clean up the sources
• Post 2004 developments? The rejection of Buttiglione was important - the first time the Parliament had overruled the national governments' wishes and the final confirmation of adversarial politics in the Parliament (didn't PES and G/EFA unite to overrule EPP-ED? Must check) Done
• Copy edit this... Done
• and other EU articles: the first language of many contributors isn't English, and sometimes it's apparent in the sentence structure: a more demotic/conversational style may suit.
• Now we've got a coherent Group structure, start updating the EP-wide election articles to match the 1999 article: finally we'll be able to get the EP-wide election articles in a standard format enabling comparison cross-years: SSolbergJ's insistence on preserving the national election articles will bear fruit here, since they'll act as a valuable bridge between JLogan's constituency election articles (which have to use the national parties, since that's what the electorate are familiar with) and the EP-wide election articles (which'll have to use the Groups, since any other apporoach will become lost in a sea of details).
• Start work on EU electoral map.

Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

applauds Great work! —Nightstallion 00:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fantastic work! I've added a few bits and I've put in the Buttiglione you just brought up.

What do you mean by electoral map though, the constituencies? Because yes we could really do one, and figure out the best way to present electoral data from them. I was trying out some ideas a while back but I couldn't come up with anything. Best I could come up with was to stick to to just two parties (PES and EPP) and indicate which one is the largest, showing the majority by a shade of their colour. The dot system like on the England maps is very hard to read and introducing third parties makes it way too complicated.

One thing though, we have election articles, constituency articles, group articles, apportionment, committees and so on, I think we could do with some over arching European Parliament template to connect everything -but it might clog up with the existing templates between parties and elections. Ideas? - J Logan ^t: 12:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Great work! C mon (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the above: I can live for two weeks on a good compliment <grin>. I was hoping nobody would notice the Python reference, and although it was correct to remove it (it is pov), the situation of an extreme-left group splitting into two very-similarly named groups, each with "United" in their name, made it completely irresistable. As for the rest, I'll have to take a rest from this for a while: there's only so long one can walk down the street muttering about the differences between EPP (the group), EPP (the party) and EPP-ED, before one realises that a break is required. J Logan poses two questions above, so let's address them.

• EP electoral map.

People like maps and graphs and hate tables and figures, so a map is a must. In first-past-the-post elections, all that is needed is to color each constituency with the victor's color, and Lo! the job is done. But the EP elections are proportional representation, so this won't do (I actually tried doing the UK map with each constituncy striped according to the numbers elected from each party, and what I ended up with is an unholy mess). So that won't do. Next I thought of columns, and while that worked (see this for an example, there is a risk that EU wide, the squares will be too small too see. There is also the thorny problem of generating the electoral map. I may be wrong, but the constituencies smaller than a nation state (the UK, Italian, French and Belgian ones) are the same size and shape as NUTS divisions. Why is this a problem? Because NUTS divisions are copyright the Geographic department of Eurostat, so one can't just copy down the Eurostat/Ramon maps and slap them on Commons, 'cos they're copyrighted. There is a loophole which I've just discovered: products of the European Environment Agency are public domain (bless them), and - yes - they do produce (a few) maps by NUTS divisions, so there is a legit public domain way of producing maps of the constituencies of the European Parliament. Yay!

You might be asking yourself why I just don't take the constituency maps produced by others and glue them together to make a EU map? The answer is projection. Eurostat works to a projection standard called ETRS89, and in most cases it's Lambert Azimuthal, a particularly awkward projection - awkward because it's impossible to take a map of one country and a map of another neighbouring country and glue them together (the edges don't fit: you don't believe me, just try!).

It occurs to me that instead of breaking my back trying to produce a map of all the constituencies (Ice Age glaciation made the coastlines of Scandinavia and Scotland so convoluted they're damn nearly fractal), a stylised map of colored squares approximating the continental area might be the better way to go (the classic example of such stylisation would be the Harry Beck Tube map, who also realised that it was not desirable to exactly reproduce the geography). So I'll see what I can produce with that.

The idea of displaying the results of the two main Groups is understandable, but I think (given time) I can produce some kind of map/diagram that'll enable comprehension of results by magnitude and geography, in a way that'll cover all strands and be comparable election-to-election. Of course after I do that, I will proceed to square a circle and bring peace on Earth.<grin>

The best diagram we have so far is the hemicycle/half-a-pie-chart, and while illustrative, they're famously lousy for multiple cases (look at any pie chart and ask yourself "who came seventh", and you'll see what I mean) and should never be represented in 3D. For the EP, which has never had a Group with a majority, they're particularly misleading since they give the impression that in certain Parliaments there was a majority left-wing (or right-wing) coalition, and (as the article clearly articulates), that's never happened. So I'll see if I can come up with something better.

• EP templates

I agree with the necessity of a solution, but I don't know what it is!

Kind Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to it, if you happen to discover if there is a god or, even more interesting: what is the meaning of Birmingham, do please say. On copyright... its just lines isn't it? The North West can't be under copyright! What if they did establish the regional assembly, would they have had to pay to mark the border? And Belgium is on their federal lines, does Wallonia have to get permission to exist? Mad I say! Sod em, we can draw our own lines! - J Logan ^t: 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a trivial point: the concept of the North-West or Wallonia is not copyrightable, but the exact administrative borders are laid down by public bodies and they can and do copyright them. Eurostat do it, Ordnance Survey do it (Crown copyright). US Federal Government don't do it: but they don't run Europe. You could (and I would) argue in court that constituency borders are public domain, but I need to convince the folks at Commons that any map I produce is GFDL, so I have to be careful. Kind Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

But what about the existing constituency maps showing the French, English etc constituencies? We already have them.- J Logan ^t: 11:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

They do indeed: the France ones are here, the Ireland ones are here, the Italy ones are here, the England ones are here, the Belgium ones are here. So all one needs to do is add them to an EU map, and all will be well, right? Wrong. All those maps are (at a guess) either Mercator or equidistant cylindrical projection, so in both cases North-South is a vertical straight line and East-West is a horizontal straight line. All the EU maps we currently have on Wiki or Commons are (again, at a guess) Lambert Azimuthal projection, so North-South and East-West are only straight lines at the center (and of course the center changed as EU-15 became EU-25 became EU-27), and everywhere else has quite pronounced curves. So to fit the smaller map into the bigger maps will require rotation and distortion to make them fit: a linear transformation will not be sufficient. Now, if I had my own PC and vector graphics software, that would be relatively straightforward, but I'm doing this on somebody else's PC (I know, I'm whining), so it's slow and tedious.

One can proceed as follows:

• Mercator/Equidistant Cylindrical - One can produce a public-domain equidistant cylindrical map of the EU via this site, or use an existing Mercator map (such as this one) and fit the above maps into it to make a blank constituency map. This approach is totally legitimate.
• Lambert Azimuthal/Lambert Conformal - One can exploit the public-domain EEA loophole, get a NUTS map from there (such as this one or this one or this one), perhaps combine it with an existing PD map (like this one or this one), and create a blank constituency map. Commons has adopted the "EEA maps are public domain" line (see this for the tag and this for other cases where this has happened) so this approach is arguably legitimate.
• Any - One can just give up and contact the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Cartographers, tell them the problem, and ask them to build a map. This approach is totally legitimate.

Either way will work, but my goal is to harmonise the EP-wide election wikisites (which is why I spent so much time on the Groups in the first place), so the maps are a second-order priority at the moment. I will attempt one, but it won't be for sometime. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, so you were working on the assumption of copying the lines exactly? Well I was just meaning drawing new ones. I.e. make mess myself or get help from the Cartographers or SSJ who has done some fantastic work already.

On a general note though, I was wanting to sort out the election articles at some point so I'll help out if needs be, still trying to see exactly what you're doing so I don't mess up the standard. But I was thinking a while back we could do with an organised effort on the election/parliament topics ahead of the next elections so the update effort them runs smoothly - i.e. maybe establish a taskforce to co-ordinate work. What do you think? - J Logan ^t: 12:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea -- after all, getting official and final results from twenty-seven member states won't be too easy... Still, we'll have about two years to prepare for it. ;) —Nightstallion 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the above. To address the points you make:

• The task force

I agree with the necessity for one and would be keen to join. However, (excuse the whining) I do not have on-demand internet access and any access I do have is sporadic, unreliable, and not under my control. For that reason, I would prefer to stick to the EU-wide European Parliament election articles (the EU-wide ones, not the member state/constituency ones) for the time being, since that is a target I can hit given my available time. I hope to resolve this situation by Spring/Summer 2008, so I hope to be able to give your proposed task force my full attention after that date.

• The map

I seem to have gotten so involved in my (self-imposed) task of getting a map of the NUTS regions (they're so handy - apolitical, cover the whole EU, they follow the population, have very few exclaves/enclaves) that I have overcomplicated the constituency map issue. The NUTS map issue is complex, but the constituency map is not. As I said above, I will attempt one, but it won't be for sometime.

• The 2009 election and results

We might have to reconcile ourselves to the probability of contradictory sources, both for EU-wide and national results, and the inevitable differences between election results and the first Parliament session. I've attempted to address this issue with the use of Groups and a timeline (seats at last session, election results, regrouping, seats at first session), and although that works fine for elections that have happened, I don't know how it would pan out for real-time reporting of an in-progress election.

On a separate point, how's the constituency articles coming along? They are a thankless but very necessary task, so my congratulations on taking it on. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If we think about establishing the task force sometime next year then, as N says, two years! Still, a lot of work. Could someone take a look at the first rework of the MEP categories I've been doing though, I've done France and Germany and would like any complains before I do all of them! :) Thanks.

Oh constituency, I haven't done anything of late as I've been rewriting the Barroso Commission article while waiting for the Romanian results, now they're through and I've finished Barroso I'll be getting back to it soon. With luck! - J Logan ^t: 23:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation

(inserting section to prevent thread growing too large) J Logan, I've had a look at your categorisation and I do have a concern. It's not a complaint - you're doing fine work - but I am concerned you're making a rod for your own back. If I understand correctly, you are categorising by party (or group) and by term: for example, Catherine Lalumière is classified under "French PR MEPs serving 1994-1999" and "French PR MEPs serving 1999-2004". I'm concerned this is overcategorization: specifically, a violation of Wikipedia:Overcategorization, even more specifically a violation of WP:OC#NARROW. It's made even worse by the fact that Catherine has not yet been categorized by the category "MEPs serving 1994-1999". It would be more useful to categorize her with the categories "MEPs serving 1994-1999", "MEPs serving 1999-2004" and "French PR MEPs". Since you have put a lot of work in to this I hesitate to bring this up, and if you want to continue then please feel free, but please be advised that a) you will find the numbers go ballistic very quickly, b) time spent overcategorizing is time that could be spent categorizing less combinatorially and c) given that there have been 6 (?) terms and lots of parties, then there are "lots x 6" categories if you continue in this vein, wheras there would be only "lots + 6" categories if you do it the other way. Sorry to be a pain, kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, did you look at the talk on the WikiProject EU talkpage? I just want to make sure people can get at them via constituency, time they served and political party. It kind of work kind of so far as there are a decent amount in each category - except for the term, for example Pottering has been there since 79 so has 6 categories saying almost the same thing. I think perhaps if I change pre-2004 categories into one grouping as we don't have articles for all of those and that would drop 6 to 2. Perhaps? - J Logan ^t: 12:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Overview thru time

Groups	1979	1981	1984	1987	1989	1993	1994	1995	1997	2000
PES	113	123	130	165	180	198	198	221	214	180
EPP	107	117	110	115	121	162	157	173	181	233
ELDR	40	39	31	44	49	46	43	52	41	51
EDG	64	63	50	66	34	x	x	x	x	x
EDA	22	22	29	29	20	20	26	26	x	x
COM	44	48	41	48	x	x	x	x	x	x
CDI	11	11	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
RB	x	x	20	20	13	16	x	x	x	x
ER	x	x	16	16	17	14	x	x	x	x
V	x	x	x	x	30	28	23	25	28	48
EUL	x	x	x	x	28	x	x	x	x	x
LU	x	x	x	x	14	13	x	x	x	x
GUE-NGL	x	x	x	x	x	x	28	31	33	42
EN	x	x	x	x	x	x	19	19	x	x
FE	x	x	x	x	x	x	27	29	x	x
ERA	x	x	x	x	x	x	19	19	20	x
UPE	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	55	x
UEN	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	30
EDD	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	16
NI	9	11	7	15	12	21	27	31	54	26
Total	410	434	434	518	518	518	567	626	626	626
Notes	1979 = after the European elections (EE);1981 = following the first EP elections in Greece on 8 October 1981; 1984 = after the second EE; 1987 = sitution 31.12.1987. First European Elections in Spain were on 10 June 1987 and in Portugal on 19 July 1987; 1984 = after the third EE; 1993 = situation in January 1993 following the mergers between EPP and the EDG in May 1992 and between the EUL and PES (sic?) in January 1993; 1994 = after the fourth EE; 1995 = situation in January 1995 after the latest EU enlargement; 1997 = situation in march 1997; 2000 = situation in April 2000
Source	"European Union: Power and Policy-Making" second edition, ISBN 0415221641 Published 2001 by Routledge, edited by Jeremy John Richardson, page 125, "Table 6.2 Party Groups in the European Parliament, 1979-2000"

- just let me park this here for a few days whilst I check the figures against other sources. Anameofmyveryown (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good but a tad complicated on the eyes, I think perhaps we should also do one for percentages as it would be misleading if people attempted to use it as a quick ref on their performance. Also, perhaps if we group some together more, like have the EPP and ED next to each other and combine the cols when the merge, might slow the flow more, what do you think? Also, do we know the colours for the older parties? Would be good to shade the cells to make it easier on the eyes. - J Logan ^t: 12:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)