Talk:European Alliance of Peoples and Nations

Okamura's SPD

Just noting that Freedom and Direct Democracy of Tomio Okamura might be joining, but the source isn't really clear on that. https://euobserver.com/tickers/144733 —Nightstallion 09:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

AfD not representing "german nationalism"

They consider themselves patriotic, have support among well integrated people with foreign background and Nationalist will probably vote for the nationalistic NPD.
--62.226.91.247 (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

In general, we shouldn't use "Xxxxx nationalism" for any party, except maybe Vlaams Belang. Nationalism is a better link for nationalist parties, while for others we can user National conservatism or Right-wing populism. Using "Xxxxx nationalism" is quite deceptive, indeed also national conservatives and right-populists (as well as liberals, social democrats, Christian democrats, conservatives, greens, etc.) are influenced by their nationality. --Checco (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

≥ Right. Every party has an obligation towards the own people and therefore is "nationalistic" to some extent. Also the term "nationalism" might be confusing. It has a different meaning in Spain(national unity versus seperatism) than in other countries(opposition to foreign immigration in general). And the parties in the article cannot be promoting nationalism if they work together beyond country lines. I guess most of them are rather patriotic and open to at least skilled workers from foreign countries.

62.226.75.8 (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sweden Democrats not joining

Not sure whether a party *not* joining is relevant enough, but just in case: https://euobserver.com/tickers/144763 —Nightstallion 07:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Fidesz “might” join

FWIW: https://www.dw.com/en/hungarys-orban-inches-closer-to-salvini-led-anti-migrant-eu-bloc/a-48581387 —Nightstallion 07:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Category "far-right" politics looks like smear

Especially for parties who mostly support Judaism, Israel and demand patriotism.62.226.82.20 (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "far-right" is not appropriate here. It should be used only for extreme, fringe, neo-fascist, neo-Nazi, etc. parties. --Checco (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The AfD is far right, per the BBC: [1]. It's in WP:RS, so that's what we should go with.David O. Johnson (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

in 2019 no one believes that Far right means far right anymore anyway. If you check the wikipedia pages of groups like Golden Dawn, or Cassa Pound you see the terms "Extreme right", because even the left acknowledge that Far right is an all incompassing term for any party that is past centre right. I'd just leave it 2A00:1370:8113:988:A09E:3548:239E:27FB (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Position column + party logos

The "position" column in the table of member parties is in my opinion superfluous and even misleading. It suggests that parties like FPÖ, Vlaams Belang or Lega were more moderate (just "right-wing") than "far-right" National Rally or PVV. I do not think this differentiation is verifiable. Almost all of these parties are radical right-wing populist parties, sitting basically at the same position of the political spectrum: on the hinge of (mainstream) right-wing and far-right. Depending on your definition of "far-right", they are either all far-right or none of them is. All of them are radically right-wing populist, anti-immigration, anti-establishment etc. (which is considered "far-right" by some experts), while none of them is outright neo-Nazi or neofascist (which is the traditional meaning of far-right in the strict sense). The infoboxes of most of the participating parties say "right-wing to far-right", each supported by reliable sources. Thus labelling some of them "right-wing" and others "far-right" is inappropriate. --RJFF (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely, some parties (including Lega) are more moderate than others (Lega will end up in the EPP at some point, I foresee), but I agree with User:RJFF: the "position" column is totally superfluous. Additionally, in my view, none of EAPN parties are far-right. We should leave "far-right" to neo-fascist, neo-Nazi, white suprematist, etc. parties (also on this, I agree with User:RJFF). --Checco (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice job, User:RJFF! I would personally remove also party logos. --Checco (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I added party logos to provide a visual element, I have submitted rationale for the use of these non-free logos to be used on this page Ec1801011 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

They do not add any extra information, but make the table overly wide, requiring inconvenient horizontal scrolling on laptop and mobile screens. I would support the removal. --RJFF (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, User:RJFF, for better explaining my thoughts on the issue. --Checco (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What if the logos were decreased in size? Would that solve the issue? Ec1801011 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Zero reason for the flags to be included here (WP:MOSFLAG), logos shouldn't be included here for reasons of fair use except where PD-textlogo applies (use on party article only). Mélencron (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As for not adding extra information or reasoning, neither do the abbreviation tab or native language tab and yet they are present. These logos are recognisable features of the parties that are present on ballot papers and often used in media to represent the parties. I have provided rationale on each logo file for use on this page, of course if the rationale is rejected then they can justifiably be removed. Ec1801011 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I see, but they are totally redundant and having them is inconsistent with most similar articles. --Checco (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The argument for inconsistency can not really be made when the pages for the different European political parties feature vastly different infoboxes. Compare the infoboxes on these pages: European Free Alliance, European Christian Political Movement and European Democratic Party. They feature different information and are structured differently. Ec1801011 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

The article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. If so, the editor who asked for it (@ThecentreCZ:) should mention which one. Going in the details of the editor's message in the template, it should be noted that there is no Identity and Democracy party. ID is a parliamentary group in the European party. The speedy deletion should be for sure pulled back, maybe there could be a discussion about proposed deletion, but even in that case I don't think it's justified. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

When something don't exists, its remove is justified. 'European Alliance of Peoples and Nations DOESN'T EXIST. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@ThecentreCZ: Ok, you haven't read the criteria for speedy deletion then. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion now. EAPN was just the working title for ID. BTW, there is a Identity and Democracy Party. --ElTres (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)