Talk:European Free Alliance

Fair use rationale for Image:Logoudb.png

Image:Logoudb.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mebyon kernow.jpeg

Image:Mebyon kernow.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RainbowPartyLogoGreek.jpg

Image:RainbowPartyLogoGreek.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Expulsion of Valdotanian Union

Does anybody know why Valdotanian Union was expelled from EFA in 2007? --Checco (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows? --Checco (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, because it had ceased to pay its bills and cut off all contacts without formally leaving. --Arskoul (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that information. Was it an expulsion or a suspension? --Checco (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an expulsion, albeit I doubt the Valdotanian Union cared. They had dropped out long before.--Arskoul (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-member parties and other changes

I copy a discussion about this article between me, C mon and Nightstallion below. --Checco (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your edits. First, listing non-member parties is fairly useful to make the article more complete: examples help! Second, EFA has generally limited its membership to progressive parties, which are the majority of the party, but there are also conservative parties as members, notably Liga Fronte Veneto and Bayernpartei. --Checco (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Third, the sentence has no meaning and, however, EFA never expelled xenophobic parties because no xenophopic party ever joined it. Fourth, why does "observer members" is not ok? --Checco (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can live with Progressivism (Majority) [although I hate both the term progressivism and using majority/minority]. But the EFA has expelled parties for being xenophobic or suspended their membership, examples are the Italian Lega Nord, Union Valdôtaine and Union für Südtirol. But I can also live with the current version. C mon (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good compromise, but don't make me joke: none of these parties is xenophopic! Only UfS has a taste for nationalism, but both Lega Nord and UV are centrist parties, both pandering to the centre-left. Finally I don't understand why you oppose yourself to listing of non-member parties. It is very useful to explain to the reader that most of the leading regionalist parties in Europe are not members of EFA. --Checco (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you put "separatism (minority)"? Most of the member parties are separatist... --Checco (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same Lega Nord? Well at least my source (the sole source on the EFA article) calls it a "Nationalist parties of the right" and Gallagher, Laver and Mair in their handbook on European politics have listed it under the "extreme right".

The point is when we start listing what a party is not, and not what it is we will be busy for very long, because more parties are not a member of the EFA, than parties are member.

We could which parties are separatist, I think it is the minority. Give me a sec. I'll count. C mon (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please continue here. It is fairly inadequate to classify "Lega Nord" as nationalist or extreme-right, but there is such a disinformation on the issue that I won't try to explain what Lega Nord is. In any case I continue to think that any reader should know that European leading parties, except PC, SNP, ER and BNG, are not members of EFA: Lega Nord, SVP, UV, PNV, NVA... --Checco (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've counted 13 separatist parties out of 31, so you're right. However these 13 separatist parties include all the relevant ones: those having parliamentary or regional representation. --Checco (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to list all non-member parties, but simply give some examples. --Checco (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see only 8 of the 26 parties are explicitly separatist (PC, SNP, AF, MK, BP, ERC, EA, Moravané). Of six I could not determine their stance. But 17 are definitely regionalist.

If the article would be longer, I could accept one or two sentences about which parties are not a member, but now it gives undue weight, because the article is already this short. Note that in the section European_Free_Alliance#Former_members we already discuss which parties have left the EFA. C mon (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not about those parties which left EFA, but that most of the leading regionalist parties in Europe are not members of EFA: some of them were formerly members (Lega Nord, UV), but most of them never applied for membership (CDC, UDC, PNV, CC, SVP, NVA...). Note that some of these parties have been or are members of ELDR (Lega Nord, CDC and CC), some others of the EPP (PNV, UDC, SVP and NVA). --Checco (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This argumentation only works if we have a standard of which parties are leading regionalists. I don't think f.i. that the SVP, UV or NVA are good examples of leading regionalist parties. You've also not mentioned the Vlaams Belang, electorally, the most succesful separatist party in the European Union and not a member of the EFA either. BTW the Lega Nord is not a member of the ELDR, but of the UEN. The NVA is also not a member of the EPP, but only sits in their group. C mon (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lega Nord has been member of ELDR from 1994 to 1997 and wins 20-30% of the vote in Veneto and Lombardy, 8.3% nationally: probably the most successful regionalist party in Europe as it is also a mainstream party, frequently in government (its deputy-leader is now Minister of the Interior!). PNV, UV and SVP all obtain 40-60% of the vote in their regions. No problem about mentioning Vlaams Belang. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we settle on just mentioning thoser regionalist parties that have gained over 10% nationally? C mon (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say 20% regionally or 5% nationally because only Vlaams Belang, a regionalist party in a small country, would fit the category. Do you agree with this? --Checco (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice that regionally Vlaams Belang is far less strong in Flanders equally stronger than Lega Nord in Veneto (Liga Veneta actually stronger than VB) and Lombardy (Lega Lombarda) and far less stronger than PNV in Basque Country, CiU in Catalonia, SVP in South Tyrol and UV in Aosta Valley. --Checco (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of listing notable regionalist parties which are not members of EFA, but we'd have to discuss which ones to mention, I suppose. —Nightstallion 10:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree with may proposal of listing those parties which have a consistent share of votes in their region (20-25% would be fine), or which have a notable share of votes nationally (above 3-5%), or that have an important role in the government of their region or the whole country? --Checco (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, yeah. —Nightstallion 11:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd settle for share of the votes nationally over 5% or participation in government. C mon (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea: only Lega Nord would fit into the category. It is fairly better what I proposed. --Checco (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Three parties would fit the category: Vlaams Belang (Belgium, NI), Lega Nord (Italy, UEN) and Swedish People's Party (Finland, ELDR). I don't see the problem. C mon (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Swedish People's Party is hardly a regionalist party, while on Vlaams Belang you're obviously right. I don't agree with you in listing only two parties and also Nightstallion seems to agree with me. --Checco (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Checco that there are more parties which are important enough to be specifically listed; could we simply compile a list of all parties which might be listed and then decide on a case-by-case basis? —Nightstallion 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you have the list:

Name	Country	Region	EUparty	% Regionally	% Nationally in last EU elections	Number of MEPs	Government participation
Lega Nord	Italy	Northern Italy	UEN	27% in Veneto, 22% in Lombardy	5%	4	Yes 2002-2006 2008
Movement for Autonomy	Italy	Sicily	n/a	n/a	0	0	Yes 2008
Vlaams Belang	Belgium	Flanders	NI	24%	14%	3	No
NVA	Belgium	Flanders	EPP-ED	ran on combined list	ran on combined list	1	No
Valdotanian Union	Italy	Aosta Valley	N/a	47%	0.1	0	No?
South Tyrolean People's Party	Italy	South Tyrol	EPP-ED	56%	0.5	1	No?
CiU	Spain	Catalunya	EPP-ED	31.5%	5.2 (on combined list with PNV)	1	No
Basque Nationalist Party	Spain	Basque country	EPP-ED	45%	5.2 (on combined list with CiU)	1	No
Swedish People's Party (Finland)	Finland	Swedes	ELDR	n/a	5.7	1	Yes
Party of the Hungarian Coalition	Slovakia	Hungarians	EPP-ED	n/a	13.2%	2	Yes (currently)
Sinn Fein	United Kingdom	Northern Ireland	UEL-NGL	.6%	26%	1	No
SLPD	United Kingdom	Northern Ireland	PES	.6%	16%	0	No
Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania	Romania	Hungarians	EPP-ED	5.5	n/a	2

Anyone can add what party he wants. --Checco (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And what about Christian Social Union of Bavaria? It is a regional party of course... --Checco (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal: since this about the EP why don't we just mention those that have more than 3 MEPs? VB & LN? C mon (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the parties you included in the table are not clearly regionalist. I would mention in the article about EFA: LN, MpA, VB, NVA, UV, SVP, CiU and PNV or at least the majority of them, not simply VB and LN. --Checco (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious! The MpA and UV haven't even got representation in the EP, the NVA hasn't got EP representation on its own. You can't argue that we are missing prominent regionalist parties if we don't include those. Moreover you insist on just including parties from Western Europe, what about eastern European regionalists? Can't we find some sort of compromise. C mon (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider EP representation as a fundamental issue. However MpA has a MEP and there are not such big regionalist parties in Western Europe. Both UV and SVP are very strong regionally, and all three (also MpA) have the President of the Region (Province in the case of South Tyrol). We are speaking about examples and more examples is better. I canlive even without NVA, UV and MpA (for evry different reasons), but all eight parties is the best solution for me. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Sinn Fein? The SDLP? SFP? And the Hungarian Parties in Rumenia and Slovakia? Why exclude those? C mon (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion list

Let's see. Of the full list of parties, I think we can all agree that we'll have to include: Lega Nord, Vlaams Belang, CiU, PNV, and the Democratic Union of Hungarians. Can we at least agree on those for starters? —Nightstallion 17:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is pointless. I'm working on another solution an expanded EFA article which has a separate part on all regionalist parties that are not included, like the Dutch wikipedia. I will finish it tonight. C mon (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's great, too. :) —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Next item: I'd personally also include both Valdotanian Union and Sinn Fein, as the former is simply too strong regionally not to merit inclusion, and the latter is clearly a very important party which still has ultimately separation from the UK as one of its program cornerstones. —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally not include the following:

• MpA -- negligible influence when compared to others in Europe, the UDC is more regionalist in Sicilia and the rest of the south than the MpA is
• NVA -- not as important as the Vlaams Belang
• SFP -- not really regionalist in the ultimate sense of the word, as there's no clearly defined Swedish region on mainland Finland; I would possibly include some of the parties on Åland, though...
• SPLD -- not really THAT regionalist, actually

What would you say? —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes for SF, UV and also... SVP! About MpA you're wrong: we are talking about a party which scored 22% (combined of three MpA lists) in the last regional election and has the President of the Region.

If C mon does what he said our discussion is over. That would be the best solution: a spearate and complete listing of regionalist, regional and minority parties. In that case also SFP, SDLP and CSU should be included. Great C mon! --Checco (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work. When you have time, can you create a table for all these parties? --Checco (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! —Nightstallion 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A few bits of informations

Well, I was the official delegate of the UDB at the last congress of EFA, so Iknow a bit of the inner working of the organization. Normally, only rather left-wing can join, the key word being rather. There are clear limits, however. I, as a delegate, would have stormed out in the minute if Vlaams Belang or Lega Nord had joined, not that anybody ever raised the idea. Another pointis that there can be only one member by region, unless the representative of the said region allows it. For instance, we can keep any other breton party from joining.

Now, regionalist parties, when they are regionalist first and left-wing second can drift to the moderate or even not so moderate right wing. That's why the UDB proposed a declaration last year at Bilbao stating that Islamophobia was a kind of racism and therefore unacceptable. It was passed but when the Union for South Tyrol split, the majority decided not to ratify the declaration and was expelled as a consequence--Arskoul (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, differently from what you think, Lega Nord is not right-wing, while Liga Veneta Repubblica, an EFA members, is a right-wing split from Lega Nord and also Bayern Party is right-wing. Union for South Tyrol has ever been far-right from the beginning (actually, after the split, is more moderate), so why did you welcome it in the party? Very strange. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

However, thank you very much for your edits. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I wasn't there for their admission, so I cannot tell, but they were expelled because they refused to condemn islamophobia and stated Europa should based upon "Christian values". That's indeed prety much far right for me. Of course all goes down to what is considered far right. Down here in France we associate this word with the refusal of Third World immigration and intolerance toward minority religions, mostly Islam in practice. If a party is ant-Islam and/or advocate "christian values" it is far right. By the way, from what I have read, Lega Nord pretty much fits this definition, as does Vlaams Belang. I have not heard of any EFA member who does but I may be mistaken Europa is big and information about some party are hard to come by), in this case I would value very much any information on the subject.--Arskoul (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Christian-democrats defend Christian values. Anyway, Lega Nord is a different, more complex sort of party. --Checco (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The message well I hear, my faith alone is weak. ;) —Nightstallion 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Arskoul, can you check if everything is all right in the "history" and "organization" section? In particular can you update the "history" section clearly stating what parties were EFA-members sat in the European Parliament in the different terms? I was asking to myself if and when did PNV join and leave EFA... in the article it is not clear. --Checco (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated the article. A check is anyway welcome and also an explanation about PNV. --Checco (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard about the PNV joining, but it might have done it before I was politically active. I will ask people who were around then. Note it would have been around the time the PNV split, so the PNV MEP could have become EA MEP. I will check. The organization section is OK. I specified that the Danish Euroskepitcs were left-wing as there could be a confusion with the Danish People Party.--Arskoul (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

EA was founded in 1987 by a split from PNV, but PNV was member of the Greens-EFA group with one MEP (there was another one for EA) in 1999-2004, so it was not around the time PNV split (12 years later!). Maybe PNV simply was accomodated in that group after its explusion from EPP... --Checco (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that PNV was a member? Maybe it was simply an affiliate to the sub-group... --Checco (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I got the confirmation from the guy in charge then. Didn't like it at all, by the way.--Arskoul (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know also the exact years when PNV was a member? What don't you like? --Checco (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Emilia-Lega Nord.jpg

The image Image:Emilia-Lega Nord.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Bandiera Emilia.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-members

I frankly disagree with this edit by C mon. Even if EFA does not include parties from non-EU member countries, I think that the section about "non-members" should include all the European regional and regionalist parties, even that party from Croatia, because there we are talking about Europe not the EU. It's not a big deal anyway, but I really don't understand that edit and this post is at least a reminder for the future. --Checco (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I take this opportunity also to tell my opinion about the removal of UUP and DUP. They are definitely unionist parties, but they are also regional parties representing Northern Ireland. Regional parties can be regionalist or not, conservative or liberal, right-wing or left-wing. I won't rollback the other C mon's edit about UUP and DUP, but simply to say that I don't agree. --Checco (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of "Friesland"

Hello. Behind "The Friesen" in the list of members is the flag of the "Provinz Friesland", which lies in the Netherlands. But "The Friesen" is a party in Germany and feels responsible for East Frisia, which lies in Germany. It seems that there is no east frisian flag in the en-wp. What to do now? --62.227.93.184 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ideology

Nationalism is a core value of the EFA. Progressive nationalism, that is. Some members are arguably conservative, but the fact that STF is far right is, besides being untrue, poorly sourced. Incidentally, the person who added that note and later the source (when requested by another person), removed the 'verify credibility' notice on that source when reverting the note. JudasBabel (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear JudasBabel, I fairly disagree with your compromise version and I don't see how it can be a compromise. I have no problem with "Regionalism, Independentism" without "majority" and "minority", but please consider that, as far as I know, there is no such thing as "progressive nationalism" in scholarly books and, in fact, there is no article on "progressive nationalism" in Wikipedia (if you have sources I don't have, you can start it by the way). Secondly, South-Tyrolean Freedom is clearly a far-right party (this is just a description, there is nothing pejorative in that) and the source you removed is from a widely spread newspaper in South Tyrol, being the local affiliate of the Gruppo Editoriale L'Espresso. Just think about the fact that Union for South Tyrol was expelled from EFA because it didn't accept the Bilbao Declaration, and that South-Tyrolean Freedom is the right-wing split of that party. I will thus re-insert the reference on South-Tyrolean Freedom and edit the ideology space of the infobox with "Regionalism, Indipendentism, Progressivism (minority)" as it is clear that progressivism is just the majority of the party. I look forward to see a page on "progressive nationalism": it would be great if you were to find sources to start it. --Checco (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't think there's anything pejorative in labeling a party far-right (read the linked page)? Perhaps this discussion is better suited to the Süd-Tiroler Freiheit page, but have you read the source article and what it is about? STF is fighting precisely against fascism and extreme right (an English text). The author of the news article casually labels STF extreme right for no apparent reason. The case the author is reporting was about a (laughable) charge of insulting the Italian flag on an STF poster (see the poster and STF explanation here).
About progressive nationalism. I guess you could call it left-wing nationalism, but that brings with it the political left-wing connotation. Undoubtedly though, the EFA promotes nationalism, it should be listed in the ideology box. I'm not really sure why the remarks about majority and minority are necessary, perhaps you want to explain what part of the member parties of EFA share the particular ideologies? The ideologies of the EFA are its own though. JudasBabel (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand your point. There is no doubt that STF is a far-right party (as I told you, even the EFA implicitly labeled its predecessor this way), but if you prefer we can describe it simply as right-wing. Far-right may be a pejorative label for you, but for far-right politicians it is not (they would instead be offended if called communist!). Of course STF is against Italy (and, rightly so, in my personal view, but this doesn't matter) and especially against Italian nationalists, but I don't see how this could be an evidence that STF is not far-right too. In South Tyrol, there are basically two far-right parties, the German STF and the Italian Unitalia. They are both far-right, but, despite this or, better, because of this, they are on opposite sides on the South Tyrolean question (they have similar views on immigration, though). Far-right parties from different neighboring countries or regions usually don't get along well. Just think about Belgium: both the National Front and the Vlaams Blok are far-right parties, but they obviously hold opposite views on the partition of Belgium. I could go on and on, but I'm sure that, at this point, you have perfectly understood my point.

Concerning the other issue, I have no problem with adding nationalism to the infobox or, even, progressive nationalism if you find sources and write an article on it. The EFA majority is clearly progressive, thus I think that progressivism should stay in the infobox. But, as the EFA includes a handful of conservative parties (including its second largest party, the New Flemish Alliance), we need to clarify that not all members of the EFA are progressive. --Checco (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is N-VA still member of EFA?

Is N-VA still member of EFA? On the one hand, they left the Green-EFA EP-fraction (they joined ECR), on the other hand, the EFA president Eric Defoort is a member of N-VA.----Bancki (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Free Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141211024621/http://www.yorkshirefirst.org.uk/about/opinion/ to http://www.yorkshirefirst.org.uk/about/opinion/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Free Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021070229/http://www.e-f-a.org/efaactive.php?id=12 to http://www.e-f-a.org/efaactive.php?id=12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Südtiroler Freiheit

I see this mentioned before, but while I don’t know enough about Italian newspapers to judge the credibility as some others have claimed, the articles all appear to talk about terrorist links (with no explicit use of “far-right”) in the 60s, which is far removed enough to be a bit dubious; moreover the article of the party itself makes no mention of such associations. Since this may have BLP implications, I’m going to invoke WP:BOLD and say that if nobody replies to this within 24 hours I’ll remove the far-right claim. I’ll also crosspost this onto WP Italy, Austria and the STF page itself (eventually). I’ll also be adding an irrelevant source tag to it for the time being.

Editing off-account as User:Fermiboson. If you reply to this, please ping me with the user tag. 119.236.180.209 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Being far-right does not mean being terrorist! The party has nothing to do with terrorism, but it is surely far-right, according to multiple sources. Just to let you know, generally speaking, I would be very cautious with terms like "far-right" and "far-left" in Wikipedia, but, as of now, those terms are used also for mainstream conservative parties; STF is surely more to the right than many other parties that are described as "far-right" in sources and here in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no knowledge nor opinion on whether STF is far right; but surely there are going to be better sources that explicitly talk about its modern-day far-rightness that we can put in, if that is the case? Fermiboson (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Aosta Valley

@Checco [1] "La nostra precedente forza sorella, Alliance Valdôtaine (AV), è ormai parte integrante del processo di riunificazione nella rafforzata e rinnovata Union Valdôtaine." Braganza (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok! I am not fully convinced, as there are no other sources, but I will restore the previous version of the article. Thanks! --Checco (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

[2] AV, UV & Mouv appointed a committee for the merger Braganza (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)