Talk:2014 European Parliament election/Archive 3

European Parliament election, 2014
← outgoing members Members elected →
All 751 seats to the European Parliament; 376 seats needed for a majority
Turnout	43.09%
President of the European Commission before election; José Manuel Barroso; EPP	Majority ; TBD;

European Parliament election, 2014
← outgoing members Members elected →
All 751 seats to the European Parliament; 376 seats needed for a majority
Turnout	43.09%
	The largest European Parliament group as elected by each constituency.; For the French Overseas Territories constituency, its three sections are considered. EPP S&D ALDE Greens/EFA; ; ECR GUE/NGL EFD NI; ;
President of the European Commission before election; José Manuel Barroso; EPP	Majority ; TBD;

This is an archive of past discussions about 2014 European Parliament election. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Problem with the infobox "leaders"

As I've been thinking about the use of party logos in the infobox, it has occured to me that the use of the Spitzenkandidaten as the group leaders has a number of problems. Least importantly, it leaves the infobox aesthetically uneven and unattractive, due to the decision by some groups not to nominate such a candidate. Secondly, it gives the appearance of endorsing the notion of the Spitzenkandidaten as the appropriate focus, when this is hotly disputed. We address the Spitzenkandidaten events and discussion in the article; it need not be inappropriately highlighted in the infobox. Thirdly, the Spitzenkandidaten are, in many cases, most assuredly not the leaders of the groups elected to the EP. While some have prominent roles in their EP groups (Verhofstadt, Shultz) others did not even stand for election (Juncker, Tsipras). It is difficult to see Tsipras as being the "leader" of a group when he was never going to become leader of the GUE/NGL, or even his own party, SYRIZA in the EP Parliament. Fourthly, the Spitzenkandidaten never had legal significance, as the jostling over Juncker has demonstrated, but rather was a suggestion to add greater democratic significance to the EP elections. Fifthly, the use of the Spitzenkandidaten necessarily means that we are now inconsistent with the infoboxes on previous EP elections, which used the Chairmen or Chairwomen of the EP groups to represent those groups visually in the infobox. Lastly, the voids for the ECR and EFD give the impression that they weren't equally significant. If we want the Spitzenkandidaten to be represented visually, I suggest we could put a box together in that section. That would be far more appropriate, in my view. The one remaining question is whether we should use the Chairmen as they were when the election was fought, or who will be the initial Chairmen in the new Parliament. I know this is relevant for the ECR, who elected a new Chairman in the past week or two. The infobox uses the re-affiliated numbers to determine how the groups did; but on the other hand, the info box incapsulates the events of the election, and the chairmanship during the actual election period is probably more important than who ends up leading these groups into the next Parliament. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The infobox uses the word "Leader", which is not the same as top candidate. The top candidates were running to be Commission President, not to be the leader of the parliamentary group. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not hearing any objections, and with some positive feedback, I'm going to go ahead and change the infobox. I don't consider the matter closed, so if anyone thinks I'm off base, by all means, make your objections known. Also, help getting the pictures for the leaders would be appreciated, as I haven't done that before. Gabrielthursday (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I object. The infobox has been like this ever since the creation of this page, you two decided to change it in one day. The EP group have not campaigned at EU level, parties did, and EP group chairman are not party leader. Legally, constitutionnally speaking, only party frontrunner campaign at election, including if we look at things from a purely legal point of view at EU level. The Spitzenkandidaten process has been everywhere in the media. Only the 6 Spitzenkandidaten did campaign, and the fact remains that your 3 minority parties/groups did boycott such a campaign, which was their choice. Any parliamentary election page on Wikipedia on any country in the world displays candidates for Prime ministers, not for Group leaders, and whichever party boycotting the election doesn't get any face to put in the box.

And if Juncker i elected EC president, your objections will be totally void... Rubiscube (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"The article has been like this for a long time" is a poor argument. Not using group leaders goes against the precedent of previous EP election articles. The infobox uses the word "Leader", and the fact remains that that is different from "top candidate". Tsipras, for example, is not even MEP, so how could he be called the leader of the parliament group? The parliament groups are the ones that matter in the infobox; the numbers presented are their numbers. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to Rubiscube, as Jaakko notes, the infobox reports results for the EP groups, not the Europarties. And that is the case in the articles on past European elections. Nor is your generalisation about candidates for Prime ministers always the case: see Indian general election, 2004 and French legislative election, 2012. Most parliamentary elections there can be no real distinction between party leader and candidate for "prime minister" (or in this case, President of the EC); however, there is a clear distinction here between party leader and candidate for EC President, and a clear distinction between Europarty leader and EP group leader. The infoboxes give the results for EP groups. Europarty suggested nominees for EC President are quite a distance from the EP and its groups, which is what actually is getting elected and forming.

If Juncker is elected EC president, none of my objections will be void. His selection will have clearly been the result of a political struggle, not by law. This is not a matter of an unwritten constitutional rule. Such practices need to be repeated and accepted to become such, and this is the very first time it has ever been suggested. Juncker's nomination has been strongly contested, and while people have argued it's undemocratic not to elect Juncker, no one has argued it is illegal or unconstitutional not to elect him. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gabrielthursday and his version of the Infobox. Otto (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rubiscube. The page should display the top candidates wich actually were the leaders of their parties during the electoral campaign. These group leaders are been electing in these days and they have not been "party Leaders" this month. If we want to change this version we should indicate the group leaders also in the British general elections, In the Italian elections, in the Spanish elections etc.. E.G. In my country ALL the leaders of the parties (The prime minister too) are not in the parliament. Sorry for my english. I can't speak it very well. barjimoa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries about your proficiency in English, your contribution is appreciated. I see the attraction of having the "leaders of the parties during the election campaign". However, this raises a whole host of further issues. Surely, the naming of a Spitzenkandidaten is not the only way to have a functional party leader. Martin Callanan surely was the functional party leader for the AECR during the election, even if he didn't have as high a profile as some other leaders. But a far greater problem is the fact that the infobox shows the outcomes for the EP groups, not Europarties, and it was the Europarties not the EP groups which nominated the Spitzenkandidaten. It is hardly fair to attribute to the EFA, for instance, the leadership of Bove & Keller when the EFA did not select them, or campaign under them. Nor is it fair to attribute the leadership of Tsipras to not only the European Left (who did select him) but also the NGLA (which did not), not to mention parties like Sinn Fein which is an independent member of the group. I'm afraid the only "leaders" of the what the infobox is actually counting are the EP group leaders. I'm afraid I regard this as an insuperable difficulty in having the Spitzenkandidaten as the "leaders" in the infobox. If the infobox reported the results by Europarty, I could kind of see it, but that's never been the case. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Barjimoa and the version of Rubiscube. User:Webdriver Torso — Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't we simply change the word leader by the word candidate to the Commission presidency or First candidate in the infobox? IMHO using candidates of the Commission presidency is better in a page about the election while using group leaders is better in a page about the parliament composition. Captain frakas (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We could, but that's not really what the numbers in the infobox represent. They represent EP group membership. There's a huge interpretational problem when you use EP group success as a proxy for support for Europarty nominees for the EC presidency. Do EFA seats in the Green/EFA group provide support for the Green nominees? Those numbers are contained under the Bove/Kaller nomination. Do the six seats elected under the National Liberals in Romania count for the EPP nominee even though they were ALDE members when elected? This is one reason why I think using the Spitzenkandidaten is unworkable. Not to mention a potential NPOV problem: if we keep the Spitzenkandidaten in the infobox, aren't we endorsing the view or appearing to endorse the view that they are the real focus of this election, when that is highly disputed? Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the infobox should show the European political parties, not the Political groups of the European Parliament. As yet it mixes both, which is inconsistent and confusing. Other users have already pointed out that e.g. EUL-NGL is not just the European Left party. MEPs of MELD member parties are even a minority in the EFD group. As only European political parties campaigned for this election (some more, some less), but not parliamentary groups (which are only composed after the election), the infobox should focus on the parties, not the parliamentary groups. The composition of the groups is — as we could observe during the last weeks — not a direct result of the election as such, but of political talks that may continue long after the election. Political groups are in some cases nothing more than alliances of convenience, they are not the same as political parties. The infobox says "first party, second party, etc." not "first group, second group, etc." I also think that the infobox should show the result of the election at the time of the election. Romanian PNL was a member of ALDE party at the time of the election (and still is, according to ALDE party, as they have neither withdrawn, nor were suspended). Belgian NVA was a member of EFA at the time of the election (and probably still is), even if they have left the Greens-EFA group. Danish People's Party and The Finns were members of MELD at the time of the election (and perhaps still are), even if they have joined ECR group by now (which is not identic with AECR party). There are other examples, but I think I have made clear what I mean. --RJFF (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Briefly, I'll say that this would be an even bigger break from past practice than the use of the Spitzenkandidaten as "leaders". Also, in the functioning of the EP, EP groups are far, far more important than Europarties, many of which sit in different groups, and which don't encompass significant forces within the EP. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that the current infobox does mix both EP groups and Europarties in a somewhat confusing manner. Maybe we could change the "party" line to "leading European party". Maybe we'd be better off getting rid of the party line altogether. Although the EP groups are to a certain extent alliances of convenience, they still are the principal operative units within the EP. If we're concerned with showing the "result of the election at the time of the election" I think we should still use pre-existing EP groups, just not use the reshuffled numbers. Maybe we should have both a "post-election" line and a "post-reshuffling" line? I do think we should still keep the post-reshuffling numbers as the bottom line: ultimately, the election and the formation of alliances are processes that go together, and the final outcome is the resulting EP groups in parliament (which determine committee membership, speaking time, committee chairs, EP officer positions, etc.) Let me know your thoughts. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If we look at how the media has covered the election results on a union-wide level, it has been the EP groups that have been in the spotlight, not so much the parties (most reports have talked about the ECR, not about the AECR). And like Gabrielthursday mentioned, it is the size of the groups (not parties) that determine important things like committee chairs etc in the parliament. On reporting of the ECR becoming the third biggest group, many have called attention to changing power dynamics in the EP, if ALDE indeed loses its long-held position as the third most powerful force. Yet that change would not be visible to a new reader glancing over the page, if the numbers for Europe-wide parties were used instead of parliament groups (because the new ECR parties are not yet members of the AECR). Deciding to use parties instead of groups, and the affiliations on election night instead of the first session of the new parliament would also mean making changes to all previous EP election articles. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with RJFF to the extent that the infobox structure and terminology could be improved, I'm not familiar with infoboxes (I think we'd need an entirely new infobox template), but I encourage others to adapt the election infobox template for EP elections. That said, I think I've addressed the points raised by others, I haven't seen much engagement with my counter-points, and I'm therefore going to be bold and go back to the EP group leaders. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the EP election differs from national election to the extent that a separate infobox template for European elections is necessary. Saying that ECR is the "third party" is plain wrong, because ECR is not a party, but a parliamentary group. The third-largest party on the European level still is ALDE (as long as the new ECR group members are not member parties of AECR). But, e.g. in France there are also parliamentary groups that include members of different parties, and even political parties whose members sit in different parliamentary groups. Still the infobox shows the parties, not the groups. I admit that the differences between the groups and the parties is much more significant in the European Parliament, though. --RJFF (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I do think that we should change the headings from "First party", etc to "First group". Unfortunately, I'm not sure if that can be done without getting an entirely new infobox template. I do disagree to the extent that information in the infobox relates to the EP groups (as does our results table and the reshuflling table). Perhaps we should have an additional table just summarising the results for the Europarties? That is a blind spot; while I think the EP groups are significantly more important, the Europarties are certainly relevant. That all being said, I am not sure I understand what your continuing objections to using the EP group leaders in the infobox are. It sounds as if you agree that the EP groups are the more important factors in the EP; so why would we not use the EP group leaders in the infobox? Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

To help clarify the conversation, I thought I'd summarise the main arguments for using the EP group leaders rather than the Spitzenkandidaten in the infobox.

Using the Spitzenkandidaten is inconsistent with other EP election articles.
The infoboxes give the results for the EP groups. The Spitzenkdidaten were not selected by the EP groups, but by some Europarties.
Since EP groups include independent national parties, MEPs and even members of different European parties, the Spitzenkandidaten are shown as leading parties and individuals that have no affiliation to the Spitzenkandidat.
In multiple cases, Spitzenkandidaten were not even candidates in this election.
The election has no legal effect in regards to the selection or nomination of the Spitzenkandidaten. If they are taken as merely being prominent campaign leaders, so too were other, non-Spitzenkandidaten figures such as national political leaders, and the leaders of the EP groups.
The actual election is to the European Parliament, not to the Commission. The EP has a role in selecting the EC president, but is not determinative, so the election is not even indirectly to the EC presidency.
By using the Spitzenkandidaten in such a prominent position, we fly close to violating WP:NPOV by appearing to endorse the view that the election was primarily about which Spitzenkandidat would become EC president. If this were unavoidable, or we had some overriding reason to have it this way, maybe this could be defensible, but as it is we have a perfectly reasonable alternative that does not present POV issues.

Overall, I recognise the desire to have higher-profile figures in the infobox; but I hope I've made the case that it presents insuperable difficulties. Certainly, the Spitzenkandidaten merit the extensive treatment they receive in the article, but their place is not as leaders of the EP groups in the infobox. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Using the Spitzenkandidaten is inconsistent with other EP election articles -> That's right, but the election is done according a new legal text. The TEU and TFEU were quite changed by the Treaty of Lisbon, so, in my humble opinion, a change may be understandable as the rules are not the same as previously.
The infoboxes give the results for the EP groups. The Spitzenkdidaten were not selected by the EP groups, but by some Europarties -> That's right. The infobox label them political parties thus, so either the infobox label have to be changed to political groups or the infobox should present political parties and not political groups.
Since EP groups include independent national parties, MEPs and even members of different European parties, the Spitzenkandidaten are shown as leading parties and individuals that have no affiliation to the Spitzenkandidat. -> That's right.
In multiple cases, Spitzenkandidaten were not even candidates in this election -> They are candidates to the presidency of the European commission, so they do not have to be member of the Parliament but have to be supported by the European Parliament. I do not think that this argument is a good one.
The election has no legal effect in regards to the selection or nomination of the Spitzenkandidaten. If they are taken as merely being prominent campaign leaders, so too were other, non-Spitzenkandidaten figures such as national political leaders, and the leaders of the EP groups. -> It have no legal effects but there is a strong "democratic" effect. It's the principle of an indirect election. They same can be said about French town councillors in the election of French mayors, for American electors in the election of the President of the United States, for British members of the House of Commons in the election of the British Prime Minister, & caetera desunt.
The actual election is to the European Parliament, not to the Commission. The EP has a role in selecting the EC president, but is not determinative, so the election is not even indirectly to the EC presidency. -> The European Parliament's role is determinative as the European Parliament is the sole body who have the power to elect the European Commission's president and as the president of the European Commission have to be elected by the European Parliament. I strongly disagree with this argument.
By using the Spitzenkandidaten in such a prominent position, we fly close to violating WP:NPOV by appearing to endorse the view that the election was primarily about which Spitzenkandidat would become EC president. If this were unavoidable, or we had some overriding reason to have it this way, maybe this could be defensible, but as it is we have a perfectly reasonable alternative that does not present POV issues. -> I am not sure with this neither. They are the candidates supported by the political parties during the electoral campaign. MEP may or may not change their mind, as it is an indirect election, but the election was presented as such, and it is a consequence of the Lisbon Treaty who state that the president of the European Commission is now elected by the European Parliament. That doesn't mean in any way that one of the candidates to the presidency of European Commission will be elected president (even if I find it improbable that the president may not be one of the six candidates) but it mean that the political parties were elected on the premise to support one specific candidacy to the presidency of the European Commission.

Best Regards Captain frakas (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Of course, not every objection made has to carry in order for the recommendation to stand. If we agree that the Spitzenkandidaten are not really assignable as leaders to the EP groups then shouldn't we at least have an accurate infobox? They simply aren't the EP group leaders; at most they became the trans-national campaign leaders for some of the Europarties (functionally, the national leaders of the Europarty member parties remained the most important campaign leaders in every country, with perhaps the exceptions of Luxembourg and Belgium).

The importance of the EP in determining the next president of the EC is overstated. The actual text of the treaty states:

Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.

The EP is limited to a role of confirmation or ratification. They cannot elect a candidate which is not proposed to them by the EC; they have no legal role of proposing candidates to the EC. This is not an indirect election; the EP has a veto power, but no power to elect. The correct analogy is not to town councillors electing mayors, or the Electoral College in the United States (both of which have these candidates on the ballot); but to the confirmation power of the US Senate over members of the US Cabinet. If, by repetition, it becomes custom (an unwritten law) that the candidate of the leading Europarty had to be elected as EC president (i.e., a real indirect election), then I agree, we should have the infobox reflect it. But we are nowhere near that point.

Finally, pretty much everyone recognises that the significance and propriety of the Spitzenkandidaten is under significant debate. Appearing to endorse the more positive view of the Spitzenkandidaten is an avoidable WP:NPOV problem. We can cover the Spitzenkandidaten without making out the election to be all about them. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

After thinking a bit more about that, I think that the article should include two infoboxes, one parliamentary infobox, in the head of the article, about the election of MEPs (according either to groups or to parties) and one presidential infobox in the chapter about candidates to the Commission's presidency for the election of the new president of the Commission by the European Parliament. This infobox would thus only have one candidate except if the first candidate proposed by the Council is not elected by the EP (which will not happen this year as the Council will propose J.-C. Juncker and as the Parliament will elect him, AFAIK, the United-Kingdom is the only member state who oppose J.-C. Juncker; it may however happen in next elections if the candidate supported by the first political group in the EP do not find an agreement with the absolute majority of the EP).

However, if possible, instead of creating a new special election infobox for European parliamentary election as it was suggested elsewhere in this talk page, in the case where we would want to show "political groups" instead of "parties", I would rather enhance the current infobox so it include the option to label either "party" or "group".

PS: (For me, it's more like the 16 May 1877 crisis, but without the crisis as contrary to MacMahon, the Council would not dare oppose to what is seen by many as the direct expression of people's suffrage. I just say that to talk but it have no encyclopaedic value ;)) Captain frakas (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a presidential infobox for the EC presidency; I can try to produce one, if you haven't the time. As an aside, I've read that Hungary and Sweden are opposed to the Juncker candidacy as well as the UK. I agree Juncker is probably going to be elected; it will be interesting to see if the lead candidate from the winning Europarty gets elected next time as well.

My understanding is that you're in favour of my proposed changes, with the understanding that the EC president is given an infobox in the proper place.

As for the question of adapting or enhancing the infobox, I think we're pretty much in agreement in terms of substance. In terms of how we get there I think any change in the terminology requires a new infobox template (I may be wrong). Thanks, Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am not against removing candidates to the European Commission's presidency from the top infobox, as long as this infobox do not show political parties but political groups as they are firstly candidates of the parties and not candidates of the political group even if the whole political group may in fact support them. I think that it is more precise, especially since it is an indirect election. I find it really fine to have an indirect election separated from the direct election, hence having a second infobox in the same article, but in the correct chapter, about election of the president of the European commission is totally okay for me. Will the initial EP election box show any portrait? Of the new president of group? of group's logotypes? Or just a coloured flag? Captain frakas (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So my suggestion would be to:

Use parliamentary groups and parliamentary leaders (after having change a bit the infobox so it show "groups" instead of "parties", I'm sure that it is doable, maybe someone should post a request on the infobox talk page), and use president of parliamentary groups or just groups colours.
Add a result table with European political parties somewhere in the article. Not a table to show detail of national parties in parliamentary groups, like we already have, but complete it with another table who show European parties, popular vote and seats.
Use a presidency infobox in the chapter about Commission presidency

voilà Captain frakas (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

About the parliamentary groups, we can also simply use the "alliance" entry without using the "party" entry, that would be fine for me. About the European commission election, the infobox may look like that Captain frakas (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with replacing the Spitzenkandidaten with group leaders as soon as we have an adapted EP election infobox template that reads "first group, second group" etc. instead of "first party" etc. (I am afraid that I won't find the time to produce it myself, but I imagine that it should not be too difficult). I agree that it verges on advancing POV to highlight the Spitzenkandidaten as they are an idea promoted by the pro-European parties while rejected by the Eurosceptic ones. --RJFF (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to see what can be done in this respect. Thanks all for your thoughtful contributions. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Treaty of Lisbon clearly states that the one of the candidates for the President of the European Commission should be elected as the President of the European Commission after the elections. The “Spitzenkandidaten” have been presented as leaders on this article since the day when European parties held elections or primaries to elect their candidate. They were on the debates and they were the leaders of the election campaigns. They were the leaders of their European parties on the European elections. It is complicate to understand how European parties work. First they are an alliance of parties, and their structure is different from those of the national parties. Tuvixer (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(The agreement was not reached. Have you even read the Lisbon treaty? Please, stop . You clearly don’t understand how the European elections work. The elections in 2009 were not held by the Lisbon treaty rules, so please don’t try to change something you do not understand.) Tuvixer (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your condescending and insulting manner is offensive. And the change was the result of lengthy discussion which resulted in an agreement. I quoted the relevant section of the Lisbon treaty above and your account of its terms is incorrect. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please show, where exactly in the Lisbon treaty are top candidates of the European parties mentioned. What the treaty actually says, is this: "Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission."[1] As you see, it is still the European Council that chooses a candidate for Commission President, not the European parties, which are not mentioned at all. The part about "taking into account" the elections is too vague to support any interpretations on top candidates (in any case such interpretations are original research, which is against Wikipedia policy). I don't see, where it "clearly states" anything about candidates chosen by the European parties. That is original research on your part. The infobox is now prioritising the parliament groups instead of the parties, and that is the right way to go, and the fact is that the top candidates do not lead the parliament groups in any way. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You guys don’t really get it, do you? The election debates were held between the “Spitzenkandidaten”, the whole elections have or should have been about them, and who of them will be the next President of the European Commission. They lead their parties during this elections. Tuvixer (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Wikipedia, however, operates by consensus, and you are now going against it. The infobox is now using parliament groups ("alliances"), and the top candidates are not the leaders of those groups. Please respond to the arguments made here with regard to the Lisbon treaty. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus? Ok. Gabrielthursday, Jaakko Sivonen and Otto, are for your changes. Rubiscube, barjimoa, Webdriver Torso, Captain frakas, RJFF and Tuvixer are against. I don’t see a consensus. Do you? So no changes can be done, ok?

Tuvixer (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Captain frakas wrote: "Yes, I am not against removing candidates to the European Commission's presidency from the top infobox, as long as this infobox do not show political parties but political groups" (and now the infobox shows political groups ie. alliances instead of parties). RJFF wrote: "I'm okay with replacing the Spitzenkandidaten with group leaders as soon as we have an adapted EP election infobox template that reads "first group, second group" etc. instead of "first party" etc." (in essence that's what we have with the use of the term alliance instead of party). Also note that some users have been more active in formulating the consensus in recent days, while others have not posted since the beginning of the discussion. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is only two coherent options, IMHO: using parties in the template (hence using as leader the top candidate) or using political groups (hence using the president of group except if most of the group support the top candidate). The first option have my preference as it is the more precise while the other is acceptable for me. I was a bit sensible to the argument saying that most if not all mass media only communicated on parliamentary groups until now. It may change later when we will have definitive results from the European parliament (they are still labelled as being estimations) and precise statistics on its composition. Captain frakas (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The European Parliament website[2] reports the election results only by groups. It is the groups that matter in the European Parliament; in the day-to-day operation of the parliament the pan-European parties have little importance compared to the groups. Reporting the results by primarily using parties has many problems: consider for example that the member parties of MELD are now divided into two groups (Lithuanian TT in EFDD, Danish DF and Finnish PS in ECR), so what is the information value in reporting MELD's success instead of groups? The largest member party of EFDD, UKIP, isn't a member of any pan-European party, and the same goes for most of the new parties, that got MEPs elected. Consider also, for example, the Romanian PNL party, which is a member of ALDE Party, but which chose to move into EPP Group instead of ALDE Group. Measuring by party, ALDE Party would be bigger than AECR (since ECR's new member parties are not yet AECR members, though most of them will probably join sometime in the future), but ECR Group is still the larger force in the Parliament that ALDE Group. Liberals losing the third place was a relatively big development, since they have held that position in the parliament for a long time. Using parties instead of groups would however not show that. Edit: I now see that the infobox has the possibility of having both the leader and the top candidate on different rows. This seems to be a good solution. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I am late to the conversation but would add my voice to those who argue we should remove the references to "leaders" from the infobox. It adds little value and doesn't really align well with the nature of the election, which is 28 separate contests which are covered differently in each member state. Neither the presidential candidate nor the parliamentary leader add much value to the article in such a prominent space and it makes the infobox larger and harder to read. To underline the irrelevancy of these people to the general public, a poll showed that only 27% of Germans knew who Martin Schulz was, even though he is German and only 15% knew who Juncker was in the heat of the election. - Nbpolitico (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea that these are all separate elections ("There is no European demos") and that the election of the executive was either illegitimate or didn't happen at all is one strongly endorsed by the ECR, but not anyone else afaict. The statements made by the other parties and all candidates during and since the election indicate that they all oppose this view. Thus, presenting it as simple fact strikes me as very non-neutral.

Incidentally, the Spanish Wikipedia does list the European parties (and groups of parties behind particular candidates). This might be a feasible option here. --Yair rand (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the procedure is relatively contested by some parties and some political men, I agree with Gabrielthursday to say that it would be non-neutral to let the article show a total focus on them and . But so is the reverse. The indirect election of the president of the European commission was such major in this election that it would be a huge violation of neutral point of view to not make them significantly visible on the article and on the infobox. Having both the leader and the candidate in the infobox seem to be a good compromise for me. The article should show, however, in some lines, who where opposed to this process and when and who favoured this process and when and explain why it is somewhat contested by some and supported by most. Captain frakas (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to refocus my point. It is clear that the leaders of the parliamentary groups and the presidential candidates of the parties are important. The former will lead the groups and members elected from the election described in this article, the presidential candidates participated in debates leading into the election described in this article. If I implied otherwise then I chose my words poorly and I apologize. My point was that there is a clear and relatively non-debatable hierarchy of importance of information. This election served one direct purpose: to elect members of the next European Parliament. If there was to be only one piece of information in the infobox it would be the number of members returned. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that, though correct me if I am wrong. My next point is that the info box is cluttered. For each of 7 parties/groups there is a photo and 14 fields of information and the infobox is about 2400 pixels tall, meaning that few if any readers would be able to see the whole infobox on one screen. There is a detailed and well-written article here that many party to this thread have contributed to. There is good information on how the parties/groups work, the leaders, the presidential candidates, etc., etc. However, not all of that needs to be summarized in the infobox in my opinion. There is little value in the "seats needed" line either as it was no party's objective to win an outright majority. We should instead make it concise and readable and include only the most important information. I would propose something like this:

-Nbpolitico (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sensitive to your concerns; I made some of the same points away down below. I agree that much of the clutter could be eliminated, and a leaner infobox would be better. I think the case for including the EP group leaders is that this has been the past practice in EP election articles, and they are significant forces in the operation of the new Parliament. Nearly all modern election articles include leaders. All that said, I think either option is certainly defensible. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

One other thing that could be taken out is the percentages, which would simplify the infobox and eliminate the "swing" line. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Juncker support

Please add: only David Cameron and Viktor Orbán did not support Juncker in the European Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.83.252 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold edits to infoboxes

RJFF, I warn you to not make again such big destruction of contributions from others before asking in the talk page! Especially on contributions who where more or less talked here and who found a relative agreement... For your information, Gabrielthursday said he was happy with the presidential infobox you've erased in the chapter about the new commission and Jaakko Sivonen said that showing both the candidate and the leader in the infobox -exactly what you've erased- is a good solution... Nobody complained. That certainly do not mean that they may not change their mind on those points or that others contributors may not like them, but it certainly have to be debated here! This is such ill-mannered that it make it really difficult for me to convince myself that you may had made this "hidden" revert in good faith. This is Wikipedia, not RJFF's blog. I am really not amused! Captain frakas (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to stay calm, all. I do agree that discussion would have been advisable prior to reverting the article. While I don't have a problem with an EC Presidency election infobox, it did need some work. In particular, it needed to note the votes in the European Council as well as the votes in the EP. That is the primary (and probably more decisive) part of the process. Secondly, I wonder if we ought not to split out that section as a new article: President of the European Commission election, 2014. It's not fully part of this article (though we ought to have a summary here) as it involved a great deal of discussion, lobbying, deal-making and of course the EuroCouncil vote, none of which were directly tied to the EP election. If a separate article is created, I think the infobox belongs there.

While Jaakko can speak for himself, I do not regard the presence of the candidates in the main infobox as a positive thing. As I think we have all agreed, the candidates were not the candidates of the EP groups, but the Europarties. While there is a fairly close correspondence, Bove/Keller simply never were the candidate of the Greens-EFA group; they weren't the candidates of the EFA nor of the independent members; and similar problems arise for all the EP groups. I also think that the infobox has been cluttered up with marginal information (leader since/leader constituency/vote for Juncker (is that Yes or No? or the Yeas and Nays within the EP group?)). I'd take out that marginal information, and the candidate line as well.

This reminds me that the need to get the table for the election by Europarty off the ground. I'm not sure how much time I'll have in the next couple days, but perhaps someone else might be able to contribute? Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gabrielthursday. I am calm but I do not like this manner and had to said it. I'll make a global answer of your post later, this evening, because I have to concentrate on other things. I just wished to say that the presidential infobox do show the vote in the European commission since the moment the European council announced his vote and was already ready to include this since I've included the template. I suppose you have missed it, hence you can see it here. Best Regards Captain frakas (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

While I'd prefer to have the main infobox (i.e. the one at the top of the article) name just the parliament group leaders, I think having also the top candidates on a second row is an acceptable compromise because it "inoculates" the infobox against new editors, who might otherwise just revert to a version showing only the top candidates, and thus prevents edit warring. We could write the nominating party in parantheses: "Bové & Keller (for EGP)". The pictures should be of the parliament group leaders, and their names ought to be first as well. I do still insist that parliament groups are more important than europarties (I have provided arguments for this above in the 'Problem with the infobox "leaders"' discussion), and if we were to have two infoboxes, the one on groups should be the one on the top of the page. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Captain- sorry, I'd remembered the infobox differently; that looks pretty good. I think we could take out the alliance line; and I think the delegate count (the selection by the EPP) could be covered in the text - it's not actually part of the formal election and "delegate count" doesn't really capture it anyway.

Jaakko, while I'm certainly open to compromise, I'm generally of the view that we should put into place the best option. I'm not sure that an "inoculation" would substantially change the frequency of bold editing. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am in 100% agreement with Jaakko. Captain frakas (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Something like this? >

(I couldn't figure out how to have it show that Verhofstadt is the joint candidate of both ALDE and EDP, nor did I know how to add a section for independent parties. Six smaller parties were also omitted.) --Yair rand (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We posted around about the same time, and I didn't see yours. I'd argue for a table, since it takes up less space and allows easier presentation of minor parties. Is the party I'm missing the Pirates? If so, I omitted it because it doesn't have recognition, at least according to the article on it. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The order should rather be 1. EPP (213), 2. PES (184), 3. ALDE (50), 4. AECR (42), 5. EAF (38), 6. EGP (37), 7. PEL (30), 8. UKIP (24), 9. M5S (17) Captain frakas (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to upset anyone. I have been bold, which Wikipedia encourages (perhaps too bold). Yes, I acted in good faith, as I was (and still am) convinced that the version after my edit was better than before. No one's work has been lost, every version is saved and can be reverted to. Per the "BRD cycle", I have been bold, you reverted, and now we are here to discuss. This is how Wikipedia works. No harm was intended, and I think that no harm has been done. May I ask you to alter the heading of this thread? It sounds a little too personal. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the infobox should show either EP groups or Europarties. Mixing both in one infobox is both inaccurate and confusing to readers. Several editors have already argued that the EP groups and their main Europarties are not congruent (Tsipras was EL's candidate, not the one of NGL and independents affiliated to GUE/NGL group; Bové & Keller were EGP's candidates, not EFA's and not the ones of the independents affiliated to G-EFA group etc.) The "candidate" line should therefore be removed from the infobox. The "vote for Juncker" line should also be removed. I do not even understand if it is supposed to contain "yes/no" or the no. of MEPs from the respective group. However, I think that it should not be in the box anyway. The election of the ECom president is not part of the EP election. It is a separate election. Another institution, the European Council, has to nominate the candidate. The EP is not free to vote for any candidate it wishes. Therefore, the process is more complex and should not simply included in the infobox. Furthermore, I am against including two or three election infoboxes in this article. Not all contents of an article have to be displayed in infoboxes. I observe that some users seem to overestimate the importance of infoboxes (a little exaggerated I might even want to say: are obsessed with infoboxes). I am convinced that infoboxes may be a helpful tool to give a quick, simple overview of the core information of an article. But they are not the centre of the article. Not all contents of the article have to be additionally displayed in infoboxes. It simply does not make sense to create an infobox for an election with only one candidate, an election in which there must only be a single candidate, because the EP can only accept or reject the candidate who has been nominated by another institution—the European Council. It may look nice to you to add another infobox in the section about the (s)election of the ECom president (I would argue it does not, to me an infobox with only one candidate looks stupid), it also does not add any informational value for readers. --RJFF (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am also against the infobox on the right of my contribution: (1) It discriminates against parties that have chosen not to join any Europarty. UKIP alone has more seats than MELD or EFA. (2) It will confuse users who are not European politics nerds but have very little previous knowledge (let's not forget: they are the main audience of this article!) They will probably wonder and be confused why there are two, similar but different, infoboxes. (3) Another user has already said this before: the main entities operating within the EP are the groups, not the Europarties. The official EP election result only provides the no. of seats by group, not by Europarty. We would have to calculate the no. of seats by Europarties ourselves, because they are not officially listed anywhere (WP:NOR!) --RJFF (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox election is absolutely not designed for an election like the one of the ECom president. The current use of it is highly confusing to readers: What does "delegate count" mean? (a term never used with regard to votes in the EP, never even used in European politics at all.) Whose "votes" are meant? (not indicating if votes in the European Council or the EP). The process of (s)election of the ECom president cannot be displayed in an infobox which is designed for US Presidential elections (or similar). It is absolutely inadequate and is more confusing than beneficial to readers. --RJFF (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm largely in agreement with your substantial critiques of the current infobox; I was certainly willing to accept an infobox for the ECom president, but it does need work, and I think it belongs on a separate article (with some summary here). Ultimately, if User:Captain frakas wants to put in the work to have a good and accurate infobox for that purpose, I certainly don't want to stand in the way. The more I think about it, the more I favour a separate article for the ECom President selection/election. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

RJFF, if you read more carefully the infobox, you will see that it is quite clearly indicated that the votes are in the European Council and not by the EP. I quite don't see how it is confusing or even how it may be confusing. (The EP have not voted yet by the way, the result will still be clear after the vote in the EP). Gabrielthursday, I am radically against having a separate article for the European commission's presidency as it would imply that it is a different elections, which is a non-neutral point of view. The two elections are quite clearly linked as the electoral campaign was done under the slogan "now, chose the president of the commission". Implying that it is totally shared by all political parties is near a violation of the neutral point of view, but trying to separate them is a total violation of the neutral point of view. IMHO, the infobox allow to show leader and candidate and it should be without any doubt be used. Not using it is a violation of the principle of neutrality. Captain frakas (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if I carefully read it, I will find out what is meant (my questions were rather rhetorical). But the article's audience includes people with little or no prior knowledge of European politics. People like you and me who are highly interested in European politics already are informed about what is going on, we do not need this article. But people who do not usually follow news from Brussels will have great difficulties to understand your infobox, because it is not designed for a process like the (s)election of the European Commission president, but for presidential elections like in the US that follow a very different pattern. --RJFF (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Even though the EP election and the (s)election of the European Commission president are two distinct processes, I do not think that we should have a separate article. Both processes are (legally and factually) linked, the one necessarily follows the other. Moreover, I estimate that we will have an article on the Juncker Commission (just like we have Barroso Commission), in which information about the (s)election process may also be included. --RJFF (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)