Talk:2009 European Parliament election/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Infobox - Party Leaders

Would users notably Julien-223 please stop changing the infobox to state who is made President of the EU Commission after the election. This article is not about the election/appointing of the Commission President who is currently selected by the European Council and is therefore a seperate issue and vote in a different institution of the EU (this will change for the next Parliament election when Parliament will gain the power to elect the Commission President but; 1. this article is not about that election and its consequences, and 2. even then that makes no sense.)
The system in the EU is not the same as in Parliamentary systems where elections effect who the Head of the Executive (usually a Prime Minister but in the EU the Commission President) is as their is a seperation of the powers between Parliament and the Exectuive in the EU. The system is far more similar to that of the Congressional System where an election will change the party in control of Congress and will then select its speaker (in the US) but does not change who is in conrol of the Executive.
Whilst it is true that the selection of the Commission President is based partially around the make up of Parliament it does not have to be if the European Council don't wish it to be and they may select any candidate they wish. If a Commission President resigns during the term of the Parliament a new one is selected by the European Council, Parliament again is not consulted or used for this election.
Therefore, please stop changing the infobox. 82.28.40.202 (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


I won't stop, because:
- The infobox we are using is the one used for the UK general elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
As you see, for the UK, it does not display parliamentary group leaders, but party candidates for prime minister. If you disagree with this way of presenting facts, I suggest you also change the articles on UK general elections.
- Daul, Schultz and Watson are no European party leaders: Daul and Schultz are group leaders, and Watson is not even a MEP anymore. They are just part of the EP hierarchy, like the EP president, vice-presidents, coordinators, committee presidents. Group presidents have no role in the EP election!
- The only party leader for the campaign was Barroso, he was appointed formally as such: http://www.32462857769.net/EPP/e-PressRelease/PDF/19-03-2009%20EPP%20LEADERS%20BACK%20BARROSO%20FOR%20A%20SECOND%20TERM%20AS%20PRESIDENT%20OF%20EUROPEAN%20COMMISSION.pdf
You won't find any other party leader for the 2009 election, be it for the EPP of for other European parties. You will find party presidents, but they have no role in the campaign, contrary to Barroso in 2009.
- All main parties have decided to designate their frontrunner for the 2014 European elections, who will at the same time be their candidate for Commission president. See for instance: http://www.pes.org/en/system/files/Resolution2_adopted_EN.pdf Julien-223 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
There are no party leaders, because these aren't parties. The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats is NOT the same as the Party of European Socialists, nor even is the European People's Party group the same as the European People's Party. As such, the infobox is simply wrong to say that the PES or ELDR got that many seats.
Moreover, because they are not parties, they do not have 'permanent' leaders, except their parliamentary group leaders. Why? Because they are parliamentary groups and nothing more. Bastin 09:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you are making a major mistake by assuming that this article is primarily about the Parliament. It is not: it is about the Parliament's election. Just as the article on UK general election is about an election, not about the House of Commons.
The infobox you propose is a non-sense. Parliamentary groups are not campaigning at European level. Neither are UMP, SPD, or the UK Lib-Dems. It is completely far-fetched to present the UMP as the first winner of this election. Schultz, Daul, and Watson were not campaigning. You are relying on a fiction: group leaders are not actors of this election.
The first 3 parties at European level are EPP, PES, and ELDR, they were recognised officially as such in 2009. So you're wrong: there are European political parties. Julien-223 (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course the US President isn't confirmed by Congress however judges of the Supreme Court are, yet they don't feature in elections to the House of Represenatives. In the UK general election the Prime Minister is elected as an MP, they are the leader of the entire party. In Dutch Parliamentary elections (the Dutch system is closer to the EU system than the British system) the leaders of the Parliamentary party are presented. Barroso is not even elected to the Parliament the candidates for the position of Commission President are decided by the European Council. 82.28.40.202 (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, in the Netherlands and in Germany, the candidates for PM / Kanzler are all designated by the Queens or Bundespräsident. However, as you will notice, Merkel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2009), Rutte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_general_election,_2010) and Cameron all appear on the top of the corresponding Wiki articles. Although they were all elected head of government through purely legislative elections. We have to try to understand how constitutional politics work in practice, beyond what constitutions / treaties say.
Judges of the supreme court are not nominated nor discussed during the campaign of the US congressional elections, and that's precisely the reason why they do not appear in Wiki articles. The designation of Barroso by EPP before the election made it a political issue in the campaign, it forced PES to consider an alternative candidate. And that's exactly the reason why it should appear in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest we put the party logos instead of non-existing leaders' pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I considered that, but all of the logos are used on Wikipedia per WP:FAIR, and so cannot be used outside of the articles on the organisations that they represent. Bastin 19:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox – Where should EP groups go: in category “Party” or "Alliance"?

You'll note that none of this was supported by Wikipedia policy or references (except one reference that supports my position...), so let me be the first to move us in that constructive direction. Wikipedia's core policy is that of maintaining a neutrality by ensuring that all inclusions are verifiable by reliable sources. Reliable sources includes newspapers, articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, and books published by reputable publishers.
So, yes, if newspapers all adopt the same style, it is Wikipedia policy that we follow suit. That is the only way to prevent editors forcing their POV on the article. I would appreciate, if you intend to make your time editing Wikipedia to be an enjoyable one, if you would supply evidence that your POV is supported by a preponderance of reliable sources.
For now, it is obvious that the majority of news outlets, as I stated and as you have accepted, use the system that I have defended and had existed for years before you came along. Wikipedia works by consensus. If you come along and change something that has been done by consensus in the Wikipedia community, and that is challenged, you must be expected to justify your position and explain to other users why your position is more in-keeping with Wikipedia policy.
So, as I said, there are a range of sources that present election results by political group, not by Europarty: authoritative broadcasters, authoritative newspapers, authoritative books, the European Parliament itself (although I note that the EP reports it as of the 13 July, when the session opened, and thus the figure for the ECR includes EMS's defection). Note also that the sources that have 'reviewed' the election (the book and the Parliament) have no problem saying that there was an ECR, even though it was created two weeks after the election. Since Wikipedia is equally blessed with that hindsight, it is the stance that Wikipedia should take. I have never, EVER seen a reliable source stating the ECPM got one seat, the EFA got seven, and the EDP got nine. Of course, you are invited to prove that the majority of reliable sources do.
Regarding your specific point about groups changing, lots of reliable sources assume that EPP is the successor to the EPP-ED, that the S&D is the successor to the PES, and that the EFD is the successor to the I/D. Very few call the ECR the successor to the UEN. As such, whereas the other parties 'change' figures are relative to the parties that reliable sources also compare them to, the ECR is not. As an aside, making the box about the Europarties doesn't make it any clearer, either, as their memberships also change. However, I bet you don't have any references to show how reliable sources handle such changes.
Bastin 21:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Bastin, could you tell me which kind of consensus assumes that groups are parties? My consensus is called a dictionary.Julien-223 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that every editor except you agrees with the status quo? If you prefer your dictionary to Wikipedia policy, try editing a dictionary instead of Wikipedia. Bastin 22:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is two years old. Perhaps you'd like to reflect on that when you think the last two days of your ramblings constitute an agreed settlement. However, for your education, I just wrote five paragraphs explaining why Wikipedia policy is against you. You should really pay attention to those that have been editing Wikipedia for longer than you giving you helpful advice on how Wikipedia works. Bastin 23:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Indeed, Bastin, the article is two years old. Now let me underline that, from the day it was created until you came up in May in order to make your POV prevail in the infobox, EP groups always appeared in the line "Alliance", not in the line "Party".

You pretend that there is a so-called consensus that EP groups can be considered as "parties". Well, look closely at the article history, please: the line "party" always referred to political parties, NEVER to EP groups.

From the creation of the article until january, the line "Party" referred to the national parties of EP group chairmen.
Then it was acknowledged that no verifiable, reliable, neutral and authoritative source assumes that EP group chairmen can be considered as election leaders, and that presenting the fact this way is POV. Therefore, their pictures and names would not appear in the top of the infobox anymore. So that's why the reference to the national parties was erased, and replaced by a reference to European political parties. Which was also seen as more consistent in terms of representativity, as Europarties represent a far bigger share of groups' size than national parties of the group chairmen. This situation prevailed from january on, and was accepted by readers and editors until you intervened.

Perhaps you'd like to reflect on that when you think the last two days of your ramblings constitute an agreed settlement.


The one who decided to put EP groups in the line "party" was you. There has never been any consensus on that. Well, since this is your POV, and that its contradicts the consensus since the creation of the article, you must be expected to justify your position and explain to other users why your position is more in-keeping with Wikipedia policy. I'm listening to you Bastin: why should we change the consensus and put EP groups in the line "party"? I have never, EVER seen a reliable source stating EP groups should be seen as parties.

If you don't have any reference to show how reliable sources have this kind of conception, I regret we may have to reestablish the most recent consensus, which is:

-Number of seats of EP groups,
-Alliance: EP groups
-Party: Europarty.

Julien-223 (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was under 'Alliance', because, as you well know, the party field was used for 'UMP', 'SPD', and 'Liberal Democrats'. That is, national parties. Y'know, those things that so inconveniently undermine your belief that the world views the election results through Europarties.
And, as you well know, we both agreed that it was silly to include them, not least due to the inappropriateness of having Daul, Schulz, and Watson as 'Leaders'. That the field is now empty does not invite you to enter factually-inaccurate and POV data in the former national parties' place.
The bizarre suggestion that my edit was unsupported by references could better be refuted by reading the above: where I cited four and could have cited thousands. You're still yet to provide any references to support your POV. I wonder why that is... Bastin 09:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute: The main thing is we have reached a consensus: you acknowledge that Groups should not appear in the line "Party".

I think we can partly close this discussion and we can make the corresponding change? What do you think? Julien-223 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - Should Europarties appear in the infobox?

Two statements:

- It is possible to say which Europarties compose which EP groups. This is an information based on reliable sources, as all Europarty websites indicate to which EP group their MEPs belong (wee for instance www.pes.org, www.epp.eu, or www.eldr.eu, etc.). There are only ten official Europarties (see link below) to check.
- My POV is that it is also a relevant information with financial and legal implication. Why?
  • Because Europarties' representation in the EP is the main criterion taken into account by the EU to fund these Europarties. See art. 10 of REGULATION (EC) No 2004/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding, concerning the distribution of EU funding between Europarties (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2003R2004:20071227:EN:HTML). I underline that this is a legal source. You won't find anything more autoritative than that. The Parliament itself has made a breakdown of the MEP seats between Europarties in order to determine the level of funding of each Europarty. So this breakdown exists. The funds involved reach €30 millions per annum: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/grants/grant_amounts_parties.pdf.
  • Because Europarties make manifestos for the EP elections (see Europarty websites).

Of course, none of your autoritative sources gives such a level of detail. But does wikipedia policy prevent us to be more detailed than the average online newspaper, when we try to bring relevant information?

Thank you in advance for your answer.Julien-223 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the correlation between Europarties and euroelections. European parliament consists of groups and not these parties. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The political groups are formed by the MEPs after the election. Hence, one can not say that the political groups participate in the European Parliament elections. It is the europarties and their national political parties (and independent national parties) that participate in the elections. After the elections, the elected MEPs come together and create the political groups. --Glentamara (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Indeed. As I said above, the Parliament itself is distributing fund between European political parties (EPP, PES, PEL, EGP, etc) on the basis of the number of seats they have in the Parliament, not on the basis of EP group sizes. This means that the presence of Europarties in the European Parliament is recognised legally and assessed by the institutions.

The Parliament is made of groups, but these groups are made of one or several parties, and sometimes of independents. Like in the case of the Bundestagsfraktion CDU/CSU, made of two parties (one federal, one regional), or of the French National Assembly political groups which frequently gather several parties and independents.

Taking part in the elections is not a task of EP groups: see the definition of EP groups on the website of the Parliament (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=45&pageRank=4&language=en)

On the contrary, taking part in elections is the task of Europarties. See points (b) and (d) of article 3 of regulation No 2004/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2003R2004:20071227:EN:HTML). "A political party at European level [...] must have participated in elections to the European Parliament, or have expressed the intention to do so".

This is a legal source, not some kind of self-proclamed "autoritative" article found on the internet. Julien-223 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there are two important points here:
  1. Europarties are the only european level body which campaign at election time (though obviously most of election campaigning is done by national parties) - European Parliament groups have nothing to do with this.
  2. Whilst europarties do the campaigning it is by European group which MEPs sit in Parliament and is how they vote if voting is done on group lines, a good example of this is the EPP-ED group which only had some of the group members in the europarty the EPP. After elections independents often join groups.
In light of this therefore it seems to me that if the numbers provided comprise of the group total then groups must be shown. whether or not the parties should be represented along side of this though as the actual campaigners is still an issue. Shatter Resistance (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We should present numbers in the same format as reliable sources do. Otherwise, it's original research. So, Julien, any answer on that count? Do you even have one source that presents data by Europarty? If you don't, all your bleating's of no interest to Wikipedia. Bastin 15:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

God, can't you read? We didn't ask you not whether we should calculate new figures for European political parties, we asked you whether we should mention Europarties next to EP groups, without any new calculation. Got it? So, what do you bark? #queltrouducul Julien-223 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jullien-223 please try to remain WP:Civil though if you are going to go down that route then 'God, can't you write' because you seem to have a large number of words in that sentence that don't mean anything.
Back on topic, it actually does matter which figures we use as they imply very different things, if we use the figures of the number of seats gained by a party then obviously we use parties, if we use the number of seats a formed group has then it seems clear that the group needs to be mentioned, this option again brings us round to whether or not parties should be included alongside groups as they obviously do have an effect and are the actual campaigners for most group members. Shatter Resistance (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the lack of civility. And not sorry for my bad command of English. Being a native English speaker is a unfair priviledge in this world, and having a broken English the standard, especially on European issues. So much for the bleating.

Concerning the risk of making an original research, the wiki policy article on original research doesn't contain anything preventing us from combining numbers from differents reliable sources in a table, which is the way we could set up an infobox showing European parties instead of EP groups. Actually, the rule says: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources."

Apparently, the rule forbids interpretations, descriptions, theses and argumentations that differ from the sources. But it does not say much on numbers and raw data.

If no other WP rule comes in our way, I'm in favour of focusing the infobox on European parties. All the information we need is on European parties' webpages. Julien-223 (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, please stop misrepresenting policy. It is not a 'routine calculation', because you haven't provided a source to show that such calculations are performed by anyone else. What you need to do that is a number of references that show that election results are summarised by Europarty, rather than by group: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words". That's it. I asked for that ages ago and you've done nothing to abide by that policy. Bastin 11:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bastin, this is your expectation, but is this a requirement of wiki policy? I don't think so. The information on European party webpages are reliable, verifiable, neutral. They are a good reference as EU law recognises that European parties participate in elections and are represented there.

By the way: Can we change the infobox in order to put EP groups in "Alliances" rather than "Parties"? (See conclusions of the previous paragraph)Julien-223 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we have to distinguish between "Parliamentary group" and "Political group"? The ones on the table are parliamentary groups and not political groups in European level. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean political 'parties' at European level. Why aren't they in the table? What do you propose exactly?Julien-223 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In terms of changing the order to put the groups in alliances section that is definetly a logical idea IF we decide to have the parties in the boxes.
I was thinking of adding a 'group' category to Infobox election which I think would help to make the distinction that the parliamentary groups are not alliances per se but are not parties either. If we decide to not have the parties in the infobox then I shall also try to make it that if the group category is used then a colour is provided as would be lost if we only used alliances.
There is however definetly no way whatever conclusion we reach that the groups should be placed in the 'party' category. Shatter Resistance (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I also think the EP elections require to adapt the election Infobox template, which was initially drawn up for US presidential and UK general elections.
My view is that both European political parties and EP groups should appear, and groups should be under a category "group". Whether the focus should be on European parties or on EP groups remains an open question.
If we decide to focus the infobox on groups, then we can keep the current figures, but we many changes will have to be made: put the 'group' category above the 'party' one, associate with a colour, change the headlines "First party", "Second party", etc. to "First group", "Second group", redefine the category "leader" as "Candidate for EC president"...
In any case the reference to European parties should remain.
I have no idea how to do that. Julien-223 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on all but the point about the Commission President candidate, reading some earlier comments it seems that it is the parties which nominate the candidate for Commission President and I feel it may be confusing to place an individual who does not in any way represent a 'group' (as the only members of a group can be sitting MEPs). Also the nomination of a Commission President it very much a new development, historically the European Council was the only body which had (or attempted to have) any say on the matter. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Julien-223 (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
So who do you think should be placed in the box instead? Personnally I would favour the group leaders because again they are the ones actually sitting in the European Parliament. Shatter Resistance (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No, we already had this discussion. Group chairmen are not leaders for the election. Their nomination at the head of a group is nowhere considered as part of the election results. No reliable source mentions them.
If Barroso cannot be considered as a leader, there is no leader. That's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That is true (though I feel the discussion was perhaps rather limited) - however surely if you are going to accept that argument that groups do not participate in the election but must be present in the infobox but with parties it is uncertain then surely you must accept that groups leaders are equally valid members to appear as opposed to party leaders who do not sit in Parliament or the Commisssion President who is also not of Parliament but has so far (though in 2014 this may change) had anything to do with the Parliament in terms of election. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


The alternative is simple:
- Either we opt for an Infobox focused on EP groups, with the view to present election results in the way media do.
But reliable sources never present EP group chairmen as part of the election results. What is more, which group chairman will we take for ALDE? The one of the outgoing or the one of the new group? Just one remark: on this discussion, 4 different editors insist that group chairmen should not be presented as leaders, only one is in favour of it: you.
On the contrary, some reliable sources present European parties as part of election results: the European parties websites. So that's why the option "EP groups" does not exclude mentioning European parties alongside their groups.

- Or we make the choice of an Infobox focused on (European) political parties, because political parties are the only actors participating in this election as in any other parliamentary election. This option would allow us to present Barroso as EPP leader, because his election at the head of the Commission had, contrary to what you're saying, a lot to do with the election. Barroso was designated by the EPP before the election (http://www.32462857769.net/EPP/e-PressRelease/PDF/19-03-2009%20EPP%20LEADERS%20BACK%20BARROSO%20FOR%20A%20SECOND%20TERM%20AS%20PRESIDENT%20OF%20EUROPEAN%20COMMISSION.pdf)
Remember this is not an article about the composition of the Parliament, but about the 2009 EP election. Therefore, your idea that having a seat in the Parliament is a precondition for being mentionned in the article / infobox does not seem relevant. Otherwise the article couldn't mention all the parties and actors of the election that failed to be represented, like the EUD, Europe-democracy-esperanto, etc.

Although most sources chose the first option, which was reflected in the past consensus, I am for the second option. It's a question of consistency, and wikipedia policy on consensus does not prevent us from changing that consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
What the European party's websites say about themselves is irrelevant to Wikipedia, as they're not reliable THIRD-PARTY sources. Bastin 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Bastin, you'd make a terribly bad lawyer.
I read you the very first sentence of the wikipedia policy article on identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views" (in bold in the article) "that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press).".
As it is said, this rule is meant for "views", not for raw data.

What is more, the reference to "third-party, published sources" only comes in a paragraph called "overview", and is immediately interpretated as follows: "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves".

Once more, European political parties are not wikipedians, and it's not a question of publishing an "opinion".
Of course, for you, raw data are a question of opinion. As a member of the UK conservatives, you belong to a group that has a political agenda on European political parties (do you want me to prove it? I have reliable third-party sources), and it apparently also involves negating basic data.

So, nobody's objecting anything consistent to what I'm proposing. As soon as I have time, and if no concrete objection emerges, I think I'll be able to make the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about - you've already lost this case. But that's okay. For someone that can't seem to write in English, your ability to read English isn't that bad. It's just not up to the standard of the Bar of England and Wales. Or a bar in England and Wales, for that matter. If you intend to discuss it further, do so with a bit more courtesy and grammatical accuracy.
"This means" is not the same as "What this says is limited to". That is, the fact that Wikipedia relies on reliable third-party references for verifiability does not mean that we use every opinion that's not a Wikipedian's. Otherwise, we could cite David Icke on how great David Icke is (I'm pretty sure he's not on Wikipedia and I'm pretty sure he's not great). The opinion of Europarties on the importance of Europarties is as reliable a source as David Icke's opinion on David Icke's opinions about reptilians. We. Do. Not. Care.
WP:NPOV says, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." 'View' is not limited to assertions about the species of Queen Elizabeth II. It includes any presentation of information. Otherwise, we could present the data however some interested party wanted and published on their own website. We could have a table that presents results by the month MEPs are born in. Or by surname. After all, if Schmidt is the most common name in the Parliament (it's not), maybe someone called Schmidt might want to publicise that: put it on his or her website and bish, bash, bosh, Wikipedia now presents information about surnames, not groups.
That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia presents views - including how data are presented - in a way that reflects the balance of opinions and methodology in reliable sources. As I have consistently pointed out, reliable sources discuss the results in terms of groups, not parties. There is no negotiation. As such, I'll revert any change you make. Ignoring objections is not the same as there not being any. Bastin 12:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't lack courteousy and accuracy, that's for sure. "There is no negotiation" also shows us you're a real man. Congratulations. Julien-223 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Party/Alliance in infobox

I'm confused as to what the difference between "party" and "alliance" is in the infobox. The rest of the article seems to suggest that only one label should be used for each group, the name of the relevant European political party. LukeSurl t c 23:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, you put better both names in the infobox, that is orderly. If nobody is against I will changed it tonight or tomorrow here and on the 2014 page.81.58.144.30 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-Inscrits

Tt is an idea to put Non-Inscrits too in the infobox?81.58.144.30 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on European Parliament election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on European Parliament election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Parliament election, 2009. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 42 external links on European Parliament election, 2009. 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:

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) 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on European Parliament election, 2009. 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:

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) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_European_Parliament_election/Archive_2&oldid=1028694978"