Talk:Europe of Sovereign Nations (party)

Lede

Currently, the ESN page reads, "The Europe of Sovereign Nations," which is incorrect grammatically because one would only include the article when specifying the party. The name of the organization is not "The Europe of Sovereign Nations." It is "Europe of Sovereign Nations."[1][2] The article "the" should not be included in the lede unless it reads as "The Europe of Sovereign Nations Party," or "The ESN Party."[3] When you look at other Europarties, such as the European People's Party, the Party of European Socialists, or Patriots.eu, you will notice that the pages only start with the article "the" when referring to the parties themselves as explicit entities. That is why you have universally have "the EPP" and "the PES", because those groups have Party in their name, as they are "The European People's Party" and "The Party of European Socialists." It is not referred to as "The Patriots.eu", because the name does not include the word "party." The abbreviation of ESN does not include the word party, ergo, it would simply be "ESN", and thus, unless the lede reads "The Europe of Sovereign Nations Party" there would be no purpose in including the article, ergo, it would simply be "Europe of Sovereign Nations". That it what the sources state, that is what English grammar dictates. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

1. "is incorrect grammatically because one would only include the article when specifying the party." what is this based on?

2. "The abbreviation of ESN does not include the word party"; indeed, but the website (first-party source) uses "ESN", "ESN party", and "ESN Party" interchangeably.

3. "That it what the sources state" what source? The registration form? That's first party and not really an example of use in a sentence.

Overall, I am personally not dead set on the issue, but I think the reality is more nuanced than you indicate. Unfortunately, this party/alliance is so new that it is barely mentioned in the media at this point. However, the matching political group is mentioned more often and they happen to have pretty much the same name (actually the group has "Group" in its name, but it's often dropped by the media).

For instance, this says "This means the new, hard-right Patriots for Europe (PfE) and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) would have considerable leverage." and uses the article. This one reads "The Europe of Sovereign Nations’ (ESN) co-chair...". Finally, this one states "After having contacted several far-right groups in the European Parliament, including the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR), the Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), and Patriots for Europe (PfE), which include...". Other cases avoid this by adding "group" or "party" (not capitalised).

So, while many parties make it easier by having "party" or "alliance" in their name, it's not as clear when that's not the case, and input from experienced editors would be helpful. Julius Schwarz (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

1. The English language

2. Yes, but the official paperwork states that the official abbreviation is simply "ESN", and while "ESN Party" is not completely inaccurate, the issue still remains that referring to it as "The Europe of Sovereign Nations" is incorrect

3. The Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations page, which is not first party, as well as basically every English language reporting on the Group when it was formed (which would follow the same grammar rules)

The first source you linked uses the article as linked to the words "new" and "hard-right" not to "Patriots for Europe" or "Europe of Sovereign Nations." The Politico article does not use the article to refer to the party. It is the Europe of Sovereign Nations' co-chair. You could fully emit the words "Europe of Sovereign Nations" and "the co-chair" would still be a valid grammatical phrase; you cannot emit the words "co-chair" and have coherent grammar with just "the Europe of Sovereign Nations" any more than you can have "the Patriots.eu" because that is not how English works. The third source is just inconsistent both internally and with English grammar rules. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Could you try and be slightly more specific than "the English language"? I am not sure this meets the bar for a solid argument.

2. So you claim indeed, but we are to discuss this.

3. The source provided by the APPF is indeed first party, as it is a form filled in by the applicant itself.

As for the examples from articles, I have to disagree: just because you add an adjective doesn't mean that it impact of use (or lack thereof) of the article. For instance, for ID, the journalist could have written "Identity and Democracy's co-chair" without the "the", but here they chose not to. Likewise, they could have written "Hard-right Identity and Democracy", but here they chose not to. Once again, I am mostly pointing out the fact that things are not clear-cut and that this can benefit from opinions outside the two of us. Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is just incorrect. That sentence would read, "This means new, hard-right Identity and Democracy would have considerable leverage." This is grammatically unworkable. When using the article, it is referring to "the party." Whatever adjective is included is irrelevant; you could not say "The member of party," you would say, "The member of the party." Whether that is "the member of the Patriots.eu party", "the member of the Europe of Sovereign Nations party", or "the member of the European People's Party", it is only by including the word party that the article is included. In the case of entities such as the EPP, it is a proper article. Otherwise, it is not, and thus should not be included unless explicitly talking about it as a party. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we are just going in circles, which was what already happened on your talk page. Respectfully, I am going to stop replying until other people chime in, because this is not productive. Julius Schwarz (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that DvcDeBlvngis's stance is correct. "The Europe of Sovereign Nations" is not grammatically correct and it should be referred to simply as "ESN". SelketCadmium (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Very timely intervention, impressive. Ok, let's remove the article and see how things evolve over time. Julius Schwarz (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect Synthesis

The "History" section seems to be a product of synthesis since there is no source that confirms that the Sofia Declaration and that congress had anything to do with the creation of the present party. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 02:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, I would suggest that, instead of adding "citation needed" tags everywhere, you just add the relevant <ref> when it's already found in the article. Would be a tad more productive. Julius Schwarz (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no such reference when I put tag - you added afterwards so don't point your finger at me. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's precisely my point: I added that reference, and you could have just as easily done it. The source is on the website of the APPF which was already provided in another ref. That's just lazy editing frankly. Please take a moment to try and find a source when it's for something so basic, instead of just marking the source as missing. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I have done already my research before tagging, searching for secondary sources, of course. I found nothing. Instead, I found this https://esn-party.eu/board-member which refers in two deputy chairmen. So, i decided to tag. Anyway, don't be too quick to jump to conclusions. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not about being quick, it's just that this was really not the hardest thing. They made a mistake on their website, but all their registration documents say the same. Don't get upset, just please try a bit more next time. Julius Schwarz (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposing semi-protection

Hi everyone,

I am proposing to semi-protect the following pages: The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, European Conservatives and Reformists Party, Renew Europe, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Europe of Sovereign Nations (party), Europe of Sovereign Nations Group, and Patriots for Europe. The same message is copy-pasted on all of the relevant talk pages, so that the merits of this proposal can be discussed for each of these pages.

My reasoning is the same for all pages: all of them have been the victim of recurring vandalism over the past few weeks, where (mostly) anonymous users change the ideology of the party/group without sources or discussion. Mostly, this is done to remove "far-right" (often when the ideology is "right-wing to far-right"), change "far-right" to "right-wing", remove "center-right" (when the ideology is "center to center-right"), change "center-right" to "center-left", or change "left-wing" to "far-left". These changes are often quickly reverted, but their continued occurrence is problematic. Semi-protecting the page would prevent anonymous users from making such edits.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of quality edits are made from registered accounts, which would not be affected by the semi-protection. This is particularly true since these pages are part of a rather niche group (European parties and parliamentary groups) that is very rarely edited by non-wikipedians. As a result, I do not think that the semi-protection would have a negative impact on the continued development of these pages.

Happy to discuss! Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)