Jump to content

Talk:European Parliament/Archive 2

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

Dubious

All democratic systems respect the principal of separation of powers. Separation of powers is a continuium, with governments that consist of MPs and representatives obviously more fused than executives that cannot be dismissed by legislatures. Just because the European Commission is less answerable to the European Parliament than an European national government would be to its legislature does not, in itself, I believe, make the European Parliament somehow more akin to the US Congress.

To me, the defining feature of parliamentary and semi-parliamentary systems is the Motion of No Confidence or Censure Motion, which lets a lower house remove cabinet members and governments with a simple majority. Because it can propose a Motion of No Confidence, the European Parliament must be closer to any parliament of an EU member state than to the US Congress. Egroeg5 (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to say that the cited source does not justify making the flagged statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. The cited chapter apparently argues a case re the extent to which the European Parliament can be compared to the US House of Representatives – motivated partly by a desire to dispel misapprehensions about the power (or lack thereof) of the European Parliament. It might better be presented (with attribution) as the (valid) opinion of an American researcher, but I would tend to remove it here, where an introduction to a factual description is expected. It might be better placed elsewhere. --Boson (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Political groups in the infobox

On what basis are the political groups in the infobox grouped by "Coalition", "Support" and "Opposition"? What is the reason for this classification (since there is no real coalition in the EP)? In particular, I do not understand "Support". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:A080:2B24:A582:818B:D18:F508 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Groups are classified based on whether they are part of the von der Leyen Commission, they support it (without being part of it), or they oppose it. I think this classification is also partially wrong (some parties within each group have different opinions on the Commission), and in some cases (ECR and NI) it splits the group in two places in the list, so in my opinion we should just list the groups, or find another better way to summarize the composition of the "Commission majority" of the EP in the infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
More boldly, I would sack the classification entirely. --Checco (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The EP does not have a well-defined and clear "government majority" like national Houses do in most of the cases. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree, delete as shoe-horning. --Red King (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

MEPs discrepancy

Hello. In the infobox MEPs reported for RE (96), ID (75), ECR (61) GUE/NGL (39) and NI (28) are different from those reported in each specific article - 97, 76, 62, 40, 27. Why this happens? Lone Internaut (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Because not all the 705 seats have been assigned yet, plus there has been some confusion for the post-Brexit apportionment. The numbers here reflect the ones on the EP website, the numbers on the group pages reflect the count with the new post-Brexit MEPs included (for example, the new Dutch seat that went to the PVV – in the ID group – which in the EP website is still unassigned). --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Ritchie. I imagined something like that, but I was not sure. Lone Internaut (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Under-representation of ethnic minority politicians

Since WP:IDON'TLIKEITWHENWIKIPEDIAPOINTSOUTHOWWHITETHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTIS doesn't exist, and the material is reliably referenced, perhaps we can have a proper reason why this material should be censored? FDW777 (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement "if the numbers were proportionate to the EU population, then 22 would be black." seems to violate WP:NOTADVOCACY. I'm all for reporting the facts and everything else in that section except for that clause I pointed out is great. But is Wikipedia a forum for advancing racial justice? Transcendence (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I've rephrased a bit. FDW777 (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to link everything with race.Members of the parliament are democratically elected. As long as the people support it, even 10,000 black members can be elected. On the contrary, if the people do not support it, no black members can be elected. Democratic elections have nothing to do with race or color, and there is no need to emphasize the number of "non-white parliamentarians" in this article.——联合果君 (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please provide guideline/policy-based objections, instead of a plea for censorship. And please change the record, simply posting your edit summary that I have already objected to is not providing a proper reason. FDW777 (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Isn't it discriminating, counting people by their skin color? Nillurcheier (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It's discrimination to point out there's a disproportionately low number of non-white MEPs? FDW777 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, this is important information which needs to be in this article. However, I wonder whether it should be in its own subsection, maybe along with the gender disparity issue. I think that should help both those who want to ignore the information (just like I ignore the "Sports" section of many articles) and those who want to expand on it. Eelworm (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
No objection to it being moved, it's something that gets continued coverage, for example Reuters in 2019 talks about it in-depth, as do The Parliament Magazine in 2020. FDW777 (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It is okay for the media to discuss this issue, but Wikipedia is not a media.Wikipedia should uphold a neutral, objective, and realistic stance.——联合果君 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Neutrality means All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Since this viewpoint has been repeatedly covered over many years, it is clearly a significant view. FDW777 (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia also comply with excessive affirmative movements and political correctness?——联合果君 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Since "excessive affirmative movements" are not being cited (though reliable references are), the question is not relevant. FDW777 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sourced for black percentage of EU population, I didn't find any though searching. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read the reference already cited in the article? FDW777 (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Or try the EU's own report. FDW777 (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Under-representation of ethnic minority politicians

Should the article include a statement about the disproportionately low number of Black MEPs? Transcendence (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Support deleting related content.——联合果君 (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Include (but keep looking for better sources). It's important information, just like the proportion of female MEPs. Wikipedia is not censored based on the assumption that any democratic process is perfect and must never be questioned, which appears to be the main argument for deleting this information. Eelworm (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Include without prejudice to changes/additions to text. It's clear that the under-representation of ethnic minority politicians has been covered by different references for years. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose，Members of the European Parliament are elected by voters of various countries, not according to races and colors. Allocate seats to blacks in proportion to the population and be elected by blacks? Allocate seats to white people and be elected by white people? not like this.So what you have been talking about "the problem of the low proportion of black parliamentarians" is not a problem at all, because the attitude of voters in various countries is like this. People think that so many black parliamentarians are enough.In other words, the view of the people (the voters) is that the current number of black parliamentarians is reasonable and there is no problem of "fewer".——联合果君 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't include this statement only. Include, if reliable data are available statements of disproportionality regarding gender, age, level of education, disability, origin of migration (at least split into continents) and may be other parameters. Picking just one critirion of disproportional MP-quotes is selective and hence biased. Nillurcheier (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • There's clearly a significant view in reliable references that ethnic minorities are disproportionately under-represented. If reliable references exist for under-representation in other areas, of course they can be included too. But to say x should be excluded because references don't exist about y is not how WP:NPOV works. FDW777 (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose，The proportion of black parliamentarians is too low? There is no such problem.because voters (the people) have elected so many black parliamentarians. If voters think that the proportion of black parliamentarians is too low, they will elect more black parliamentarians.——联合果君 (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Include elsewhere - There's a pretty clear place for this kind of information for the US Congress (see 116th_United_States_Congress#Demographics). I'm not 100% sure where it should go for the EU parliment, but it probably shouldn't go on this page. Perhaps on Member of the European Parliament? NickCT (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • You're going to have to explain why the demography of the European Parliament being disproportionate belongs anywhere other than the article about, wait for it, the European Parliament. FDW777 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Include elsewhere but without opinion - Thus far, both attempts to include a statement about how "disproportionate" the numbers are, violates WP:NOTADVOCACY. It is unequivocally clear that the inclusion of that word is to promote racial justice, as evidenced by the initial comment saying Since WP:IDON'TLIKEITWHENWIKIPEDIAPOINTSOUTHOWWHITETHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTIS doesn't exist,. Advocating for racial justice is admirable, but Wikipedia is not the place to be advocating for it. I am reminded of the statement in WP:ADVOCACY, "Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.". The numbers that were included prior to the clause containing the word "disproportionate" already made this clear. Including the word crosses the line into WP:NOTADVOCACY.
I support creating a demographics section ala NickCT's idea where we can also include statistics on other underrepresented groups. However, again, I don't support including the descriptor "disproprotionate", again because of WP:NOTADVOCACY Transcendence (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No advocacy involved, the article reports objectively from a neutral point of view. The number of non-white MEPs is a fact, as is their proportion in comparison to the EU. What is not neutral is hiding this viewpoint, either by removal of hiding away in, for example, the MEP article. FDW777 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose.The proportion of black parliamentarians is too low? There is no such problem.because voters (the people) have elected so many black parliamentarians. If voters think that the proportion of black parliamentarians is too low, they will elect more black parliamentarians.——联合果君 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The articles you used as sources do not even include the word "disproportionate". Whether or not this is WP:NOTADVOCACY is at the heart of this dispute. Since the articles do not even include that word, and given your initial statement as evidence for racial justice advocacy, I'm inclined to lean toward this as WP:NOTADVOCACY.
Saying that the article reports objectively from neutral point of view and then adding something that the article does not report is misleading. The word "disproportionate" implies that it **should** be a certain way but isn't. In particular, WP:LABEL requires that Value-laden labels have an in text attribution. A more WP:NPOV way of writing that would be to say that Black Europeans are underrepresented as is actually written in the article. Transcendence (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think there may be a language issue here: to me, "disproportionate" is a mathematical statement about the ratio of Black MEPs to total MEPs vs the ratio of Black EU citizens to total EU citizens. That's not advocacy. If I understand your comment correctly, "disproportionate" means "excessive" to you, and if that's the case for a significant number of readers we need to find a better term.
The 3-vs-22 number, though, cannot be used: it's a pre-Brexit number based, IIRC, on residents rather than citizens of the EU. Eelworm (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Two points. As I point out above, the word "disproportionate" appears nowhere in the articles used as citations. Secondly, yes, the word is charged as are most words in the arena of racial justice. The word "disproportionate" is not a neutral word as it carries baggage akin to other words in various MOS guidelines. It implies that it **should** be a certain way but isn't. In particular, WP:LABEL requires that Value-laden labels have an in text attribution. I'd support using the word that is actually used in the articles which is "underrepresented". Transcendence (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As I said, if a significant number of readers are likely to assume the non-technical meaning of "disproportionate" we need a better term. That appears to be the case.
In my personal vocabulary, "disproportionate" isn't value-laden but "underrepresented" is, so replacing one by the other won't help. And there's obviously no requirement to use only words that appear in the sources, so we shouldn't be guided by that idea. Let's just say what we mean to say using our own words. Eelworm (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Even if "underrepresented" is a value laden word, it would be appropriate here as it is the actual word used in the article and we can have an in text attribution. WIth regards to And there's obviously no requirement to use only words that appear in the sources, that is false. WP:LABEL requires in text attribution for contentious or value laden words. Transcendence (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
How is it false? Again, my suggestion is to describe the facts (fewer Black MEPs than would be expected by the Black share of the electorate) without using problematic terms. No "disproportionate" (which you say would be advocacy), no "under-represented" (which I say would be advocacy). WP:LABEL says nothing that should encourage you to use a problematic term merely because it is used in a reference. Eelworm (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I quote from WP:LABEL: Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.; where the bold is my emphasis. Transcendence (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
That's an extra condition, not encouragement to use the problematic term. In any case, you claimed that there's a requirement to use only words that appear in sources, which your quote does not support in the least. Eelworm (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, the policy is not to prevent usage of such terms, but to lay out conditions on when to use them. Your position, to not use them at all, is not supported by policy. However, I am not opposed to not including either word, in the interests of consensus. Transcendence (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

underrepresented？There is no problem of "underrepresentation." Are black congressmen elected by the black ethnic group? No, even black congressmen are elected by voters from various countries/constituencies. The black congressmen also represent voters in relevant countries and constituencies（All ethnic groups in the constituency）, not the black ethnic group.——联合果君 (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

FA sweeps

Article needs work to maintain FA status, I'm afraid. Beyond unsourced statements, the article relies too much on official sources and news reports without much in the way of academic analysis. Balance also seems to be an issue. While it has a long paragraph on "European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction" there is nothing to be heard about Euroskepticism,[1][2][3] or the many other issues discussed in academic sources[4] (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Failed verification

I was puzzled by the sentence "Despite some calls for the parties to put forward candidates beforehand, only the EPP (which had re-secured their position as largest party) had one in re-endorsing Barroso." To try and find out what the EPP had one of in re-endorsing Barroso, I checked the ref. The ref says nothing about the EPP or Barroso. I've tagged the ref. The sentence might need to be deleted if a proper source is not provided. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:5886:5A75:73F8:B0F2 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Grand coalition

There is a subsection called Grand coalition, what is the source that Grand coalition exists currently? Here a source that Grand coalition is not accurate description of the current situation.European Parliament: Is the grand coalition really a thing of the past?, Awenig Marié, 2019 Wretchskull reverted my edit. HudecEmil (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Updates to the article need reliable sources or they will be reverted

It is all very well updating and correcting things - but the updates/corrections need reliable sources. These edits changed Plenary sessions take place in Strasbourg as well as in Brussels, Belgium, while the Parliament's committee meetings are held primarily in Brussels. to Plenary sessions take place in Strasbourg, France, while the Parliament's committee meetings are held primarily in Brussels, Belgium. But the first source they cite says: Plenary sessions ... Normally held in Strasbourg for four days a month, but sometimes there are additional sessions in Brussels., which supports the original version and does not support the new version. The second citation is a 331 page pdf document. The citation needs to give page numbers. It is a web archive version of a pdf document, so it is not searchable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Since nobody provided sources supporting the IP editor's new text, I replaced it with a quotation from the first source. Wikipedia needs verifiability, not truth.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The IP in question appears to be a single-purpose editor dedicated to pushing the Strasbourg seat both here and on FR. It does raise eyebrows.Leptictidium (mt) 15:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Interns at the European Parliament

There was an American who interned at the European Parliament in August of 2002. She was the first American to intern at the European Parliament and was an intern for the co-president of the Greens, Monica Frassoni, who was also a President at that time. I believe there should be a list of significant interns at the European Parliament as this is a good way to show the historical value of people who played a role in supporting these important MEPs. The intern/stagiare in question has valid documentary proof of their internship and of being the first American to hold such a position. They have their signed contract as well as numerous pieces of significant paperwork including early copies of the constitution of the European Parliament. PoopKnife99 (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for collaboration. I think there should be a visual on the 3 locations of the European Parliament, so people can visualise things better + a summary. Herewith a kick off. Sorry I don't have more time.

Answer: Unanimity voting system ! EVERY EU-27 member state has a veto right. So whatever you want, the GDLux always comes with: yes, but this was where the historic EU Parliament was located, look, the building and half round is still standing here - catching dust and spider webs everywhere, but ... it's here. The french: blabla - but here in Strassbourg was where the treaty was signed and history and nearly on the french-german border and World War II, encore un peu de vin ? Non, mais votre observation est pertinente. Et blabla, ah voilà le champagne qui arrive. Formulons les arguments les plus convaincantes sur cette question délicate dans une note courte mais convaincante sinon les autres ne lirons pas ! D'accord? Alors, c'est pour la prochaine réunion ! Ah, et les tiquets - alors, il y en a 2: pour le ballet présidentiel ou vous préférez le sport - c'était quoi encore ce soir: du tennis ou du foot Paris contre les Allemands/l'Angleterre - j'oublie toujours "Barsa", c'est qui encore - vous aviez choisi lequel encore?".

Sorry I don't have more time. SvenAERTS (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

EU Civilisation building - how many times do EU Parliamentarians press on the vote button during their week in Strassbourg?

The voting is only allowed to take place in Strassbourg - during the week the EU Parliamentarians are in the EU Parliament building in Strassbourg, right? The 3 other weeks the EU Parliamentarians are in EU Parliament building in Brussels, but then they are not allowed to vote on anything, right? How many topics - how many times on average do EU Parliamentarians have to press the vote buttons during that week in the EU Parliament? I am trying to give young people a sense of how fast things move - building the EU Civilisation. Thank you, SvenAERTS (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

PACE??

The corruption section keeps using the term PACE, never explained in the article. It seems to refer to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, not the European Parliament? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

These edits were made by the banned user in violation of their ban, so I rolled them back. Indeed, PACE and the European Parliament are 2 different organizations, so the information about PACE is not relevant to this article. Grandmaster 11:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Shoehorning the parties into political groups in the infobox

An editor has recently tried putting the parties into political groups in the infobox,[5][6] and other editors have reverted on the grounds that it does not really work that way.[7][8][9]

This idea has been tried before, and had been rejected because it was fitting something where it does not easily fit (US-English: "shoehorning"). See October 2019 discussion of this issue. Someone forgot about the old discussion and tried reintroducing it in February 2024.[10] That arrangement was reverted at the end of March citing the 2019 discussion as the reason for reversion.[11]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the issues with this format are that:
  1. The EP is not considered to operate with a formalised government/opposition dynamic. Within the European Parliament the political groups are the main division, not government/opposition.
  2. The EU does not use parliamentarism like many countries do. The Commission does not need to continually have a majority in the European Parliament, as a vote of no confidence requires 2/3 of votes. Thus it is only the two investiture votes that really matter and the Commission must win.
  3. The investiture vote is secret, and multiple groups were at least partly split on whether to support von der Leyen. And unlike in many national legislatures, MEPs are not whipped to vote with their group.
  4. The Commission doesn't just include members (indirectly) affiliated with the EPP, S&D, and Renew Europe groups, but also ones affiliated with the PfE and ECR groups. The layout that has been pushed for would incorrectly imply that only the three before mentioned groups are represented in the Commission.
  5. Most importantly, reliable sources don't support this way of framing the EP. While it is acknowledged that some groups are much more part of the majority supporting the Commission, they don't depict it like it is a government/opposition dynamic. Gust Justice (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Number of seats

Please note that the number of seats in the European Parliament is 720. However, one seat is vacant and the number of MEPs, in accordande with the website of the parliament, is therefore only 719. Consequently, an absolute majority consists of 360 votes, instead of 361. Nablicus (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Parliament/Archive_2&oldid=1253484795"