Jump to content

Talk:Progressive Alliance

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

Comments

[edit]

Looks pretty defunct. Website is down and virtually nothing on google. --Gary123 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite really, as the organisation hasn't yet been formally founded yet... Wait until 23rd May and there should be more information and (hopefully) a proper official website.--Autospark (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Membership?

[edit]

Does the PA have a formalized membership? The list at the website is not a list of members, but a list of parties invited to the first conference. --Soman (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. I suppose we do have to wait until a proper membership rosta is announced. We do at least know some of the parties that are/were involved with shaping the organisation (see main article text), but a comprehensive final list is still not yet available, unfortunately.--Autospark (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still there is no reference for membership. I think this underscores the problem here. --Soman (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

[edit]

The German member is the "Social Democratic Party", not the "Democratic Party" which is another but minor party. Also, after the German national election of September 22nd, 2013, the SPD will have 192 out of 630 seats in parliament, not 146 out of 620. Please change.

German SPD is a junior partner in Merkel's government, please update map--88.72.13.234 (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden

[edit]

The Swedish parliament consists of 349 MPs not 249 as it is stated on the page. But the number of MPs that are connected to SAP are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradisisnowhere (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Democratic Party?

[edit]

Isn't the Democratic Party of the USA a member? --84.160.139.143 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Occasionally, people claim that it is: but no evidence has ever been submitted for such claims. Best I can figure, the claim arises from the fact that one (count him, one) U.S. Democrat, governor of a small state, was listed by the Alliance as an "Honored Guest" at the Alliance's founding convention. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why is the US shown on the map as one of the "Countries in which PA member parties were the government or part of a coalition government as of March 2014"? Are the Republicans part of this group? :wink: SigPig |SEND - OVER 13:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The PA claims that the Dems are members. CR85747 (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia's own Democrats page, there is an editing note saying not to include "Progressive Alliance" as an International Affiliation without a source OTHER THAN the PA's own website. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Requested moves

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is no consensus to undertake the proposed move at this time. bd2412 T 17:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– The political international is the only organization with an exactly matching name. For the other alliances "Progressive alliance" is only a part of the name or the translation. PanchoS (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Progressive Alliance (Uruguay), and it is possible that a number of other entries on the dab page are often referred to as "Progressive Alliance" and thus not partial title matches. Dekimasuよ! 09:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I thought this were so obviously clear that I didn't have to bring up data. But now I put together a table of comparison data. Regarding the title Progressive Alliance, the political international IMHO clearly is WP:PRIMARYNAME with the only contender (the Uruguayan party) having ~10x less impact.
    I'm very much for a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page though. Please see the table and reconsider. --PanchoS (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - highly generic name, as the dab page indicates. And I would also venture that Progressive Alliance (Uruguay) etc. are collectively more notable than this WP:RECENT entity. On that subject "(founded 2013)" might be a more recognisable disambiguator. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the organisation's name is Progressive Alliance, 'natively' in English rather than as a translation from another language, and without prefix or suffix based on geographical location. The organisation also has international scope, despite being a relatively recently founded political international.--Autospark (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not sure that the current disambiguator is the best, but there's no case above for the political international organisation being the primary topic. There may not be one (most likely on the evidence to date), or it may be the party in Uruguay (second most likely), or even one of the other candidates. Andrewa (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request

[edit]

The following was posted on my talk page, but it belongs here:

can you please change the false information: the PA is not a political international (what ever this means...the PA is not an organisation in consequent you haven't membership dues and that' s why we speak from "participants" and not from members). If you have a look at the german and french wikipedia site it' s a "global network" and I wasn't the autor...The second favor you can do for me is that Sigmar Gabriel is not the president...he is the president from the SPD yes...but not from the PA. I would be very glad if you can make this change because its not in your advantage to publish wrong information...and copie/paste from articles are not everytime the best way. Thank you very much. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melareuter (talk • contribs)

I changed the wording to "alliance", which reflects the source used in the lede; "global network" is already in the infobox. Looking at the organisations list of board members, it seems the board consists of parties, not people, and no chair is listed. The page Sigmar Gabriel doesn't have any sources to corroborate a role as chairman. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remains the question of the article title, which still contains the term "political international". What to do with this? We could rename to "Progressive Alliance (international)" — international is an adjective, and it should work fine for disambiguation since all other Progressive Alliances seem to operate at national levels. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shortening the article title is OK by me, "Progressive Alliance (international)" conveys the same meaning. However, we really should revert to describing the organisation as a political international, pr at least compare it to one, because that is essentially what it is. They may not wish to give that impression, as they try not to step on the toes of the SI, but Wikipedia is about describing organisations as they are, not as they themselves wish to be presented.--Autospark (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What we have now is the description from a third-party source, not the organisation's own words. We're also citing sufficient sources that establish the PA's founding as being intended as an alternative to the SI. That leaves the comparison to the reader; I'm a bit hesitant to explicitly draw further inferences without sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 September 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The political international is much more well-known than the local parties. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

So the PA website lists political parties of various countries who they consider to be "participants". Of course, there exists an inclusion bias (they want their organization to look as big as possible). Can this lengthy and detailed list be verified by external secondary sources?

Second is this list useful? Why isn't there a list of members? Seems rather nebulous, this isn't the Olympics. If there was a participant it seems rather odd to list the political party and country rather than the actual participant's name. If a person of a political party attended or spoke at an event, but not in an official capacity, should the party be on this list? I would think that a list of actual people would be more useful.

Third is this list (which has essentially been copy & pasted from the website) an infringement of copyright? If it were a list of members (like EU or UN), that would list facts, so that would not be under copyright. The term "participants" (especially as political parties, rather than individuals) seems more subjective. If a secondary source has not reproduced this list, copyright infringement may be the reason. Please let me know your thoughts on these issues. ...(Pinging this months contributors) @AJErrani, Dereck Camacho, Autospark, UaineSean, and United Union:Dig Deeper (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All we have to go on in most cases for political internationals (and similar organisations like European political parties) in order to determine membership are the relevant organisations' own websites.----Autospark (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, in this kind of articles there are often if not most cases no alternative source for the membership that the website. On the other hand the whole purpose of the Internationals is to gather different political parties from each country, so not mentioning their membership lost the basic funcion of the article iself, like making a "List of movies from SyFy Chanel" and not include any movie. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dereck Camacho. If "Party ABC" from country XYZ chooses to affiliate with this group, then we can expect a statement coming from ABC itself that it has decided to join. The US Democratic Party is an example--it generates thousands of news releases a year, all indexed on Google, and I and others have found zero links or news stories of any sort linking the Democrats to this organization. Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have to disagree. WP:UCS, surely.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the root of the problem is that the "Progressive Alliance" is little more than a failed attempt to replace the Socialist International; because that, PA does not realy have members, only some parties (almost all also members of SI) that participate in its meetings, but without any kind of formal compromise. About the general rule if the source for membership in international organizations should be the national parties or the international, I think it should be the international - most internationals are more famous that the vast majority of its constituent parties, then, if anything, it will be more expectable a party lying about its membership in an international than the international itself; also some parties enter and exit internationals, meaning that if we look only to sources from national parties, it is easy to include a party that was a member some years ago but not now, while an official list from the international should be up-to-date.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. RM opened at wrong page. New discussion opened at Talk:Progressive Alliance (disambiguation). feminist 14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Progressive Alliance → Progressive Alliance (disambiguation) – With a Progressive Alliance (UK) page now in place, I'd argue that the primary topic is no longer so clear, and that Progressive_Alliance should be altered to redirect to the disambiguation page. What do people think? cbrody (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose strongly – the Progressive Alliance is an international organisation, and an actual organisation. The UK "progressive alliance" is merely a hypothetical construct that does not actually exist – and besides, even if it did, it would be purely UK-centric, and en.wiki is a global project.--Autospark (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Progressive Alliance (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

credibility--"Progressive Alliance" is highly prone to exaggeration and can not be trusted

[edit]

This topic has been discussed. One editor has total faith in the mystery website of the organization and states: (I think this should be debated first in the discussion page. The source of the organization itself is reliable enough, otherwise all parties would have to be taken away as practically none confirm membership in their websites. Yes indeed---there is no independent confirmation available. Certainly not for the US Dem party--it has a huge PR setup and is very well covered by many major news media--none mention any such membership. Note that the Dem Party determines its own membership status--it has to actually join and it never did join. So either ALL the dozens of RS on the Dem party are wrong, or the "Progressive Alliance" is highly prone to exaggeration. Dereck Camacho has just added a reference to a totally different "progressive alliance" that operated only in the USA in 1979 and was defunct within one year. That is his source??? it's more proof the Dems never joined this group which formed in 2013. Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that Rjensen is confusing members with participants, the PA do not claim membership, it claims to have participants. Participans are a very loose term for parties and organizations that take part in their meetings and forums. Is not that I have faith, is that the source of the organization is perfectly valid and is listing the participants of such events. This would be the case with all other parties and with almost all the Political Internationals, almost all parties disregarg mentioning in their websites that they are members of the Socialist International or the Liberal International etc. and just trust that said organization would list them in their oficial website. As such if we start taking this position then all articules about all Political Internationals and Forums would be empty. About the other sources, well as a human I can made a mistake but the other sourde comes from the DW and does mentions the DP as participant in a PA meeting which was something you were requesting. At the end all the issue is because internationals are frowned upon in American political culture so the idea that a party, especially a major party, is a member make some people unconfortable. If wasn't for the DP being there most likely this discussion would not happen in the first place as no one seem to care that the German SDP is there. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
then the table is highly misleading for this group--I note the photo shows that only a few countries are represented out of the very long list. We have no serious RS saying the group is in any way important or does anything. Rjensen (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a different issue. One thing that could be change is the description as political international to political forum if other users agree. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Member parties of political internationals almost never mention their affiliations on their websites, or even mention those affiliations publicly. We're getting into conspiracy theory territory here. It's not like there aren't third-party references to the existence of the organisation.--Autospark (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the long table is all OR is it not? Rjensen (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The table is the official list from the organization's website. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it the real issue that the Democratic Party is on the list? Because if the article is going to suffer for that, having things like vandalism and OR added just because the idea that a US party belong to an International is too much to handle for some I personally will be willing to let it go. After all, America is not the center of the universe, we can have an article without it. --TV Guy (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UD Denocrats for many decades have been under attack as "socialists" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Socialism this adds to ther attack. There is no evidence that the US Dem party ever authorized any affiliation or named any official delegates. There is one sentence in a DW news report that said several unnamed Americans were present and PA said they represented the Dem Party USA. The PA claim does not meet wiki standards of verification. Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen the PA is not a socialist organization anyway, if that's your problem. Its members are mostly progressive, socio-liberal and social-democratic parties. One of the members is from my country, Costa Rica's Citizens' Action Party , and is far from being "socialist". Some of its member are even considered right-wing in their home countries. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it calls itself the home for socialist movements. that makes it a juicy target for the right to attacks US Democrats. It does not have "members" we have agreed-- just activists who show up at its meetings and declare they represent some party or another, with no known authorization from that party. it claims: We already work together closely with various regional party networks such as the Party of European Socialists (PES), the Group of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Network of Social Democracy in Asia (SocDem Asia), the Central African Progressive Alliance (CAPA) and the Arab Social Democratic Forum (ASDF). We also maintain intensive and strategic relations with the International Union of Socialist Youth (IUSY). Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that the term socialist in Europe means the same as Liberal in the US right? I mean Tony Blair is a socialist for example, as was France's presidente until recently Hollande and was Spain's Prime Minister Rodríguez Zapatero all Prime Ministers of NATO countries. In Europe they use "socialist" to refer to centre-left socio-liberal parties like the US Democratic Party. In fact, I think the Democratic Party would be considered too left-wing in some European countries, for example I think in Germany probably would be considered to be at the left of the SDP. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe what I read. the International Union of Socialist Youth is the youth branch of the Socialist International, an organization that most members are on the right of the Democratic Party.
What is called Socialist in America means Communist in the rest of the world.
What is called Liberal means Socialist in the rest of the world.
What is called Libertarian means Liberal in the rest of the world, etc.
The only term that means more or less the same elsewhere is Conservative but even so I think in the US is akin more to what would be called a classical liberal everywhere else, especially because in some countries the Conservatives were traditionally protectionist and in places like Japan and Australia Liberal is the name of the Conservative parties. I would like to think that most Americans would be smart enough to know these kind of differences and to know that the European socialist are actually what you call Liberals. Besides as said before half the parties in the PA meetings are right-wing. --TV Guy (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well in any case I doubt Wikipedia has to worry for this kind of considerations like the always changing political environment of the different countries. The sources are clear and fullfil Wikipedia's requirements for verificavility, especially considering that the organization only has participants and there are enough sources that say that the DP is one of those participants. It is also true that the organization is not socialist in the sense given in the US even as some members may use the word in their names in Europe and other places socialist means centre-left progressive. The organization is progressive and as such it has participants that are liberal, democratic socialist, social democratic and the like, but it doesn't have nor even one member that can be considered far-left and most of the parties that use the term socialist in their name are political parties that already have relationships with the DP outside the PA (UK's Labour, Spain's PSOE, etc) and/or from NATO and other US allies like the Socialist Party of France/Argentina/Bulgaria. I also think most voters would know the difference. Those US voters that do not know the difference and may think that the neo-liberal Spanish Socialist Worker's Party follow Soviet marxism just for using the name socialist I'm pretty sure they already think that the DP is socialist and that Obama is Muslim and the like. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not think we have evidence the US Dem Party was ever a "participant" -- no name has ever been mentioned only a vague half-sentence from Wp. Where is the table in PA website? Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I provide three independent sources: El Electoral, La Diaria and DW, and the table of the PA website is source #31. But seriously is all this because you think the links with the French Socialist Party and other similar social democratic parties are going to make people think the DP is communist? Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the group does not have members, it has participants. In 19-20 June 2017, 19 people participated representing various parties and groups.[1][2] No representative was sent from the Democratic Party. Only one Democrat has ever participated (Howard Dean) and he participated as an individual. Note the Democratic Party supports the Socialist, Liberal and Christian Democratic internationals. Its participation should not be seen as membership or support of the political goals of the PA but as support for democratic political parties in general. I suggest we re-write the participants section to include only the delegates and organizations currently listed.
Note the list is for a convention in Washington D.C. today and tomorrow and the Democratic Party is not participating.
TFD (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's how political internationals work – member parties (or participants or whatever) send individual delegates to events.--Autospark (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, they have member parties. See for example the Socialist International.[3] The PA does not publish a list of members. Participants are not the same thing as members. If you visit a local church this Sunday and participate in the service it does not make you a member. If you are a member and fail to show it does not mean you are no longer a member. And notice that on the board list, Howard Dean is not listed as representing the Democratic Party.[4] He was not even a member of the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the article says participants, it doesn't says members. The ones that use the word "member" are the ones against the idea of the inclusion of the DP in there. And for that matter then all parties should be excluded, no party has official representatives in there. But again, the issue in reality is the American backlash against "socialists" (even social-democrats). --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While Howard Dean attended one conference, the Democratic Party is not currently listed as a participant (see below) even though the Alliance is currently meeting in Washington. And an earlier document of the Alliance lists Dean as a board member, while in every other case, it lists poltiical parties or organizations.[5] So there is a clear issue whether the Dems ever participated and whether they are current participants. See WP:SELFPUB: if there is reason to doubt information it should be omitted. The issue of socialism is a red herring. We really don't know if the Democratic Party ever "participated" in the Alliance. If you listen to Dean's speech at the conference, he makes no indication that he is doing anything other than speaking for himself.
BTW the term socialist in Europe does not mean the same thing as liberal in the U.S. Liberalism is an ideology of individualism, whether that means providing assistance to individuals to become self-reliant or letting them sink or swim. As Nancy Pelosi said, "We're capitalists."
TFD (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal has many meanings, in the Nordic countries is the name than normally use the left-wing parties, but in any case a lot of European socialist parties disregarding the name "socialist" are also capitalist and even in some cases at the right of the DP, an example of those would be Germany's SPD which is clearly more right-wing than the current DP and an ally of Merkel's Conservative government. About the rest I already provide three independent sources from the press that confirm the participation of the DP in the PA, so we are not basing ourselves only in what the PA sayds. Besides the link you are providing is about the members of the board, not about the participants, obviously not all parties are gonna be part of the board. Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing policies with ideology. Liberalism is, as Ian Adams explains, "a broad tradition of thought....There are a number of things for which most liberals would agree liberalism stands. Above all there is individual freedom or liberty. This in turn implies those thingss that will secure and enhance that liberty, including equality of rights, constitutional government, the rule of law and toleration. However, different versions of liberalism interpret freedom and its attendant values in different and sometimes conflicting ways, and also differ as to how these ideals are best pursued."[6] In socialist ideology, as defined in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, "there were general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of the means of capital....Second, there was a general view that the solution to these problems lay in some form of collective control."[7] So both socialists and liberals hope for a better society and may pursue similar goals, but disagree over what causes them.

Unusual claims require unusual sources. I see that three Democrats attended the Berlin Conference, but there is no indication that they represented the Democratic Party or any part of the party.

TFD (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that's the reason why the PA is not and has never claimed to be a socialist organization, because it has both liberal and socialist parties (and Christian democrats and social-democrats, etc.). Which in the case of the DP disregarding the existence of the PA or not the claim that is a liberal party in the sense that Adam Smith gives is something that can easily be debated. I doubt most people would think of the DP as a classical liberal party. Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Participants

[edit]

I suggest that we use the June 14 2017 list of participants which is the most current, for example: "Robert Fox, National Director, New Democratic Party (Canada)." We could provide links to previous lists, but I don't think it is helpful to provide a combined list of everyone who has ever attended a meeting. TFD (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

la diara

[edit]

One source used for the Democratic Party is an interview in la diara with an official of the Socialist Party of Uruguay.[8] First this is an obscure source for what it is supposed to support. Second, interviews are not reliable sources. Third, the wording does not say the Democratic Party is a participant. The official said, "It was initially integrated by those who had supported the candidacy of Mona Sahlin, but then began to add valuable organizations that until now had not been in the SI, such as the Workers' Party of Brazil, and begin to weave alliances, as with the Democratic Party of the United States...Then came the idea of ​​consolidating the Progressive Alliance as an organization." No mention of whether the Democratic Party actually joined the organization. TFD (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So first independent sources are needed and now the independent sources are starting to be questioned. This of taking the DP out of the list of participants is really important for you right? What policy of Wikipedia says that interviews are not valid references? And maybe the problem with the wording is the google translate because the verbal times of the Spanish phrase does make clear that after the weaving the connected parties decided to make a formal organization. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should not have to interpret sources in order to understand what they mean. Most importantly however, interviews are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no interpretation, the information is clear. And I ask for the second time, what policy of Wikipedia says that interviews are not reliable sources? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a question at RSN. What you are saying is that if I want to know about the Democratic Party, I need to read interviews of Uruguyan politicians because there is very little coverage of the party in books and articles. There is interpretation btw because the fact a group was involved in planning an organization does not mean they subsequently joined. TFD (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see what other users say about. And don't worry I would start looking for some other sources, for example in German. I'm sure I can find some more sources. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the Democratic Party is connected to the Progressive Alliance and they are holding their conference in Washington right now, why is there no one from the Democratic Party present? TFD (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of that I only have your word. Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No you have the word of the Progressive Alliance "List of participants 19 – 20 June 2017, Washington D.C., USA", which is posted on their website. TFD (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is the list of participants in this particular conference, not in the PA in general which hold several activities during the year and has a general summit once a year (and is not this one). I take part in them as representative from my country's party and yes we always have official delegates from the US Democratic Party and is also part of the email network. The thing is the PA has no members as all the parties are just participants. I still don't fully get why is that so problematic in this case, is a network for political parties to share ideas no one is a member anyway. --TV Guy (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the Democratic Party is a non-participating participant. Do you have any information about the "general summits?" I can't find anything. And the problem I see is that we really don't know if the Democratic Party ever participated or whether they merely invited specific Democrats to speak. I mean we wouldn't list the Democratic Party as a participant in Goldman Sachs because Clinton spoke to them, or the Republicans as a participant in the alt-right. If you take off your "I want this info in the article" hat and put on your thinking hat, why would the Democrats not participate in the Washington meeting? You are aware that the DNC is located there and all Democratic senators and congressman have residences there, yet none of them have ever attended the conferences. TFD (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Democratic Party is a full participant. The general summits are call convensions, and by the way this Washington activity is a seminar. You say we should base the listing of participants in the "2017" list, which one? there are several seminars and meetings in 2017, the one before this one in Washington was in Ulaanbator. So again, you seem to fail to understand the nature of the organization; is not an International and it doesn't have members, is a network of liberal, socialdemocratic and progressive parties. And is not socialist if that part of the problem you have with it. --TV Guy (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For examples here is the list of participants in the Mongolian seminar, as you can see the parties are different. Whilst Argetina took part in the Washington seminar, Costa Rica didn't, and on the contrary Costa Rica was present in Mongolia's seminar but Argentina wasn't, both seminars were in 2017. So what list of participants should we use? --TV Guy (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the conclusions arrived at by TV Guy and Dereck Camacho.--Autospark (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it is or is it ain't?

[edit]

Is this an actual political international, in which parties are actual members, and we should list members if we can source that membership? Or is it a less formal organization, in which we can list "participants" and then claim that if a member of a party is a participant, therefore the party is a "participant", without having to source such a claim? Because what we have now is a hybrid, in which we call it an international but don't require any rigor in claiming "participant" status? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Labour

[edit]

Is a member of the new Government. While MK Michaeli is not, the other two are Ministers in the new Cabinet. Kind of hard to claim supply and confidence in such a situation.212.179.28.34 (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with 'Progressive International'

[edit]

This organization is similar to the Progressive International and I keep mixing them up when looking up information. I think we should have a disambiguation link at the top to help with this.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.189.62 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Kosovo

[edit]

Kosovo is a country that is recognized by 98 UN members. There is a standard note(Kosovo-note) that is added in every article where Kosovo is mentioned. This article should not be different. Saying that Kosovo is not a UN-recognized state is far less informative and wrong. The UN does not recognize states, its individual members do. This is a discussion that has been consumed in other articles. The point is, the Kosovo-note should remain and the "Kosovo is not a UN-recognized state." note should not be there. It is not standard practice and is less informative. Uniacademic (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on my behalf. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Uniacademic: Many other articles face the same problem.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Map

[edit]

The map, which is as of February, is now outdated. Germany, Israel, and Norway are now governed by PA. I propose that we remove the map until a new one can be made. PtolemyXV (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germany needs to be updated on the map

[edit]

The SPD in Germany is currently the head of government. Both the Chancellor and the President are members of the SPD. Therefore the map needs to be updated, Germany needs to be dark green. 37.24.142.194 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the best decision at this point. Joeybrund (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful Chart of Participants

[edit]

Confusing and inconsistent. The variants of red/green in the Government column match the coloration in the WP entries for numerous parties in Europe. However, the label "in government" is not explained as distinct from "in coalition". For example:

  1. SPD of Germany is called the "largest party" on its page, so there is some logic to saying 206/736 MPs means "in government"
  2. However, PSOE of Spain (120/350) is labeled "in coalition" while SAP of Sweden (100/349, a slightly smaller minority) is "in government"
  3. In Indonesia, PDI-P (128/575) has an even smaller minority and is labeled "in government" (due to winning the presidency?) but the far smaller party NASDEM (59/575) is also declared "in government" when it is obviously part of a coalition with PDI-P.

The color coding in the National Houses column is a disorganized rainbow, badly in need of a key even if not made consistent. Martindo (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom and the Devolved Nations

[edit]

Wales is currently headed by Welsh Labour, a member of the Progressive Alliance, yet is not shown as "in government" on the map. It is instead shown as part of the entire UK as "in opposition" Is there a convention to follow in regard to maps and devolution? Mintblackbeard1 (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progressive_Alliance&oldid=1221591213"