Talk:Pirate Parties International

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

Please redirect here[edit]

Although the swedish pirate party may by the biggest and first pirate party in the world, we should redirect to this article. for instance, I'm from germany where the pirate party is succesfull too. I searched for the International umbrella organization but i was redirected to the swedish pirate party page on wiki...--Englishazadipedia (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also think that the Pirate Party article should redirect to the International movement page, and that each Party page should be independent. Although the swedish one was the first, it's now an international movemant that's growing rapidly, and has seen progress in at least two countries (Sweden & Germany). The swedins party should have a page called Pirate Party Sweden or Piratpartiet, with Pirate Party redirecting to PPI - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Party[edit]

  • There is only one Pirate Party in the US recognised by 'Pirate Party International', and that is the US Pirate Party at www.pirate-party.us (http://www.pp-international.net/forum/index.php shows only that party). The 'pirate political party' is not recognised at all and shouldn't be on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.39.99 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sent them a question about who they were a while back, and I posted the answer on PP-International http://www.pp-international.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25566 (at the tine PP-US site was offline as I recall) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldPlaton (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I am aware, at the moment PPI has no "official" member list so there is no issue of "recognition". The leaders of both USPP and uspirateparty.org are on PPI's contact list but to my knowledge PPI has had no contact with the Pirate Political Party. Currently the USPP is undergoing some internal changes and once those are sorted out PPI will be working with them and the other pirate movements within the US to try to unify them and create a stronger, combined Pirate Party in the US. -Duke 18:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Parties Map[edit]

See file talk of PiratePartiesMap16.svg for potential posts. Wouldn't it be a bit tidier if we moved the map discussions there? Just wondering. --Saftorangen (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary[edit]

I was wondering, shouldn't the Hungarian situation be represented somehow? Let me explain:

There is no political Pirate Party in Hungary, but there is a non-political organisation called Kalozpart (which basically means Pirate Party) that is affiliated with the LMP political party in Hungary. Following the first round (out of 2) of the Hungarian legislative elections, it's clear that LMP will get seats in the Parliament. Thus, the PP-ideals are represented in the Hungarian legislative assembly. Shouldn't this be somehow represented on the map? (I know it's a very specific situation, but still). I was thinking of adding another colour for "PP ideals represented by another political party" or something like that. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

Although Canada does have a pirate party - it is not officially registered with Election Canada http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false They are eligible (still need to fill out one more requirement to be officially registered), but not officially registered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.9.70 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This article needs a few non-pirate party references. See WP:V and WP:CITE. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree there, but it will be rather difficult as there was none widespread press release before the conference. However I tried to collect some links [1] [2] [3]. What can and should be included in a history section is Florian Hufsky's role in establishing the first conference [4] [5] --Valio (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PPI "Founding"[edit]

Over the last weekend there was a large conference in Brussels where PPI was officially "founded". This requires a significant re-writing of much of this article as quite a bit changed. As I was rather deeply involved with the proceedings, (and some aspects were controversial) I don't really want to edit myself, but it would be great if some people could have a look at it; the relevant press release is here: http://www.pp-international.net/node/471 --Duke (talk) 13:05, 22nd April 2010 (UTC)

Frontpage info.[edit]

PPI was formerly lead by Patrick Maechler & Samir Allioui Hence, the frontpage is entirely incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretx (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper sources[edit]

1. Facebook is not a proper source. 2. A blog is not a proper source. 3. A forum is not a proper source. 4. PPI's own website may or may not be a proper source depending on the circumstance, but it could be a conflict of interest. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Facebook-Groups that are thousands of members strong? there are Pirate Parties, that have Facebook as their main working medium. (example is Pirate Party of Slovenia http://www.facebook.com/piratskastrana )

This is not for those who ride the paradigm that a source must be printed - good luck in printing out the internet. --Dichter (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?! FOR ADVERTISING?![edit]

What?! How can other parties get Wiki articles, and the Pirate Party can't? I'd really like to know the real reason for the deletion, because we didn't even get any notice beforehand. I mean, advertising? Really?! --Saftorangen (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Why can't other political internationals have an article, and the PPI article is being speedy-deleted? --Saftorangen (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing discussion on User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Pirate_Parties_International. --Saftorangen (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So WHY did this happen? what about egalité, liberté, fraternité?!? ...01. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
This could happened, because Me-123567-Me, who states on his user page that he is a supporter of the Green Party of Canada, has tagged this article for speed deletion due to CSD Spam while emptying half of the text himself (all the References to Pirate Parties worldwide, elections results, etc) - i could only guess he did it cause he didn't liked the Facebook reference --Dichter (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I highlighted a passage in red that needs to be re-written completely or removed. The election stuff also needs to be tightened. It could also do with being run through to make sure it's entirely neutral. Also, you would probably do well to find more independent sources, keeping the self-published links to minimum. Hope that helps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passage in red has been deleted.
  • Elections stuff has been tightened.
  • Independent sources added/self publishing links reduced (concerning PPI)
Would be gratefull for feedback! PirateJJay (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elections should be removed completely, as these are achievements of single pirate parties and not the PPI. The swedes are not even part of PPI --62.235.247.189 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it is not usual for articles on political internationals to include individual election results. Its probably appropriate to note any significant success - which was the first Pirate party to gain parliamentary representation, or which one has the largest vote share - but ordinary election results can be read about on the individual party pages. Its enough to say for each party whether it is in government, in opposition, or holds no seats (see Liberal International for example) --IdiotSavant (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal[edit]

As the article is already in a complete revision state I would propose to split the part about the pirate movement worldwide into an own article; i.e. I don't see why election results should be listed within the article about the organization PPI... --Valio (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use the Pirate Party article for everything under Pirate movement worldwide? Someone with more Wiki experience please tell me if you can change the nature of that page (now it's a disambiguation page). --PirateJJay (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should cut all the links to individual parties - they take up a lot of the page and are merely listing information available at the bottom of the page anyway. Rather than listing them as they are, just make sure that those with pages are on the category thing (Template:Pirate Party) with separate lines for PPI members and non-members, or registered parties and non-registered parties - and then with a paragraph on the PPI main page saying; "There are currently M members of Pirate Parties International[link to category page] and parties in N other countries[link to that category]." We could always add the parties that don't have wiki pages yet to the list; just not leading to an existing page. -Duke (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template should not be devided into PPI/not-PPI. There are other int. organizations relating to Pirate Parties and we cannot make a seperate list for every one of them. We also must be able to keep the list of members of the PPI as it is now (fomat can change). Seriously if you can't list the members of an NGO on a Wikipage why bother having one?! However we could remove the list of Parties worldwide and put them all in the category template! That way we don't have them on the PPI page anymore and don't need to create another page. --PirateJJay (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose an List of Pirate Parties article, and have the list of parties moved there (the registered/non-registered part) --Dichter (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it is normal for articles on political internationals to contain a list of their member parties. See for example Global Greens, Socialist International, Liberal International. --IdiotSavant (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps tidying it up then; making it look more like one of those pages (perhaps a table; "name, country, membership status, registration status"? -Duke (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current list is better than the Global Greens one, which is perhaps more appropriate given the Pirates' general lack of Parliamentary representation. --IdiotSavant (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And OTOH, its not at all unusual to have "list of (foo) parties", so another page is appropriate. But the PPI's list of members should be retained on this page as well. --IdiotSavant (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a nice pretty table now -- M2Ys4U (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edited article to include table. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was not to delete the member list of PPI, but merely to move everything out that does not belong to PPI as an organization (ie election results, list of non-PPI members, etc.). E.g. not all green parties are listed in the Global Greens article, because they are not all member of it; instead there's a category for that Category:Green_political_parties. I think the idea with the table is an acceptable solution though. --Valio (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we undelete this yet?[edit]

The article should never have been deleted. It has since been rewritten, and the substantial parts use reliable, third party sources, with appropriate use of PPI material to illustrate their own position. It conforms to the structure and format used by other political internationals. There is some poor sourcing still on personnel changes, but that will work itself out as the article evolves (and if the concern is that great, then that material can always be deleted). The tone is neutral, and the use of material is not overly promotional. So, time to put it back? --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still have yet to replace a few Facebook citations, since Facebook is not a reliable source. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not normal to delete articles in their entirity for a few poor sources for minor points. Instead, you tag them, and eventually delete the material if a better source is not provided. I see no reason why the usual process is not being used here. This isn't a GA Nom, we're talking about whether a generally reliably-sourced article is allowed to exist at all.--IdiotSavant (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References deleted, problem solved. or is the position now that articles with unsourced material must be deleted in their entirity? --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but we do need to have the unsourced material cited, but for now it isn't a reason to delete the article so long as it remains NPOV. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Pirate MEPs[edit]

Are there 1 or 2 Pirate MEPs? Did Amelia Andersdotter take her place in the european parliament on Dec 1st 2009 or not? The implementation of the Lisbon treaty should have earned her a place in the EP, but this site doeas not mention her. Information is pretty contradictory on the net, as the press refers to her as a Pirate MEP. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden[edit]

How come Sweden isn't a member, when it was founded in Sweden? 78.72.181.116 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as to exactly why, but the Swedish delegation to the PPI conference (along with one or two others, I believe) refused to sign the PPI statutes incorporating the modern PPI.
From what I understand, they were not satisfied with the PPI's founding document. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a blogpost clarifying (in Swedish) Swedens position on PPI back in 2010 from one of the first PPI-meetings. Quick translation of the first part is "In a while the second day of the PPI Conference. There are really just two reasons why we are here today. Firstly, there is Internet available here. Secondly, we are going to tell them to fuck off. Let me explain what happened during the conference yesterday.." Perhaps you can google-translate the rest if you are interested. http://terobi.se/2010/04/ppi-ett-rent-fiasko/ --84.16.166.186 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Pirate Party?[edit]

This page is nearly useless as it does not explain what the Pirate Party is. The fact that "Pirate Party" redirects here is tells me that it should have some information about the position of the party. -Firba1 (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this comment. What is the Pirate Party movement about? The article doesn't say. --JHP (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of Catalonia[edit]

(Excuse me if I write wrong in English, I'm Catalan) The User:Belchman removed the line of the Catalonian Pirate Party. And I don't know why? Because it exists. We aren't separatists, we write the reality of Catalonia. I give us two news that explain that: [6] and [7]. --Davidpar (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The section was removed because the left column says "Country" and Catalunya is not a separate country, but a subdivision of Spain, so it cannot be added as a separate country. Pirate advice: If the PP Catalunya is established as separate from PP Espana I suggest coordonating efforts between the national Party and the regional Party. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the party exists and it had to be in the list. --Davidpar (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure PPI only allows one member per country anyway, and considering this is the PPI article, it makes sense not to list the regional party, even if it exists. Germany and the US also have separate state parties (albeit federated with the national party) and they aren't listed. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Germany and in US the separated state parties are federated with the national party. But in Catalunya not. The Pirate Party of Catalonia has no relationship with Spanish Pirate Party. --Davidpar (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you should start talking to each other, because 1. you can achieve more together and 2. PPI only allows one ordinary member/country (see PPI Statute, page 3). Anyway, you should start to work together with the national party. ArnoldPlaton (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not from any Pirate Party. I'm a Catalan Wikipedian, and that's all. --Davidpar (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Catalonia is called a "country" in Spain's constitution. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Column "run for election"[edit]

Nearly none of the Piratepartys has yet succeded at getting into a pariament. But several already tryed. This is quite relevant, so I suppose to add an colum for this to the table. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the more crucial information that needs to be added here is the number of registered party members. Whadaya all think? 87.206.51.182 (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources for membership numbers? -- M2Ys4U (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some. I can't really assess their exact "reliability", but who's to be a source for those mebership numbers if not the parties themselves?-- 87.206.51.182 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing colours used in table.[edit]

Last time I checked, copyright infringement was a bad thing. Also, the Wikimedia foundation is against copyright infringement. Therefore, I would regard something like marking "piracy party is officially registered" or "piracy party has some of it's members in the goverment" in green as not in line with Wikipedia's policies and goals. As a result, I have made some changes to the table where examples of a piracy party's goals being furthered are highlighted in red and examples of a piracy party being hindered are highlighted in green. I would appreciate feedback on this and, if you have a good reason why this change is not good for this page, please state them. -XJDHDR (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to declare what is good or bad. You have also changed the semantic meaning by using {{no}} instead of {{yes}}. Also, the Pirate Parties (at least all of the ones I've interacted with) do not support copyright infringement, only reform of copyright (and related rights). I'm reverting. (or I would have if I didn't get beaten to it) -- M2Ys4U (talk)
"It's not Wikipedia's purpose to declare what is good or bad."
By that definition, I would say that there should be no colours at all because the use of colour in the table directly contravenes that policy. To put it more simply, the current colour scheme (which it seems hasn't caused problems with readers and editers) is a violation of NPV in the manner you described above. My edit is a violation of the same policy except on the opposite end of the scale. I propose that colour be removed from the table.
As for the semantic meaning, I had to make that change to affect the colours on the table. I was simply working around a limitation imposed by Wikipedia's software (No is not always bad and Yes is not always good, so why does the software label them as such?). This is off-topic but anyway; if the parties listed here are only interested in reforming copyright laws, why call themselves "piracy" parties, rather than, say, "copyright reform" parties. Also, maybe they don't support piracy but most of their proposed reforms will directly or indirectly promote piracy.
And finally, to whoever reverted my edit, how dare you! How dare you call my edits vandalism, especially considering that I went to the trouble of explaining my rationale in detail! Your actions heavily suggest that you yourself lack a neutral viewpoint. When one considers the fact that you vandalised my talk page with snotty comments as well, it proves that it is in fact YOU that is the vandal. -XJDHDR (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Parties Map #2[edit]

Hey, since no one really reads the talk pages of the maps, I'll write it down here. First off, why do you keep uploading PiratePartiesMap(n+1)? You can just upload new version to the current map.
Ok, the reason I really post is to ask about changing the PPI Members map. Listing active parties is kinda difficult. The PPI members actually have a source, so I think it would be a good idea to only show PPI members, since active parties are shown on the first map anyways. And again, could we stop uploading so many seperate maps if they only change the color of one country? Don't have to spam so much, do we. :/ --Saftorangen (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seriously, can we PLEASE stop with uploading small changes as a completely new file? What is that good for, anyways? So you can link to older versions of the map? You can still do that if it's in one file. I suggest a "Map of Pirate Parties.svg" and then uploading all changes to that file. After all, why do you want to upload a new file if you have to change all the links in the articles, anyways? --Saftorangen (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Pirate Party status[edit]

According to United States Pirate Party, USPP is registered in at least 2 states. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco and south korea[edit]

no mention of morocco or south korea in table ??? ] source: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/press/releases/2011/mar/9/pirate-parties-international-conference-friedrichs/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richhaddon (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double post of croatia[edit]

i just noticed there is a double post of croatia , one as offically registered and one as not....? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richhaddon (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This article really needs more third party sources. 2/3 of the sources so far are from Pirate Party or PPI-related websites. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lower saxony elections[edit]

i'm not familiar with german politics, but do the 58 seats that the pirate party gained in lower saxony need to be added , per http://wiki.pp-international.net/Main_Page http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/NDS:Kommunalwahl_2011/Ergebnisse --Richhaddon (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis McCrea's Flag[edit]

Travis McCrea, 2012/2013 COA, currently has the flag of California, a sub-federation state of the United States, as opposed to the flag of the United States. Fellow countryman Andrew Norton does have this nation flag, and all other flags are national flags. But I am not sure of the history of the 2012 elections. Any ideas? Markamisix (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

2021 changes to electoral registration law in Australia mean that the PPAU is still a political party, but for registration purposes it is part of the "Fusion" alliance -should we reflect this with a new colour on the map diagram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaystephens (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Pirate Party[edit]

Persian Pirate Party was founded by Mr. Sam Nouri in California, US after 1401 (2022-2023) Iran Revoloution AKA #mahsa_amini movement. We are recruiting members and believe in core principles of the Pirate Party International. We have chosen His Highness, Mr. Reza Pahlavi to advocate for our members during the transition from the islamic republic and agreed to principals of his coalition. Siamak72 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Please help us gain recognition by submitting our pages to the PPI and WIKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamak72 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pirate_Parties_International&oldid=1209312031"