Talk:Direction – Social Democracy

Untitled

Juro you have changed editing of SMER ("often using populism") entry on the basis that "this is an encyclopedia". In my opinion an encyclopedia should contain verifiable information.

Well first of all here is an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism :

"Populism is characterized by a sometimes radical critique of the status quo, but on the whole does not have a strong political identity as either a left-wing or right-wing movement. Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist forms. In recent years, conservative politicians have increasingly begun adopting populist rhetoric; for example, promising to "get big government off your backs", or to stand up to "the powerful trial lawyer lobby", "the liberal elite", or "the Hollywood elite". Also in recent years, left-wing politicians have increasingly begun adopting populist rhetoric; for example, by contrast, tend to rail against large corporations, claiming that they put profits ahead of ordinary people. Populism has also, at times, been adopted as a vehicle for extreme radicals; in 1984 the Populist Party name was revived by Willis Carto, and was used in 1988 as a vehicle for the Presidential campaign of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke."

And now some articles from one Slovak English language newspaper

http://www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok.asp?vyd=2005009&cl=19006

http://www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok.asp?vyd=2005010&cl=19092

and as you propably live in Slovakia, you might propably remember SMER's chairman Fico quotes about the gypsy-roma or hungarian minority or foreign companies doing their business in Slovakia. Mato

There is almost no political party (at least no one in the parliament) in Slovakia that would not fit the above "definition" of populism. Also, most politicians have said terrible things at some point of time and they are not defined as populists here. Remember for example the current government's promise - when they were an opposition party - that people would get an 100% increase in wages. Before adherents of various parties start to call "their" parties "the best in world, the most intellectual etc." (we have had this here already) and all the other parties "populist" parties, it is better to avoid judgements of this type. And, actually, in reality "populist" is basically simply an insult used by the governing parties in many countries with respect to critique coming from the opposition. And finally, if someone has said something negative on a minority than he is a chauvinist (or whatever) as a person, but that does not mean (necessarily) that his party is a "populist" party - that's not the definition of populism anyway. Juro 19:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference by saying a populist thing to gain voter support from time to time, but for the SMER party it is a regularly repeating thing.

SMER considered a left-wing party (I hope that you don't disagree). One of the reasons is that it absorbed former communists and social democrats and established itself on the left-side of the political spectrum with the Slovak Communist Party. So it should be promoting left-wing agenda[1], which it does partially.

But also -has good relations with big business([2]), connections to energy sector and nuclear lobby ([3])

-and using nationalist rhetoric towards Gypsy-Roma [4] and Hungarians [5]

"The newly established Smer party used the Roma issue more effectively than any other party to bolster voter support. Party boss Robert Fico skillfully blended proposals for anti-Romany laws with pro-minority statements in an effort to disperse and negative consequences of his controversial initiatives aimed at the Roma.

This 'sugar and the whip' policy was typified by Fico's initiative to submit two bills to Parliament at once. The first was a Criminal Code amendment which would make a larceny on private property, then classified as trespass, a criminal offense, regardless of the damages incurred. The second bill aimed to amend the Law on Public Holidays and Red-letter Days, and establish September 9 as the Day of Commemorating the Victims of the Holocaust and Racial Violence. Parliament approved both proposals at the end of October.

Fico also addressed the issue of "Roma economic tourism", his name for the Roma migration to EU member states. Fico said that Slovak Roma were taking advantage of EU member states' generous asylum laws, and that they were indifferent to the harm they were causing Slovakia's image abroad. Therefore, he submitted in January 2000 an amendment of the Social Assistance Law, which would delete the provision which "entitles citizens to receive social security benefits for two months, even while abroad". The amendment also introduced a sanction according to which "a citizen loses the right to receive social security benefits for a period of one year if he speculatively leaves the country with the intention of obtaining an unearned profit by applying for political asylum" (this was Fico's understanding of the motive for the Roma exodus).

Juraj Hrabko, then director of the Section of Human Rights, Minorities, and Regional Development at the Slovak Government's Office, labeled Fico's proposals populist and added that it was unthinkable that "a democratic country would introduce any kind of sanctions against its own citizens just because they have decided to apply for political asylum abroad" (Romano Lil Nevo, No. 416 - 423)." [6]

So what is it - Left-wing, Right-wing? or Center or Third-way(term used by the party) or just being overly critical about the status quo and using the critique to gain votes? in other words using quite often populistic methods:)

"Populism is characterized by a sometimes radical critique of the status quo, but on the whole does not have a strong political identity as either a left-wing or right-wing movement." --mato 21:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, populism is a not a clearly defined term (you cannot take the definition from the wikipedia as a reference), it's a very subjective term and it is basically nothing else than an insult of the type "you are saying what people want to hear" (a quote from an Encyclopaedia of Politics). All parties in Slovakia and other countries when they are opposition parties fit your definition. Next, who will define the border between "sometimes populist statements" and "populist party" - you? Moreover, there is no "law" saying that a party considered to be a left party cannot have statements of "right" type (and vice versa) or (hardly provable) contacts to various firms, and if you had an idea of European politics, you would know that such changes of "orientation" and contacts with the business worlds are quite common nowadays and the terms left or right are getting outdated. Furthermore, now that I have read your links: the interpretation as anti-Romani and anti-Hungarian based on the articles is quite questionable, especially given that

• the Vasecka article is written with the clear aim to prove that the party is simply "primitive and bad" (to put it simply), and that
• the "Slovak coalition" is simply a political reaction to the fact that the Hungarian party has a constant number of electors in southern Slovakia which the other partie cannot win over and that Slovak schools and institurions are being shut down in Komárno and elsewhere in Southern Slovakia in favour of Hungarian schools (I have personally spoken to an inhabitant of Komarno on this topic).

I suggest the following: Put your links to the article and let everybody judge himself how he will classify the party. This has the disadvantage that you have selected all negative texts on the party, but I hope that some Smer fans will add their links one day. Juro 17:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"(you cannot take the definition from the wikipedia as a reference)" So what are we doing here? Just playing? Or creating The Free Encyclopedia? mato 16:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am concerned, in the English encyclopaedia most of the time (besides adding some articles) I'm just attempting to remove the greatest errors, personal bias and non-sense in articles referring to Slovakia and its surroundings (and believe me, there is usually a lot of them). Although there are many excellent articles in the Wikipedia, there are also many fundamental errors here, usually in topics which are attacted by various -ists and -logues having an emotional link to them (nationalists, communists etc. - as a small example, see the duplicated sentence on the year 1066 in the article Duchy of Normandy), in specific topics where not many people have an idea of them, and disputed topics whose current form is a result of the perseverence of one party rather then of knowledge of facts. Juro 19:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: rename article to Smer – Social Democracy

I am going to cite Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties)#Exceptions numbers 2 and 3 in this case. The party is universally referred to as merely as 'Smer' in English language media. --Autospark (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So why would you want to rename to 'Smer - Social Democracy' and not simply 'Smer'? Hobartimus (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the move. I actually prefer the currently title, all in English. --Checco (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting of good faith edits in first paragraph.

Regarding the wording in the first paragraph of this article. As you can see from the history users Nmate and Hobartimus have repeatedly reverted my edits without giving a proper explanation. My edits were made in good faith and I explained the reasoning behind them. I also tried to ask him on his user talk page, but was deleted. Instead I received a generic warning on my user talk page. Slobo486 (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you must give some reasons if you want to change anything on this article . But you haven't hitherto been done that.--Nmate (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I found this article on WP:3O, and I'll do my best to solve the dispute. Slobo486, just because a statement does not present its subject in a favorable view does not mean it is not neutral, and you have not given a good policy-based reason for its exclusion. Judging by this article and Slovak National Party, it appears that the term "extremist" is very well-sourced, and definitely appropriate in this case, since the SNS's characterization as an extremist organization is relevant to Smer's suspension from the PES. Therefore, it should be included in the article. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am not saying that the information is relevant to Smer, just that it is not relevant for the first paragraph of an article. You mention the fact that it is relevant to Smer's suspension from the PES, and this may be, but the article is not about Smer's suspension from the PES, but on smer itself. If anything Smer's suspension from the PES, should be a part of the article about smer, and the role of SNS in thit should be a part of that in turn.

If the two Hungarian users believe that it is relevant, they should create such a section. I found the first paragraph to only include information about one party of the coalition, and the party was explained in, in my opinion, POV terms see WP:EXTREMIST. This was clearly done for a specific purpose.

If the reader is interested in the other parties of the coalition, he can easily find that they are shady and extremist in the respective articles. Wikipedia policy is that the lead section should include information that roughly reflects its importance to the topic. The prominence (roughly half of the lead section) give to the fact that one of the parties of the coalition is seen as extremist does not reflects its importance. Slobo486 (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 16:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Directly fingering SNS as "extremist" in the lede seems like WP:COATRACK. I attempted to resolve this conflict by moving that language (and references) to the body of the article, but kept some information on SNS in the lede as per WP:SUMMARY. Someone should add more information surrounding Smer's readmittance in to the PES: did they get back in because the coalition ended or changed, or did PES simply relent on the suspension? Mildly Mad^T_C 18:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe the exact political affiliation of SNS should be described but for that new sources are needed. I think in that we all agree that SNS is a far-right/right wing party. The significance of this is that the article as currently stands is calling Smer a "left wing" party in the lead. Without explaining that it is currently in a ruling coalition and alliance with SNS it may seem that "left wing" in this case is the same as everyone else. A Left wing - right wing division usually entails that a left wing party will not ally itself with the other side or use nationalist rhetoric. So SNS is not only relevant to the suspension, but ot explaining the ideology of Smer itself. Smer says it is a "left wing" party but has almost no charactheristics typical of other left wing parties (alliances with liberals, and not with right/far right, anti-nationalist, etc etc). Anyway I think user Slobo was mistaken in that He was the user who made the change and for some reason he thought he shouldn't explain himself and give a detailed explanation how a coalition making up the currently ruling government is not relevant. Hobartimus (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A question about style

Is Smer an acronym or a word? (i.e. does it stand for something) If it is an acronym, it should be written in all caps ("SMER"). Mildly Mad^T_C 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Smer is not an acronym, yet it is often (incorrectly in my opinion) written in all caps in Slovak and foreign press. Smer simply means "direction". Slobo486 (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

social democratic?

I'm confused, a party that is supposedly social democratic, yet finds it easier to make a deal with right-wing extremists than with a minority party or a liberal party? What am I missing here? And that's the only thing that supposedly counts as a left-wing party in Slovakia? Aryah (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Social democracy is the belief that taxation and spending should be used to fulfil goals of class equality. It makes no statement on issues such as immigration or ethnic minority rights. Smer uses left-wing populist language and has social democratic and nationalist policies. As with most nationalists, the SNS and HZDS are in favour of higher taxation, regulation, and protectionism. The centre-right coalition bloc is one between parties that support lower taxes - which also includes the Hungarian parties. As such, Smer and the nationalists are obvious allies for each other. Bastin 12:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, thx for the explanation about Slovak political spectrum, but that's a strangely narrow concept of social democracy - the page you link also mentions environmental policy, human rights, multiculturalism, secularism , social progressivism, civil rights and liberties. And it was thrown out of PES precisely on such grounds, not its economic policy. But I guess this discussion is digressing from the purpose of talk pages on wikipedia, I apologize.Aryah (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually think it's digressing too much. Of course, it's not a message board, but it's useful to gauge and discuss to what extent such things have to be explained in the article, and to avoid repeated disputes. Most of theses articles on political parties are nothing but a lazily-attributed label accompanied by a running commentary on election results.

The social democracy article details a number of other goals that have been progressively tacked on to the meaning since its inception, but the core is undoubtedly its economic policy. It's true that the PES suspended Smer, but that's because the PES does embody the 'and' theory of social democracy and 'progressivism' (in the same way as the EPP also states that it wants to protect the environment and advance European integration, despite those policies not inherently having anything to do with conservatism, even if they are far more integral to Christian democracy). Smer, quite simply, doesn't! That, to a great extent, is a product of Smer's reason for existing - it's a personal vehicle for Robert Fico, rather than a party that fits in neatly to the same places on the political spectrum that other countries have.

I realise that my definition above, and the explanation of how they can get away with describing themselves as 'Social democracy' doesn't stress that wider European/world context. But so long as their ideology is properly explained in a meaningful paragraph or section, I see no cause for concern. Bastin 06:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that makes sense, a paragraph explaining their ideology is clear enough, albeit missing wider European comparisons. I certainly agree that economic policy is the core of that ideology; however I found it a bit narrow because elements of progressivism were historically a part of social democratic parties in a much more integral way than 'bolting on' environmental concerns to conservatism is (or social democracy for that matter) - Women's Day was for instance proclaimed in 1910 in the second international, the organization where social democratic ideology was created - and its very name is indicative of their long-standing opposition to nationalism, or at least nationalist extremism. Secularism is also quite famously present in marxist thinking - and founders of social democracy like Bernstein were revisionist marxists, initially disagreeing only on the need for revolution to arrive at the same communist ideal, and value of liberal democratic institutions on that process. Nevertheless, certainly matters of emancipation and the environment were made more of a focus of social democratic parties much later, say 70's - but internationalism and secularism were present all along, with similar force. Aryah (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2014

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. 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: not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Direction – Social Democracy → Smer – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties), "The title used in reliable English-language sources both inside and outside the political party's country (in scholarly works and in the news media), should be preferred." There seem to be no sources which refer to the party as 'Direction-Social Democracy'. The Slovak Spectator (English language paper published on Slovakia and cited in article) uses 'Smer'. (E.g. here). So do English and US papers - e.g. the Daily Telegraph (here) and The New York Times ( here). I can find no examples of 'Direction-Social Democracy' except for Wikipedia articles; with one exception (The Robert Schumann Foundation in this 2012 article). The media consensus in the English-speaking world is clearly 'Smer'. Presently, 'Smer' redirects here - if anything it should be the other way around. Therefore, change please. Smerus (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Smer, but support Smer-SD, which is quite common and much less ambiguous. And fix the article to take out the spaces around the en dash. And though Smerus (talk · contribs) didn't find them, there are hundreds of books that use the current title along with the short form. I wonder why his handle is Smerus, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Here on en.wiki it is the convention to name articles about political parties by the English language translations of their names, not by their popular abbreviations and initials from their native language - e.g., we have an article called Union for a Popular Movement, not UMP (France), and Democratic Party (Italy), not PD (Italy), etc. Of course there should be a redirect from Smer-SD to this article, but that does not mean that the article should be renamed and redirected to that title.--Autospark (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose, per Autospark's motivation. The current name is the correct translation of the party's Slovak name. I thus oppose any other name, including Dicklyon's proposal about moving the article to "Smer-SD". --Checco (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

Another common name

Smer–Social Democracy seems to be a very common name for it as well. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Direction – Social Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531035616/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw99-2000/slovakia.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw99-2000/slovakia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Direction – Social Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616141421/http://www.volbysr.sk/nrsr2010/sr/tab3_sk.html to http://volbysr.sk/nrsr2010/sr/tab3_sk.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528053354/http://ep2014.statistics.sk/EP-dv/Tabulka3_en.html to http://ep2014.statistics.sk/EP-dv/Tabulka3_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Direction – Social Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613070353/http://strana-smer.sk/ to http://www.strana-smer.sk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 11 December 2017 (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:

• Robert-fico-2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ideology

Smer is socially conservative and even nationalist but not "neo-fascist", they arent worse than PSD in romania... Saying they were called fascist by somebody would make 90% of all right-wing parties fascist. Braganza (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Social democracy?

2 users are still adding social democracy as a current ideology. They call for discussion and a new consensus. Alright. Let's start a discussion. The only reference that does not examine ideology but only makes an overall summary of Slovak parties and of the Smer party speaks that its social democratic, and moreover, it is obvious that the source is Wikipedia. Why? Because the ideologies of Slovak political parties that are written there are exactly those from historical but also current versions of Wikipedia with the same order. So we have 1 untrustworthy source talking about social democracy.

On the other hand, there are a total of 9 references talking about nationalism, populism and conservatism (3 references for each). And there are at least 11 other references that talk about extremism, deviating from social democracy or even neo-fascism. All of them are from credible media, and it is those from 2020/21 that speak of a clear detachment from social democracy, in other words, they say that the social democratic essence has never been fulfilled.

To summarize, we have 1 questionable reference to social democracy. 3 + 3 + 3 talking about other ideologies (which, by the way, directly conflict with social democracy) and 9 references that directly say that it is not social democracy. 1 is not more than 3 and 1 is not more than 9. --Igec133 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all of those ideologies necessarily contradict social democracy; however, there are sources that explicitly say that SMER is not social-democratic. Ezhao02 (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

---

I will add some new references from The Economist. and interview with sociologist

--178.143.100.63 (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Problem is (1) we are talking about a twenty-year old party and all this reeks of WP:RECENTISM; (2) it would be good to have English sources (I do support other languages sources but if there are equally reliable English one, they are easier to verify, e.g. the interview of a sociologist is not available in full, a political scientist would be a higher source, and does the sociologist represent the consensus or is merely expressing their views?); (3) the only English one (The Economist) supports my version, which is to put a note to explain it (nominally social-democratic and disputed due to its national-populist turn) without bloating the infobox like this and violating both WP:INFOBOX and WP:INFOBOXREF; (4) if all this is due, it should be easy to provide an academic book, such as this (the wording suggests that is the author's opinion rather than consensus among scholars, and it is from 2012), rather than a bunch of news sources; (5) if not social democratic, what is it and is there consensus among sources, or they say different types (e.g. one say 'populist', another 'left-wing nationalist', etc. — it does not mean they are the same or mean the same thing) See also this helpful comment by The Four Deuces. Finally, that did not give you the right to bloat the infobox again. Davide King (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Igec133, actually respond to what I have stated above and in edit summaries rather than edit warring or bloating the infobox. As I wrote again here, it is against WP:INFOBOX and WP:INFOBOXREF. As for my compromise, it is just common sense — when there is a dispute, we put a note; that the party is not social democratic is one thing, that does not make it left-wing nationalist (some sources may say "national-populist", which is closer to right-wing populism, others may say "left-wing nationalists", others may consider it "social democratic" even if heterodox, e.g. enfant terrible of the PES), especially because if it moved to the right it is closer to the centre, unless you follow a biased view that authoritarianism exists only on the farthest, so the more authoritarian one is, it is to the left, when the farthest left is anarchism and libertarian socialists. Finally, it should be very easy to provide academic books if that is indeed due, scholarly consensus, and not WP:RECENTISM. Davide King (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Academic sources

• De Waele, Jean-Michel; Escalona, Fabien; Vieira, Mathieu (2016). The Palgrave Handbook of Social Democracy in the European Union. Springer. pp. 553, 568–569. ISBN 9781137293800. Retrieved 4 November 2021 – via Google Books.
• Brandal, Nik; Bratberg, Øivind; Thorsen, Dag Einar (2021). Social Democracy in the 21st Century. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 9781839099540. Retrieved 4 November 2021 – via Google Books.

Davide King (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Just to say my continuing efforts to fix cite errors on this page shouldn't be seen as endorsement or disagreement with any position. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Igec133, this discussion above does not seem to have formed any resolution or reached a consensus for your changes that remove multiple references and content from the article. I suggest that you start a new thread on each specific change that you want to make, and get consensus before changing the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Their claim of a consensus is obviously baseless. Their last edit should be reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but I figured on waiting for resolution at WP:AN3 first. Schazjmd (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ideology tags in the party inbox should be updated due to a major split in this party

This party had a major split in 2020 by factions that prefer former Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini over Robert Fico. On the Wikipedia page of this party it says that:

After the departure of the faction of former Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini, the party continued radicalization. After the anti-corruption government came to power, unprecedented investigations of former nominees and party members began. Smer-SD rejects the process and calls it the "dismantling of the rule of law" or "the end of democracy in Slovakia."

The party's rhetoric currently includes Russophilic, anti-American, anti-LGBT, Romaphobic, and anti-vaccination views. It is described by some journalists and political scientists as having turned neo-fascist.

These descriptions are very different from the descriptions in the ideology inbox. It is clear that major party splits are sometimes cause party remains to have ideological turns. Therefore it would be right to find a contemporary sources for the ideology descriptions in the ideology inbox . (Pomchi-Inu87 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC))

Ideology (December 2022)

Social democracy at the top?

Citation originally numbered as no. 1 (currently no. 6) relating to social democracy is from 2004 and is purely a press release that only talks about the merger of Direction (Third Way) party with minor social democratic parties. In fact, it does not analyze the ideological nature of the party, not to mention its obsolescence.

Quoting from citation originally numbered as no. 2 (currently removed), which is claimed to prove social democratic ideology. Title: "Direction – the party of pretend identity" Abstract: "a strongest political party for a long time, which does not have a direct one-on-one opponent. After March 5, it can confirm and extend its historically longest ruling period in Slovakia with the longest ruling Prime Minister Robert Fico. In order to understand its success, we need to go back to the very beginning of the creation of Direction. Why is it that the governing party, which boasts the social democratic emblem in its name, does not actually belong to the family of social democratic parties, and Robert Fico is not a social democrat." It is already clear from the title and abstract that this is a false citation that does not refer to social democracy, but the exact opposite.

One insufficient non-academic citation from 2004 is really not a reason why social democracy should be at the top of the infobox. Also in article talk you will find 9 quotes that directly contradict and question the supposed social democratic nature of the party.

What instead?

On the other hand, the ideology of national populism is proven by citation originally numbered as no. 6 (currently no. 1) . A professional study was published by two political scientists from the Institute for Public Issues (IVO), a renowned NGO devoted to social sciences since 1997.

Citation originally numbered as no. 7 (currently no. 2) is very up-to-date (2020) and it is directly citing 3 renowned Slovak political scientists. 178.143.110.58 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• While I agree with the removal of social democracy, a famous NGO states it is left-wing populist,[7] two academics have made a case study about it. [8] Another very famous Political Center, which is specialized on populism labeled it as left-wing populist [9] While national populism, which is considered right-wing, something no observers have labeled it as, plus the first source for it is literally from 2008, meaning these three sources highly reliable outweigh them, something we should be able to agree on. BastianMAT (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  i agree,

  generally slovak politics (especially left-wing) is kinda hard to label with western classifications, like nationalists being traditional allies of the Smer (or HZDS before). I don't know what national populism actually is meant to represent (maybe it is a slovak name of like nationalism + populism as it is just in HZDS article too) so i would leave it out Braganza (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  Observers have labeled it as national populist: , including the University of West Bohemia, the Institute for Public Affairs, and the Slovak Academy of Sciences. I personally think that since two universities (one in Slovakia) and an independent think tank have labeled it as national populist, it would be reasonable to at least add national populism alongside social democracy.

  PtolemyXV (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC) PtolemyXV (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Name "Direction – Slovak Social Democracy"

Why has this page been renamed to Direction – Slovak Social Democracy? That is not a legal name of the party. Check the entry in the official Register extract of Political Parties and Political Movements. The page should be renamed back. 213.81.160.210 (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ideology + position

@히비네부르크: explain why you want to change it Braganza (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Revert move to Slovak Social Democracy. Even though consensus between "Smer" vs. "Direction – Social Democracy" or the like is not clear, what is clear is that "Slovak Social Democracy" has been rejected as inappropriate. I will move the article back to stable title Direction – Social Democracy for the meantime; whether to move further to Smer can be decided later. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Slovak Social Democracy → Smer – On 30 August, @Completely Random Guy moved the page to Slovak Social Democracy. While I believe this was in good faith, it was a wrong move, as it completely fails all 5 criteria of WP:CRITERIA, and with completely the wrong reasoning. And why it was moved to Slovak Social Democracy, and not the expected Direction - Slovak Social Democracy I have no idea.

The page must be moved. Before it's done however, I propose the page be moved to Smer instead of Direction - Social Democracy.

I believe it should be so because;

• A) it's more recognizable - anyone from Slovakia or Europe will be able to recognize the name more easily than "Direction"
• B) it's what is used in English-language sources: Politico, The Guardian, Washington Post, Euronews, and it's the only way it's ever referred to in Slovak-language sources
• C) it is not overly specific and detailed, while still being unmistakable and precise
• D) it will completely eliminate the need for the unwieldy "Social Democracy" part of the name

I believe this should apply to almost all non-English political party names, as is done with Irish political parties, but that is for another conversation.

If you have any objections, please do leave a comment!

Thanks!

PS; Guy, they refer to themselves as "Slovak Social Democracy" as part of their political campaign. Their official name remains unchanged. Even their website domain only consists of strana-smer. Political campaigns should not affect Wikipedia's content. Please do more research before making such changes again. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The official name still is Direction – Social Democracy. I don't know where user Completely Random Guy got that they changed their name because they didn't. However, I also disagree with moving this to Smer. Other parties here also have translated names. CaeCalig (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It's in there logo and plastered all over there website. But ultimately I agree it should probably be the most commonly used name. Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not in the register, the register has the official name. CaeCalig (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@CaeCalig, I wouldn't rely on the precedent other articles of Slovak political parties set.

While I'm definitely in favor of translating party names that do make sense and sound wholly natural, such as "Progressive Slovakia" or "Democrats", I do not believe this should also apply to parties named in a non-standard, more-so "creative" manner. The best example of this of course being "Direction", as well as "Voice" or even "Apple". It simply does not sound natural in English. And besides, this is very much the stance that English-language news outlets take, and how they translate foreign political party names. I do not see why Slovak political parties on Wikipedia should be any different. Again, it's how it's done with Irish political parties, and I believe this article, as well as the so-called "Voice" should follow suit. Especially since "hlas" can be translated into "vote" as well, which I view as quite problematic.

Please actually consider my opinion and arguments as a whole. Opposing change because of status quo is a logical fallacy :) Thanks! — Soggy Pandas (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) it seems that translations are indeed the most common but the original name can be used if the translation "doesn't make sense" for example. In Smer's case I don't think the meaning is lost. "Smer" always means "direction", it's only one word and not a sentence, so no meaning is lost. Plus even Britannica, Historical Dictionary of Slovakia and other literature like [10] [11] [12] use mainly the translation with the original name in parentheses. CaeCalig (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case, meaning is not necessarily lost, no. But in the case of "Voice", it arguably is.

In the link you've given, Britannica uses "Smer". The translation ("Direction") is actually the one in parentheses. Regarding the literature, according to Google Ngram, "Smer-SD" and "Smer" are clearly favoured over "Direction - Social Democracy". — Soggy Pandas (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - the long-established name an uncontroversial translation as used by scholarly sources.—Autospark (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do link to those scholarly sources! These two studies (1, 2), which are among the very first sources on the page, use Smer. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources use the name "Direction Social Democracy", e.g. example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8, example 9, example 10, example 11, example 12, example 13, example 14, example 15, example 16, example 17, example 18, example 19, example 20, example 21, example 22, example 23, example 24, example 25. Your claims are easily disproveable and appear to have been arrived-at by narrowly selective cherry-picking.--Autospark (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The Google Books Ngram Viewer clearly shows that both Smer and Smer-SD are significantly more common than Direction - Social Democracy. Since it's based on the data of Google Books, your source, and is a total aggregate of all available literature, rather than your specific examples of books, I cannot overstate how ironic it is of you to accuse me of cherry-picking. I used all available data, you used specific examples. You're clearly the one cherry-picking. If you were to argue that the Ngram viewer is somehow unreliable, I might give your argument some thought. But it's clear to me you're not interested in a meaningful and fact-based discussion, so I'm done here. Thanks. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"Smer" can refer to anything, not just the name of this particular party, based on the Ngram the term was used before the party even existed, so we can't go by that. CaeCalig (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it cannot refer to 'anything', although I agree, there is a certain margin of error we must account for. So, even if you account for the usage before the party was founded, and disregard it, the term Smer still comes out on top. It is of course extremely unlikely the spike in usage of Smer in the early 2000s is a coincidence, as it very much follows the trend of the other terms as well. And even then, Smer-SD is more common than Direction - Social Democracy. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be shifting goalposts and obfuscation, and therefore you do not appear to me to be arguing in good faith in this discussion. You have already been demonstrated to that “Direction – Social Democracy” is a common translation of the party name used in English language scholarly sources, and is therefore not an invention of en.wiki editors, yet you reject that without engaging with any of the examples that I have supplied. Argue properly, or don’t bother at all.-- Autospark (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I never once argued that Direction - Social Democracy wasn't a common translation, as you seem to imply. I did however always argue that the translation is used significantly less often than Smer, even in English-language sources, which is the entire point of this move proposal. So, no, I didn't shift goalposts. I have also never stated that the translation is an invention of Wikipedia editors, only stating that as far as I knew and seen, the only major site using the term is Wikipedia. And since that is not a statement of fact, but a personal observation, trying to refute it is pointless and was only done by you to avoid engaging with my main point, which is not that the translation is uncommon, but that it is less common than the original name. I'm sorry I didn't make that entirely clear in all of my replies and that I strayed off the main topic myself. But nonetheless, my main argument for the move remains unchallenged and unrefuted. Which, to make it clear again, is that Smer(-SD) is used significantly more often than Direction - Social Democracy, not that the latter is somehow rare. How often the translation is used is irrelevant if, relative to the original, it is less common. I believe that I now made everything clear, and would like you to engage with my main point instead of anything else. Thank you. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – Long-established name, backed by several sources. I also believe that names should always be in English and that it is good to match Voice – Social Democracy. --Checco (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still waiting for those sources. Again, if Google Ngram is anything to go by, you're incorrect. If English-language news is anything to go by, you're also incorrect. Which reputable publications use this "long-established name"? Because as far as I can tell, it's only long-established on Wikipedia, and nowhere else. I might be missing something, so please, do tell me, but this simply doesn't hold up if you don't provide those sources. Thank you in advance. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Precisation: I am opposed to "Smer" as new name, but I would support "Direction – Social Democracy". --Checco (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I'll point out that the majority of scholarly English language sources use the name "Direction Social Democracy", e.g. example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8, example 9, example 10, example 11, example 12, example 13, example 14, example 15, example 16, example 17, example 18, example 19, example 20, example 21, example 22, example 23, example 24, example 25; it is completely false to claim "it's only long-established on Wikipedia".--Autospark (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  ""Direction – Social Democracy" or "Direction Social Democracy" would be sensible compromises. I prefer the former, matching Voice – Social Democracy. --Checco (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I also support returning the article to its long-established previous title "Direction – Social Democracy" (with the "–" optional).-- Autospark (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support (additionally soft support for Direction – Social Democracy/Direction – Slovak Social Democracy, the reason this article is now called that way is because of double redirections so Direct – (Slovak) Social Democracy>Slovak Social Democracy) i generally prefer native names over english names (sometimes these "translations" are even wrong and are just used to have a more fitting name in the English political context especially with Scandinavian parties) Braganza (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom and per WP:COMMONNAME. The oppose votes make zero sense to me and do not appear to be accurate - sources using "Slovak Social Democracy" appear to be rare-to-nonexistent. A check of recent news articles, when searching for "Fico" (i.e. not pre-judging how his party will be described in the search), comes up with this New York Times article (repeated use of "Smer", no mention of "Slovak Social Democracy", e.g. "Mr. Fico’s surging political party, SMER") and this Washington Post article (repeatedly uses "Smer", no usage of "Slovak Social Democracy"). Both slam-dunks for "Smer." There's no question here. SnowFire (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources use the name "Direction – Social Democracy". The long-established tradition on en.wiki is to use English translations of party names where available.— Autospark (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  We use raw English translations when there isn't already a term existing in English. If there is, we use that instead (which sometimes can be the untranslated form if English sources don't translate, can be an acronym, or can be something totally off-beat). See Te Pāti Māori for an example that had a RM somewhat recently where the Maori name is still used sometimes in English documents. SnowFire (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support. It's their most common name on English media and thus WP:COMMONNAME applies as @SnowFire has pointed out. Other names can always be redirects but either "Smer" or "Smer – Social Democracy" should be the names used.

Tidjani Saleh (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Untrue. “Direction – Social Democracy” is used by a overwhelming, significant number of scholarly sources, as per my examples above.— Autospark (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support a simple google search reveals Smer is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in both English and Slovak news coverage and agree with above. Yeoutie (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Wrong. Undertake some research and it will reveal that scholarly sources use the name "Direction – Social Democracy", e.g. example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8, example 9, example 10, example 11, example 12, example 13, example 14, example 15, example 16, example 17, example 18, example 19, example 20, example 21, example 22, example 23, example 24, example 25.-- Autospark (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There is ongoing election in Slovakia, all renaming and essential changes should be banned in this period. Rename to Slovak Social Democracy was done without any discussion. Quick close and revert to Direction – Social Democracy. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:ThecentreCZ and I think that renaming the article with no discussion was wrong. --Checco (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with both ThecentreCZ and Checco about the unilateral renaming of the article.-- Autospark (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the party still be described as center-left?

Title. Based on the contents of the article, it looks to be a classic example of an economically left and a culturally right party. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There are a million reliable WP:RSP sources describing SMER as centre-left politcally.[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] BastianMAT (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the labels in use by the media references cited, it does appear to be a misleading label. How exactly is this party objectively leftist?

Don’t we have a responsibility to avoid lazy labeling that misleads and confuses rather than illuminates? Or at the very least qualify the usage of confusing labels that are found in the wild? New~enwiki (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Point taken, but five of the six sources you cited predate Smer’s period out of government (technically, one was published right after they lost). This page cites sources noting the party’s sharp movement to the right since 2020, and I’d suggest taking a look at the five English-language articles (I can’t read Czech, though some other editors might) referenced at the end of the introductory section. Mr. Fico — who appears to be close to synonymous with the party he leads, as hardline populists usually are — is described as “populist,” “nationalist-populist,” “populist,” “nationalist,” and “nationalistic populist,” respectively.

It’s clear to me that news publications have abandoned the left–right framing for Smer in the last couple of years, and I believe Wikipedia should reflect that. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's see recent publications by reliable sources/green in the last month as per sanctioned in WP:RSP: AP News 18 September: "He and his left-wing Direction, or Smer, party have campaigned on a clear pro-Russian and anti-American message." [19] and AP News 1 October "A populist ex-premier who opposes support for Ukraine leads his leftist party to victory in Slovakia" [20]. Reuters 27 September: "* SMER-SSD- Direction-Slovak Social Democracy (leftist party of three-time prime minister Robert Fico)".[21] NPR 1 October: Pro-Russia ex-PM leads leftist party to win in Slovakia's parliamentary elections [22]. Jacobin (a leftist magazine) has an article from 5 September, by a PHD candidate, takes in account the social conservative/nationalist aspect of SMER but still describes it as left-wing in the end "Yet, imperfect as it may be, Smer has proven remarkably successful at marshalling support for the principles of redistribution that underpin social democracy, at a time when social democratic parties in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have vacated the field to right-wing national populism. Will the new generation of young Slovak leftists come to regret giving up on one of the most successful left-wing parties in Europe?" [23]. BBC 1 October also describes it as left-wing, "A populist pro-Moscow party led by former PM Robert Fico has won Slovakia's parliamentary elections, with almost all votes counted. The Smer-SSD party had a clear lead with almost 24% of the vote despite exit polls suggesting victory by a liberal centrist party. Left-wing Smer has pledged an immediate end to military support for Ukraine."[24] Where is the clear part of reliable sources giving up on SMER being left, because the evidence here seems to be clear it isn't the case. BastianMAT (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, there seems to be no consensus on whether Smer should be considered left-wing or not. With that said, doesn't the lack of such consensus suggest that a more widely agreed upon characterization would nonetheless be preferable? Take note that, of the five sources you provided (the NPR link is a syndicated AP article), four also describe Smer and/or Mr. Fico as populist, and the Jacobin article describes the party as nationalist while noting Slovak leftists' souring on it over its social conservatism. To me, this is clear evidence that "national populism" (which Wikipedia editors have decided to lump in with "right-wing populism," a controversial choice in my view) is the better consensus descriptor of the nature of Smer's populism.

Take note, as well, that Wikipedia's articles on left-wing populism and left-wing nationalism both note that adherents of these worldviews espouse support for minority rights, with the former explicitly identifying socially progressive American politicians Bernie Sanders and ALexandria Ocasio-Cortez as examples of left-wing populists. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Do those sources you mention even use the terms “national populist” or “national populism”? If not, don’t use the term in the article, because that constitutes WP:SYNTH.— Autospark (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging you for the discussion for PS @CaeCalig: Braganza (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Braganza: While I agree that many of their talking points don't fall under the left-wing political spectrum, I haven't seen any source explicitly calling them right-wing, even the most recent ones cited in this discussion describe them as left-wing. The leader Fico is often described as a nationalist which is reflected in the "left-wing nationalism" ideology in the Infobox. On the other hand, the deputy leader Ľuboš Blaha is is known for his support of communist ideology which is definitely not right-wing. So positioning Smer on the political spectrum is hard since they're economically left-wing, some of their members reminisce about the communist regime but they also use some conservative talking points like being anti-immigration or anti-LGBT. I would personally position them in the centre but if we don't have sources explicitly saying that I guess we have to go by centre-left at least in the infobox. --CaeCalig (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Alt-right ties section

I am opening a talk for this section. It was sparked by a conflict between me and Reflecktor, who deleted the entire section declaring that none of sources back up what they claim to. I do not agree with this and after repeatedly checking the sources, I declare that they are in exact accordance with what they have back up. I invite Reflecktor to prove the alleged non-compliance with the sources. 90.64.71.238 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I again call Reflecktor to accept my invitation to content dispute resolution. So far, he has not once declared his objections to the content that he constantly deletes. Also, instead of accepting my invitation to content dispute resolution, he asked for increased protection of this page, which user OhNoitsJamie rejected with a call to resolve the content dispute.--90.64.71.238 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's false I have not declared my objections, I have done so twice at least. And also, this is a pretty obvious case of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. And anyway, there's no consensus for its inclusion.Reflecktor (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You stated that the sources do not support the statements they are supposed to. But I say they do. And you couldn't document the discrepancy in any way. You did not provide any evidence.--90.64.71.238 (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOCK Reflecktor (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Unconstructive ad hominem response.--90.64.71.238 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2024

An "epithet" is generally derogatory or abusive. (Not originally, but in current usage.) A better word here would be "byname" or "label" or "appellation." HeyMikey57 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

oof

this page is all over the place with contridictions. you cant just parrot what the politians say. calling them "left wing" is ridiculous. reading the policies and beliefs part, a lot of it contridicts what "left wing" policies and beliefs are. please do more research and not spread politicians propaganda. and don't even get me started on "populism" 2605:A601:A692:E200:5F0:A370:72FD:1564 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

ideology - economics

It simply states the party is economically left wing but with no examples and no citations. The broader case that they are a left wing party (see various threads above) seems to rely on this, since they sure ain't socially left wing! 31.94.66.126 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed section

I would like to draw attention to the full sourced section, which was removed from the article for no reason, falsely arguing that it is not properly sourced. I am attaching it here to all confirmed users and I suggest adding it to the article, because this properly sourced content belongs there.

The party leading politicians, including Prime Minister and party chair Robert Fico, frequently make appearances on various media outlets known for disseminating disinformation, aligning with alt-right ideologies, and promoting Russian propaganda.

Among these outlets are Hlavné Správy (Main News) and Infovojna (Infowar), both widely recognized as prominent sources of disinformation and Russian propaganda in Slovakia.^[25][26][27] In February 2023, an individual who contributed to Hlavné Správy confessed to espionage for Russia and was subsequently convicted.^[28] Despite Hlavné Správy and Infovojna having been temporarily suspended by the National Security Authority in accordance with the Cyber Security Act following the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 due to identified harmful activity^[29], the leaders continue to utilize these platforms for communication after the suspension was lifted.^[30][31] In his appearance on Infovojna in December 2023, Fico expressed gratitude towards "alternative media" for "correcting the distortions we have in the media market."^[32]

The party leading politicians also frequently appear in interviews with Daniel Bombic, a prominent Slovak alt-right figure residing in London, who is subject to three international arrest warrants for crimes related to extremism, cyberbullying, and doxing.^[33][34][35] Bombic has gained notoriety for promoting conspiracy theories related to COVID-19, The Great Replacement, New World Order and International Jewish conspiracy. During the global pandemic, Bombic engaged in inciting attacks and spreading hate speech targeting doctors, hygienists, and other public figures.^[36][37] In justifying his presence on Bombic's channels in March 2024, MP Tibor Gašpar of Smer argued that Bombic might be intentionally subjected to unjust accusations.^[38] Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, Robert Kaliňák, defended Bombic by stating: "For someone to say that I want a future for my white children, is that supposed to be a racist crime? Are they crazy?"^[39]

In the 2024 European Parliament elections, Smer included Judita Laššáková, a prominent Slovak alt-right figure who collaborates with Bombic, as their third candidate on the list.^[40] 90.64.67.24 (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ideology Bloat

@Number 57, Impru20, Julius Schwarz, Vacant0, HapHaxion, Checco, Braganza, Helper201, PLATEL, Nick.mon, Autospark, and Scia Della Cometa: I've noticed that the number of ideologies has increase in the infobox. Due to this, I believe it should be reduced to ideologies that perfectly describe the party:

• Left-wing nationalism
• Social democracy
• Social conservatism
• Left-wing populism

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

support Braganza (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

support. The other minor ideologies are just particular manifestations of these four party ideologies. I would also add "Soft Euroscepticism".  PLATEL  (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think either Left-wing nationalism or left-wing populism should be removed. It's one or the other. I would additionally remove Social Democracy as well. I also support removing Russophilia from the infobox on the condition that its adequately discussed in the lead and in the ideology section.

I think:

Left-wing nationalism

Social conservatism

Soft-Euroscepticism

as for the sources for the latter, heres some:

https://cz.boell.org/en/2024/01/15/eurosceptic-internationale

https://gfsis.org/en/early-elections-of-2023-slovakia-on-the-brink-of-euroscepticism/

https://www.ft.com/content/cde9bed8-d204-4c61-8748-9004d3b409b9 Zlad! (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose to Euroscepticism being included – that is a policy, not an ideology, so has no place in the Ideology field. I also consider four ideologies to still be far too many to list in an Infobox (again, those ideologies can and should be included in the article body instead, as the Infobox is merely meant to be for the broadest and briefest of descriptions). Currently leaning towards left-wing nationalism and social democracy, in that order, with populism a possible substitution for the latter. I’ll think it over more.— Autospark (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Please this is not a valid argument for not including Euroscepticism here. The debate was settled on the pro-Europeanism page about whether it is appropriate ideology to include in the infobox or not. If you are against its inclusion please use arguments such as the party not being Eurosceptic or sources not backing it up and not whether you personally like the inclusion or not.

I stand by my three ideologies and do not support social democracy as it a label that seems to be mostly self-described by the party.

Left-wing nationalism

Social conservatism

Soft-Euroscepticism Zlad! (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Euroscepticism is not an ideology. Therefore it does not belong in the Ideology field. If reliable sources describe the party had Eurosceptic, and I’m certainly not disputing that, that description is for mentioning in the “Ideology and policies” section of the article. An info box is meant to be a brief overview, as succinct as possible.

As for the ideology, my preference is now skewing toward populism and social democracy, in that order; however, there seems to be a lack of sources used in the article describing the party itself as populist – most if not all seem to describe Fico as populist, not the party. Therefore I’ll have more consideration.— Autospark (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Dude idc whether you consider Euroscepticism an ideology or not. You failed to change the consensus, now lets debate whether the party is Eurosceptic or not. It’s genuinely frustrating. Zlad! (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not disputing that sources have described the party as Eurosceptic. There are reliable sources linked to in the main article describing the party's policy stance in that manner. However, Euroscepticism is not a political ideology, and therefore it does not belong in the Ideology field of an Infobox in this article.-- Autospark (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you not understand what I'm saying? It doesn't matter whether you consider it an ideology or not it was decided that its appropriate. This is not the place to argue whether its appropriate or not for the inclusion in the infobox, argue that on the pro-Europeanism page. If you have any arguments against the party's Euroscepticism I'll be willing to hear it. Zlad! (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Euroscepticism is not a political ideology, therefore it does not belong in the "Ideology" field of the Infobox in this or any political party article. You can find (preferably reliable, third-party) sources which describe Direction/Smer as Eurosceptic and add them to the article body. The Ideology section of the article seems very well-sourced, but any additional content would be beneficial. See WP:REF for how to reference sources correctly.--Autospark (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Idk what to tell you. It's like I'm arguing with a brick wall. You have a total inability to understand what is being said. Either you're acting dumb or I don't want to know what's going on in your brain. You also don't need to teach me how to make a reference lol.

This will be the last time I'll ask. Did your initiative to remove Euroscepticism from party inboxes fail or not and if it failed why are you bringing it up here? Zlad! (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I concur with User:Autospark that Euroscepticism is not an ideology and is thus misplaced in the "ideology" field. All four ideologies proposed by User:ValenciaThunderbolt have a point, however I would opt for "populism" and "social democracy", in that order. --Checco (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll say this again. This is not the place to argue about whether you think Euroscepticism is an ideology or not. Argue about whether it is significant enough to be included in the infobox or not.

As for the ideologies the more that I think about it the more I like:

Social Democracy (or alternatively left-wing nationalism)

Populism (or alternatively social conservatism)

Soft-Euroscepticism

I feel like having so much three different leftist ideologies is overkill and can be summed up with one. I think 3 is the ideal number we should be looking for. Zlad! (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology

Why is the party described as "nominally social democratic" if there is a single non-academic reference for that and plenty of them proving the exact opposite? 164.15.244.48 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Content removal

Why was this fully sourced section removed?

The party leading politicians, including Prime Minister and party chair Robert Fico, frequently make appearances on various media outlets known for disseminating disinformation and promoting Russian propaganda.

Among these outlets are Hlavné Správy (Main News) and Infovojna (Infowar), both widely recognized as prominent sources of disinformation and Russian propaganda in Slovakia.^[41][42][43] In February 2023, an individual who contributed to Hlavné Správy confessed to espionage for Russia and was subsequently convicted.^[44] Despite Hlavné Správy and Infovojna having been temporarily suspended by the National Security Authority in accordance with the Cyber Security Act following the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 due to identified harmful activity^[45], the leaders continue to utilize these platforms for communication after the suspension was lifted.^[46][47] In his appearance on Infovojna in December 2023, Fico expressed gratitude towards "alternative media" for "correcting the distortions we have in the media market."^[48]

The party leading politicians also frequently appear in interviews with Daniel Bombic, a prominent Slovak right-wing extremism figure residing in London, who is subject to three international arrest warrants for crimes related to extremism, cyberbullying, and doxing.^[49][50][51] Bombic has gained notoriety for promoting conspiracy theories related to COVID-19, The Great Replacement, New World Order and International Jewish conspiracy. During the global pandemic, Bombic engaged in inciting attacks and spreading hate speech targeting doctors, hygienists, and other public figures.^[52][53] In justifying his presence on Bombic's channels in March 2024, MP Tibor Gašpar of Smer argued that Bombic might be intentionally subjected to unjust accusations.^[54] Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, Robert Kaliňák, defended Bombic by stating: "For someone to say that I want a future for my white children, is that supposed to be a racist crime? Are they crazy?"^[55]

In the 2024 European Parliament elections, Smer included Judita Laššáková, Slovak lawyer who collaborates with Bombic, as their third candidate on the list.^[56]164.15.244.48 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

Adding new sub-section within the Ideology section:

The party leading politicians, including Prime Minister and party chair Robert Fico, frequently make appearances on various media outlets known for disseminating disinformation and promoting Russian propaganda.

Among these outlets are Hlavné Správy (Main News) and Infovojna (Infowar), both widely recognized as prominent sources of disinformation and Russian propaganda in Slovakia. In February 2023, an individual who contributed to Hlavné Správy confessed to espionage for Russia and was subsequently convicted. Despite Hlavné Správy and Infovojna having been temporarily suspended by the National Security Authority in accordance with the Cyber Security Act following the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 due to identified harmful activity, the leaders continue to utilize these platforms for communication after the suspension was lifted. In his appearance on Infovojna in December 2023, Fico expressed gratitude towards "alternative media" for "correcting the distortions we have in the media market."

The party leading politicians also frequently appear in interviews with Daniel Bombic, a prominent Slovak right-wing extremism figure residing in London, who is subject to three international arrest warrants for crimes related to extremism, cyberbullying, and doxing. Bombic has gained notoriety for promoting conspiracy theories related to COVID-19, The Great Replacement, New World Order and International Jewish conspiracy. During the global pandemic, Bombic engaged in inciting attacks and spreading hate speech targeting doctors, hygienists, and other public figures. In justifying his presence on Bombic's channels in March 2024, MP Tibor Gašpar of Smer argued that Bombic might be intentionally subjected to unjust accusations. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, Robert Kaliňák, defended Bombic by stating: "For someone to say that I want a future for my white children, is that supposed to be a racist crime? Are they crazy?"

In the 2024 European Parliament elections, Smer included Judita Laššáková, Slovak lawyer who collaborates with Bombic, as their third candidate on the list. 164.15.244.46 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done This edit has not been implemented because it would create a section that solely exists to feature large passages of negative content. Edits should not be made to craft a positive or negative image of an article's subject, especially when it involves living people. Consider making smaller edit requests that summarize the most pertinent aspects of this information and place it in context within the article, so it does not create the appearance of writing an attack page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hello Thebiguglyalien, how is this section non-neutral or negative if it reports verified information regarding the party in a neutral tone? Cooperation with the far-right spectrum is simply part of the party's policy. This is a fact, there is no assessment of the situation. It's the same as when there are sections like: False or misleading statements, Promotion of conspiracy theories or Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct in an article about Donald Trump.--90.64.70.242 (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

References