Talk:Direction – Social Democracy

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: So why would you want to rename to 'Smer - Social Democracy' and not simply 'Smer'? Hobartimus (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose the move. I actually prefer the currently title, all in English. --Checco (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: rename article to Smer – Social Democracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 MadTC 18:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting of good faith edits in first paragraph. 

message: 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 MadTC 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A question about style 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: 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 referenceshttps://dennikn.sk/350794/hannes-swoboda-fico-nie-socialny-demokrat/https://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/270103/fico-mohol-problemy-homosexualov-riesit-uz-davno-keby-bol-naozaj-socialny-demokrat/https://www.trend.sk/trend-archiv/ako-vyzera-socialny-stat-roberta-fica-malo-muziky-malo-penazihttps://dennikn.sk/1084115/fico-smer-a-socialna-demokracia/https://www.pulib.sk/web/kniznica/elpub/dokument/Olostiak14/subor/Zubal.pdfhttps://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/f0t0zvr/zala-smer-sa-stal-marginalnou-stranou-fico-si-uz-nikdy-prve-husle-nezahra/https://dennikn.sk/1681506/novy-smer-k-extremizmu/https://www.aktuality.sk/clanok/tkh5dgn/smer-tiahne-v-jednom-siku-s-extremistami-a-pellegriniho-hlas-len-zaryto-mlci/https://slovensko.hnonline.sk/6157119-uhrik-a-fico-dohodli-spolocny-protest-dobudoval-hradzu-proti-extremizmu-odkazuje-sefovi-smeru-grendelhttps://dennikn.sk/2516614/lenc-statusom-nech-ako-moslim-nerobim-v-krestanskej-krajine-politologa-fico-iba-ukazal-ze-je-xenofobny-fasista/https://www.webnoviny.sk/smer-sd-sa-odchodom-pellegriniho-meni-na-komunisticku-lavicu/ 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 . Finally, that did not give you the right to bloat the infobox again. Davide King (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Their claim of a consensus is obviously baseless. Their last edit should be reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but I figured on waiting for resolution at WP:AN3 first. Schazjmd (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social democracy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ideology tags in the party inbox should be updated due to a major split in this party 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ideology (December 2022) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name "Direction – Slovak Social Democracy" 

message: explain why you want to change it Braganza (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology + position 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: WP:SOCK Reflecktor (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Unconstructive ad hominem response.--90.64.71.238 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt-right ties section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2024 

message: 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)
thread_title:  oof 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ideology - economics 

message: 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. 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 alt-right 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, a prominent Slovak alt-right figure who collaborates with Bombic, as their third candidate on the list. 90.64.67.24 (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section