Talk:Freedom and Direct Democracy

"neo-fascist"

Hi User:Martopa and User:ThecentreCZ, can I suggest discussing disputes over content rather than edit warring? I don't have any particular opinion on this topic yet. On the one hand the information is sourced, on the other hand the wording is quite POV. I would like to hear your arguments for your positions rather than just seeing continuous reverts. Thanks! Jdcooper (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jdcooper: Hello, we were already solving this problem some time ago here, also on other language Wikipedias, its again and again same problem on many similar pages. I won't involve in this again, because it's useless. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily useless! If you can provide a link to the previous discussion where consensus was established, I'd be happy to help protect the page according to that consensus. Jdcooper (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jdcooper and ThecentreCZ: The aim of WP is not to research truth, but to mention what is said on reliable sources (and not primary sources) such as books, newspaper's articles ; clearly it's not acceptable to remove content sources, especially when they come from respectable media like Le Monde diplomatique, without explaining reasons and currently, ThecentreCZ hasn't provide good reasons to remove it ; furthermore the problem wasn't solved in other language Wiki, see this French article fr:Liberté et démocratie directe where several autopatrolled and extended confirmed users reverted the remove of neo-fascism. Moreover, neo-fascism in French article has been added by Initi, an autopatrolled and extended confirmed user, not a vandal. --Martopa (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you up to a point; we can't just ignore what the sources say because we don't agree with it. But I find infoboxes a bit of a blunt instrument for this type of content. Wouldn't it be better to have a section of the main article called "Ideology", where we can describe more precisely what they party says about itself compared to what its critics say? I'd be happy to try to write it if everyone agrees. Jdcooper (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I was not involved in this dispute, but I do think that due to how controversial this claim is, it should require additional sources and talk page consensus. I would suggest inviting other people who have contributed to this article to comment.--Jay942942 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

the party is not neo-fascist

Argumentation of Martopa is improper, because his claim about neo-fascism is strictly based on French opinion anti-globalist left-wing journal Le Monde diplomatique. I am adding more precisely sourced non-questionable references here, mainly on Česká televize, which is a unbiased public service broadcaster.

Nothing about adoption of the ideology of neo-fascism is said in the political program of the party, which is self-published source. On the official website we can also find article, which contains strict condemnation of fascism. And third-party sources, which says Freedom and Direct Democracy is a extremist direct-democratic movement, but not neo-fascist.

--Lynchopa (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources such as political parties' websites are not acceptable source, it amounts to rehashing political propaganda. We don't use Chinese sources to whitewash antidemocratic nature of Chinese regime, its persecution against Tibetans and Uighurs, agressive foreign policy in "South China Sea" against neighbors' states ... according to North Korean sources, Kim Jong-un is respectful of democracy, human rights etc. So, what the party itself and its leader say has strictly no value. It's like using Ku Klux Klan website as a source to say that this movement isn't extremist, isn't violent against Black, Asian, Jewish, Catholic, immigrants etc. All far-left and far-right parties (like French National Front of Marine Le Pen) reject this label ; relying solely on their statements, there will be no longer any extremist party in the Earth, which is obviously false and a pure nonsense.

Furthermore, the fact that other sources do not consider the party as neo-fascist is by no means a sufficient reason to remove a sourced content, the fact that A does not say the same thing as B does not mean that A disproves B, for proof we mention both right-wing and far-right in the infobox for the SPD while the sources don't classify the party in the same way.

Your argument might be more convincing if you were here to build an encyclopedia rather than white-wash SPD. --Martopa (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that about political parties' websites is true, that is why I said that was a self-published source. Then I added 4 more references, which are fully independent sources, more precisely two private journals and one public service media, which confirms that the party is not neo-fascist. You are also true that parties sometimes reject extremist labels, but there are also cases of non-justified accusations of Fascism or Nazism of normal political parties, primarily from some politically-colored opinion journals. There is clear that this party have extremist elements, like every party in the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom. You've been saying something about French National Front, but there is no neo-fascism mentioned there, also as no other party in this movement, because it is non-sense. It would be not rational that only one party in the Movement, the Freedom and Direct Democracy would be neo-fascist, and others would be not. It is that so thanks to that false claim of Le Monde diplomatique. There are surely some neo-fascist parties, like National Democratic Party of Germany, the Golden Dawn, People's Party – Our Slovakia, but that is not case of parties in the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom.

I am adding you here again high-marked references, which says that this party have completely different composition and ideology than some neo-fascist parties:

• Zuzana Koulová (27 April 2018). "SPD a náckové? Je to jediná strana, která dnes pojmenovává největší problémy. Ostatní jsou nemohoucí a zoufalí, hovoří zakládající člen ODS". ParlamentníListy.cz (in Czech). Retrieved 16 May 2018.

–This source is a private media "Parlamentní listy" ("Parliamentary Papers"), published by the publishing house OUR MEDIA a.s. by a independent journalist.

• Czech Television (7 May 2018). "Interview ČT24, Petr Nováček, komentátor ČRo". ceskatelevize.cz (in Czech). Retrieved 16 May 2018.

–This is Czech public service broadcaster "Česká televize" like British BBC, which can be hardly questioned. Author is a journalist of Czech Radio, other public service media.

I believe this paragraph could be closed and we should remove neo-fascism reference, which is rebutted by other more than 4 sources. This is a recurring problem, here you can see three more discussion examples of a same problem on other Wikipedia articles, which always ended with a correction of a wrong claims:

• Talk:Freedom Party of Austria
• Talk:Vlaams Belang
• Talk:Law and Justice

--Lynchopa (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

SPD Logo

Regarding ThecentreCZ's nonsensical rejection of updating the logo.

Directly from Wikipedia's policy on non-free logos: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States." I did not make up that non-free logos should be low res you are simply just ignorant on the topic.

The logo that I believe is more suitable for the article is the logo featured multiple times in images on the front page of the SPD's website, the logo used on the SPD's official Facebook page and twitter profile, it is the logo used on posters and billboards and finally used at party events. Your version has less use and so I see no reason for why you are so opposed to the updating of the logo.Ec1801011 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

TheCentreCZ has ignored both the talk page and his own talk page and instead chooses to revert my edits, I also have reason to believe that he his making edits anonymously in an attempt to avoid repercussions for breaking the three revert rule. Ec1801011 (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ec1801011: Thats not true, I've reacted to the talk page afterwards. I did not done any attempt, I just wasn't on my computer yet. You are not experienced editor at all. You should finally call for the resolve of this issue on the pages for this puprpose and stop reverting my original version of vector file. You started edit warring first time, I have already informed you that your editations are not benefical to Wikipedia couple months ago regarding other uploads of yours and you keep doing it again and again, now even against my own files. Regarding file quality, you should firstly read the whole rules for Wikipedia images, which are not not located at Commons, here Template:Non-free use rationale logo and then start doing other uploads. Low-resolution files applies in the first place for Vector files in low px ratio, there are thousands of vector logo files here on Wikipedia. Bitmap files are second choice here on Wikipedia, when vector copyrighted file is not available.

Other issue of suitability is logo version. Because SPD Party doesn't have any graphic manual regarding visual identity, there is no provability which logo should be used. The vertical version is just adjusted to Twitter or Facebook square place for the logos, which alters. Original logo here is the one from party website main page, so alteration to the vertical VECTOR version is not wanted at all. There could be maybe discussion on this matter when someone would upload vectorized of this one, but as you uploaded bitmap file, this discussion is closed. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@ThecentreCZ:I'm afraid you don't get to "close" a discussion because you disagree with what i'm saying, first of all the logo you are using is not the one used on the website main page, https://www.spd.cz/images/logo.png?v=2 this is the image used on the main page which as you can clearly see is different with it including sub text. Secondarily your argument that my version is simply an adjusted version solely used for twitter and facebook can be simply disproven with multiple images of party material and events:

• https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/sites/default/files/styles/node-article_horizontal/public/2322809-fa.jpg?itok=VMj_smTj
• http://www.stranaprav.cz/images/content/news/1470587590_32565_616.jpg
• https://img26.rajce.idnes.cz/d2603/14/14442/14442529_1b4c16197bce4b367eec709510835944/images/P1011131.jpg
• https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/blbec/PostPictures/641787/7b5c7f6ce3de3665a24b20b2e167154d.jpg
• http://scd.rfi.fr/sites/filesrfi/aefimagesnew/imagecache/rfi_16x9_1024_578/sites/images.rfi.fr/files/aefimagesnew/aef_image/2019-04-25t193800z_1486658297_rc1ac9780d30_rtrmadp_3_czech-eu-protest_0.jpg
• http://www.tomio.cz/wp-content/uploads/14572814_1338369366173875_7394219943593356523_n-300x300.jpg
• http://www.stranaprav.cz/images/content/news/1464850587_529117_616.jpg

This logo is also the one used by electoral databases such as this one, https://eu2019.programydovoleb.cz/strana/spd.

Your arguments really don't make any sense and it's clear you are ignorant to the situation. Also calling me an "experienced editor" is rather humorous considering your flagrant abuse of the three revert rule and inability to respond on the talk page until I repeatedly asked you to engage in discussion. Since there appears to be no persuading on either side and since the party lacks "any graphic manual regarding visual identity" I say a solution to this problem is to include both logos which are clearly used equally by the party.Ec1801011 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-involved third party opinion here. I believe both logos are essentially okay. There's no need for heated arguments and creating a storm in a glass of water. I would suggest both of you to abide by WP:CIVIL and stop the "revert war".--Darwinek (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried being civil and engaging with him however it is hard when ThecentreCZ rejects any viewpoint that isn't his own.Ec1801011 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Protected

See Talk:Europe of Sovereign Nations#Protected. Please focus on one issue at a time by starting a new section on one of the affected articles with a specific proposal (text x should be retained/removed/added/changed because [reason] with [sources]). Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

'Neo-fascism' in the infobox, again

'Neo-fascism' seems quite an excessive infobox descriptor for this party, which doesn't seem to have any historical fascist heritage or links, and hasn't been involved in violence or anti-Semitism; the ideology of this party appears to just be in line with the average Western European right-wing populist party. The sources used appear to be fairly old and not especially strong, and it doesn't seem like this description is used in many recent Czech or international media reports about the party. I'm not against discussing this in the article body, but mentioning it in the infobox seems excessive. Inviting @Placeholderer, @Soggy Pandas, @Vacant0, @Checco, @Hyguest, @Autospark, @Ensyloium and others who were involved in this article or in similar discussions on other talk pages. Jay942942 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

As usual, I suggest a "less is more" approach in the infobox, and a full discussion of all/any labels the party has been given in the article body. So yeah, I agree. Jdcooper (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I was only able to find this source that mentions that "the Czech weekly RESPEKT does not have to apologize to "Tomio Okamura's Freedom and Direct Democracy" (SPD) party for having called it a "fascist movement in parliament"". I'd recommend discussing this instead in the body of the article, than featuring it in the infobox, considering that the neo-fascist label is not prevalent enough in reliable sources to be considered as one of the party's main ideologies. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I also think that "neo-fascism" is not appropriate here. In the infobox, I would have just "right-wing populism" and either "national conservatism" or "nationalism" (without "Czech", as the article nationalism gives a better perspective on the ideology, while Czech nationalism has more to do with Czech history and is not a particularly useful article). --Checco (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jay942942 Sorry I missed the ping! I blame my setup.

With regard to the sources currently supporting the infobox designation: One is from BalkanInsight, which has support from some pretty respectable governments though the specific author seemed to only write 4 pieces for them, and on his website (where I can't find his involvement with BalkanInsight— a relevant link is dead) he seems to say he's an opinion journalist, which I'm not sure how to interpret. The second is a book by a theologian and seems from the title to focus on religion, and I think it is unambiguously not reliable enough for this WP:CONTENTIOUS label. The third, bne IntelliNews, is over 16 years old, headquartered in Berlin, and employs around 100 people as of this May, and though they seem to get along well with the Moscow Times (which is a good sign) I can't find much third-party talk about them. The sources being old doesn't help either since the SPD was founded in 2015 and as of 2022 was growing very quickly (per this article), i.e it seems dynamic. And like Vacant0 the only other source I found that called the SPD neo-fascist is Romea.cz, a Roma news outlet, and from what I understand about politicization of the Roma that might not be a neutral source here.

TLDR 2/3 of the current sources seem reasonable generally, but probably not good enough to support neo-fascism in the infobox on their own. The term needs wide use by reliable sources. Maybe non-English sources would be helpful.

(Unrelated sidenote but apparently WP:CONTENTIOUS goes to an essay instead of that MOS page, even though on the MOS page it says it goes there? WP:RACIST for now then) Placeholderer (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

New sources for neo-fascism

Neo-fascism has been added back to the infobox with some new sources. I think the new sources are not reliable enough for the purpose of including neo-fascism in the infobox.

European Interest: Their About Us page describes themself as an independent, pro-EU ("not a publication that approaches European matters neutrally") news outlet formed in 2017. For the purpose of this RS discussion the most concerning paragraph says that "Today, the EU is under a permanent attack from inside and outside factors. Euroscepticism transformed into an acute Europhobia that is associated with ‘phobias’ against Islam, Jews, migrants and refugees, ethnic and social groups, sexual minorities. The far-right is particularly active in this field." I can't find much about the organization, other than that their website was in fact registered in 2017— their name makes it hard to find stuff about them in my search engine. The website looks professional, and I didn't see any red flag articles, but on the internet nobody knows you're a dog so I'm not entirely sure what to make of them. I thought I remembered seeing they hosted some debate when looking into them for a previous reason, but couldn't find it again and might be mixing them up with another group. I think it's worth keeping the citation in the article, and if neo-fascism does stay in the infobox I think this should be used, but I'm not sure if this source (plus bne Intellinews and BalkanInsight, the other sources I support keeping) is enough to assert neo-fascism

Britské listy: I couldn't really find much about them in English. However, they use aggressive language against right-wing/conservative ideas. Disclaimer: I know almost nothing about Czech politics, but the source provided isn't tone-neutral ("extreme-right wing, fascist SPD Party", and looking at other English articles of theirs I see here they use phrases like "a wave of xenophobic hysteria" and: "a highly regarded psychiatrist in the Czech Republic, who has been systematically making strong anti-refugee and xenophobic  statements, has just presented the results of his "research" which he has been conducting with colleagues on staff of the Czech "National Institute for Psychological Health". Höschl and colleagues have allegedly "proven" that those Czech citizens who do not  want to accept any refugees are not xenophobic. These statements are being seriously disseminated by Czech media" (multiple scare quotes, loaded words, criticizing mass media). In fact, every English article in the first two pages (which is all I've checked) of their English "Refugee crisis in Europe" section looks to be criticism of right wing politics. Here's what I think their broader English section is, in case anyone else wants to look, but this source looks to me to have ideological bias.

Heinrich Böll Foundation (HBF): Their Wikipedia article says "The Heinrich Böll Foundation is part of the global Green political movement that has developed since the 1980s. It describes itself as an agency for green visions and projects, a think tank for policy reforms, and an international network." HBF's website says that it "maintains close ties to the German Green Party (Alliance 90/The Greens)" From my understanding, Green politics in Germany are generally affiliated with left-wing politics. This source might not be great for WP:CONTENTIOUS for that reason.

Geni.com: A genealogy website that is considered Generally Unreliable by Wikipedia unambiguously should not be used for this.

I support removing the Britské listy and Heinrich Böll Foundation sources from neo-fascism in the infobox, but won't do it myself for now. I'll remove Geni.com and re-remove Tim Noble's book (which I explained in my previous comment— theology book probably not RS here). I still think it's not quite appropriate to have neo-fascism in the infobox with the remaining sources, but will wait for further discussion. For what it's worth, I might just be holding too high of standards for a small political party in Czechia, but I feel that spin on minor articles can be an important issue. Placeholderer (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Another reference has been added from Le Monde Diplomatique. MB/FC (not RS itself because self-published) says that they are factual but left-wing, referencing "editorial perspectives". From what I understand they're well-known. This seems to me like a good source for the infobox. Thanks to IP for adding! (and for adding other sources— should've acknowledged better sooner)

I think that with bne Intellinews, BalkanInsight, European Interest (to a lesser extent), and Le Diplo, there's a good case for keeping neo-fascism in the infobox. If there are no further developments/opinions I'll remove the (IMO) weaker sources from the infobox (maybe from the body too) at some point Placeholderer (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)