Talk:Republic (Slovakia)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Splitting proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There is consensus to split the article according to proposal. Supporters make the case that the parties are one entity in legal status only, and that separate pages are clearer for the readership. Any implications for other pages in similar situations could be discussed on their respective talk pages. Felix QW (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I propose that "Republic" and Movement for Democracy (Slovakia) be split in two separate articles. As this article explains, Uhrík and his followers chose to take over an existing party in order to evade the requirement for new parties to collect signatures of 10,000 citizens. The same was done e.g. in 2011 when Nora Mojsejová took over the dormant Alliance of the New Citizen; in 2015 when Peter Marček "gifted" the Slovak Citizen's Party (SOS) to Boris Kollár who renamed it to We Are Family and in 2018 when the same Marček took over the inactive Movement for Democracy and renamed it to "Voice of the People" rather than founding a completely new party. This is a pragmatic deal similar to a shelf corporation.
But de facto, "Republic" is a new party which has nothing in common with the Movement for Democracy founded by Gašparovič in 2002. It is confusing to readers if they follow a link from an article about e.g. Gašparovič or the 2004 Slovak presidential election and get redirected to the article about Uhrík's current far-right party. Also, the aktuality.sk article is titled "Uhrík's new party", acknowledging that de facto it is a new party and not a continuation of HzD (which is not even mentioned in the source). --RJFF (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Another issue here is whether the Movement for Democracy even meets WP:NORG given the tighter notability requirements for organizations. (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would argue that Movement for Democracy was notable as its leader Ivan Gašparovič was elected President of Slovakia in 2004 and 2009. --RJFF (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ezhao02, Igec133, Ivan Ch RU, ThecentreCZ, and Vacant0: You might be interested in this. What is your opinion? Can you help with the decision? --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- @RJFF: Based on the information you've provided, I would agree that the page should be split. However, I'd like to see if there are any precedents for this (i.e., any similar cases where the page has/hasn't been split). I do know that there are cases where legally separate entities have shared the same article (for example, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan was technically dissolved and refounded in 2020), but I don't know off the top of my head any examples where the page has been split for entities that were legally the same. Looking at the other parties you have mentioned, I suspect that if we end up deciding that this page should be split, those should be split as well. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- The difference is that the successor parties of ANO (legally identic, but de facto distinct) were not politically notable, as well as the pre-2015 Slovak Citizen's Party (predecessor of "We Are Family"). Therefore, we do not need separate articles but can merely mention the non-notable incarnations as a side note. In the case of HzD and Republika, however, both parties are notable: the former for being the party of a two-terms president and the latter for having representation in the National Council and European Parliament. --RJFF (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late answer. I support the division of this article, because de facto (not de jure) these are two different parties, with different charters and ideologies (one center-right, the other ultra-right). This would remain one article if there was an evolution of views "within" the party, and the transfer of the leadership of the party to people from the LSNS. PLATEL (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
@Vacant0, Igec133, and 178.143.62.94: Please discuss possible edits and make edits through WP:CONSENSUS rather than reverting each other. If needed, invite participation from related WikiProjects. Keep WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV in mind at all times. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Vacant0@Igec133: I've read the message you posted on my talk page and I'm moving the discussion here. A source must state that the party is neo-Nazi in some way or another, but from what can be seen, all of these sources that you have added date back before the foundation of the party, your addition can be counted as source hijacking. Uhrik and other high party leaders might be neo-Nazis but we need an explicit source that mentions the party as neo-Nazi. If sources like these exist, and if the party has been described in some other way, you can then add the claim, otherwise keep the ideology section blank. Thanks, --Vacant0 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2021 (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:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Splitting the article
@Ezhao02, Igec133, Ivan Ch RU, ThecentreCZ, Vacant0, RJFF, and PLATEL: While I have closed the discussion as was requested at the Closure request noticeboard, I would prefer input of local editors in implementing the split (for instance, I am unsure how to deal with the Voice of the People phase 2018-21). Felix QW (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)