Jump to content

Talk:Progressive Slovakia

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

"Progressive"?

[edit]

Try marxist. Or socialist. Or left-wing. But please dont pollute wikipedia with such biased euphemisms.

80.131.49.87 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they are "centrists" supposedly according to wiki... No way. They are worse than KSS, only they don't want to admit it, since lefties are superunpopular among the young generation that they target, so they take advantage of people's naivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.52.23.13 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology section in infobox

[edit]
CLOSED
Agreement reached

The following discussion 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.

This RfC may also apply to the pages of other political parties with similar issues. When a political party mostly adheres to a certain variant of a particular ideology, should the more general ideology be listed in addition to the specific variant in the "ideology" section of the infobox? In this case, Progressive Slovakia is a liberal party mostly adhering to social liberalism. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) ​​Hi all, I've mentioned you here because you seem to have some level of interest in political parties around the world. Jeff6045 and I had a disagreement on the listing of ideologies in the infobox on this page. I favor listing only "Social liberalism", while Jeff6045 favors listing both "Liberalism" and "Social liberalism". My argument is that only listing "social liberalism" is more concise, since social liberalism is a specific variant of liberalism to which Progressive Slovakia (PS) adheres, without strong influence from other variants of liberalism (such as classical or conservative liberalism). Jeff6045, however, argues that liberalism and social liberalism should be seen as independent ideologies and therefore should both be listed. We'd like to seek input from more users before making a decision on this.[reply]
P.S. Please see Jeff6045's talk page and our edit summaries for our arguments in more detail.
P.P.S. Please ping anyone else you feel would contribute to this discussion. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Slovakia is memeber of Renew Europe group which is generally considered as largest liberal organization in European Parliament. Also mainstream media such as Reuters or BBC is observing the party as liberal. Don't you there are enough evidences to label the party as liberal? Yes, the party might be embracing left-liberal agenda or more left-leaning policies, but in my view that doesn't mean that we should remove liberalism in the party's ideology. In addition in the article about Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, although the party is observed to advocate left leaning views, the party still has liberalism in ideology section.
I wish many users can join this discussion to make progress about this issue. ​​
Thank you for reading! -previous comments by User:Jeff6045
Perhaps you misunderstood my argument. I don't deny that Progressive Slovakia is a liberal organization; I think that fact is obvious. However, I feel that it is unnecessary and increases clutter in the ideology section to include both "liberalism" and "social liberalism" when simply using "social liberalism" is enough to describe the party as adhering to a specific variant of liberalism. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​​​Pinging more users. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​​And more users. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged so I'll give my opinion on this. Generally speaking, I would agree with Ezhao02 on the fact that social liberalism is a variant of liberalism (and are separate from other variants), and if most sources say the party adheres to that variety and agree on it, placing liberalism in as well would be redundant. However, if there are a large number of sources stating each, and/or there are factions in the party that do not adhere to the same variant of liberalism, than just "liberalism" can be listed in addition to the predominant variety (both with sources, of course). In terms of precedent, I've seen articles that do each, with some like the Liberal Democrats of the UK, the Liberal Party in the Philippines, and the Liberal Party in Norway showing "liberalism" and "social liberalism", while others like List of Marjan Šarec, the Estonian Centre Party, the Democratic Party of Korea, and Democrats 66 showing only "social liberalism", for example. The same applies for other variants of liberalism as well. Perhaps after this some kind of site-wide consensus on this topic should be established as well (perhaps leaving the most specific ideology in or something of the sort). HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 04:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Ezhao02; "liberalism" is such a broad label that it's effectively meaningless, as it covers a huge range of ideologies ranging from hard right in economic terms to the left in social terms (and many people identifying as "classical liberals" are alt-right). It's a particularly problematic label to use in an international encyclopedia, as "liberal" also means different things in different countries (to Americans, liberals are on the left, to Australians they are on the right).
Do we have a source for the party's economic views? I would rather see them listed as "Social liberal" plus wherever they stand economically, rather than a broadbrush label such as "liberal" being applied. I see they are listed as centre to centre-left, which suggests they may not be economic liberals. Number 57 14:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: I think that in this case, "social liberalism" is referring to both support of socially liberal policies and somewhat left-leaning economic policies, as described in the article about the ideology. For example, this source,[1] which describes the party's ideology with the phrase "social liberalism", states on its content page, "Social liberal parties stress civil rights and favor a social market economy." Ezhao02 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would either list "liberalism" and "social liberalism" or just "social liberalism". No to "liberalism" alone. --Checco (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco: Would you prefer listing both or just listing "social liberalism"? Ezhao02 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference. The only thing is that I would not support "liberalism" alone. --Checco (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the party is more commonly described as a liberal rather than social liberal by mainstream media. Here are some sources that describe the party as liberal.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Jeff6045 (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff6045:: The problem is not whether PS is liberal at all—I think we can all agree that the party is liberal. All your sources are accurate in describing PS as a liberal party, but they do not differentiate between different variants of liberalism. So far, I have only seen sources claiming that the party's dominant variant of liberalism is social liberalism, and I have not seen sources claiming otherwise or mentioning factions within the party adhering to different variants. If we are able to find sources describing the party as "classical-liberal", "economically liberal", or "conservative-liberal" or as having factions adhering to those different variants of liberalism, I will gladly change my position on this issue. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ezhao02: Thank for your kind response. I will search some sources that you mentioned. If I can't find anything I'll give in to you. Jeff6045 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff6045: Thanks! I'll try to look for some sources too. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff6045: Hi, have you found anything yet? Ezhao02 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't find any sources that you mentioned. If you also have not find anything, I'll assent on just listing social liberalism in ideology section. Thanks! Jeff6045 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff6045: I haven't been able to find anything either. I'll change it now. Ezhao02 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nordsieck, Wolfram (2016). "Slovakia". Parties and Elections in Europe.
  2. ^ "Slovakia's Matovic: Europe's Mr Ordinary prepares for power". BBC. 4 March 2020.
  3. ^ "Slovakia election: Anti-corruption party takes lead". BBC. 1 March 2020.
  4. ^ "Liberal coalition Progressive Slovakia/Together wins EU vote in Slovakia". Reuters. 27 May 2019.
  5. ^ "Anti-corruption opposition wins Slovakia election". Politico. 29 February 2020.
  6. ^ "Center-right opposition leads polls ahead of Slovakian vote". Associated Press. 28 February 2020.
  7. ^ "Liberal Caputova beats Sefcovic in Slovakia's presidential poll". Euractiv. 18 March 2019.
  8. ^ "'Fragmented' Slovakia votes amid corruption woes". EU Observer. 27 February 2019.
  9. ^ "Liberal lawyer Caputova wins election to become Slovakia's first female president". Reuters. 31 March 2019.
  10. ^ "Four takeaways from Slovakia's parliamentary election". Emerging Europe. 2 March 2020.

Responses

[edit]

The two main choices are listing "social liberalism" without listing "liberalism" or listing both "liberalism" and "social liberalism" in the infobox. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you feel that I have misrepresented your views, please change these.

Thanks! My opinion was correctly interpreted. Second thoughts: I would list both. --Checco (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Wording in lead: "that" vs. "which"

[edit]

Let's not edit war over grammar. The wording should use "that" instead of "which". The clause "that was established in 2017" modifies "a…political party", so an essential clause (one beginning with that and having no comma) should be used here. If another sentence stated "the political party", then a nonessential clause (beginning with which and having a comma) would have to be used. This is because "a…political party" does not denote a specific political party, while "the political party" does (it refers to Progressive Slovakia). Ezhao02 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC) @178.41.67.156: Pinging the user involved. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political spectrum

[edit]

@Braganza: There are multiple sources supporting they're left-leaning, I think this should be included in the infobox:

CaeCalig (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

all of these sources are pretty much from the start of their existence. As I clarified in the ideology section, is classic slovakian sence there is not much "left-wing" about them, yes they are socially progressive but so is SaS and quotes like "left-leaning economic liberal party [..] founded [...] based on the En Marche! model" or "one on the center-Left (Progressive Slovakia) and another on the center-Right (SPOLU-Civic Democracy)" which mostly compare them to other parties like SPOLU shouldn't been used to place them in the infobox. The article from aktuality.sk puts them into contrast to the traditional "left-wing" party by pointing out that PS is socially progressive and has individualist views unlike smer (Kým strana Roberta Fica je staromódna ľavica, ktorá sa opiera o populizmus a istý druh „opatrovníctva“ zo strany štátu, druhá je liberálna a miesto sociálnej skupiny chce osloviť najmä jednotlivcov.).
Economically, they are still a liberal party, their voters come from the "right", Dzurinda wanted to include them in his united bloc alongside KDH & SaS[1][2][3] and will (if they come into power) only be able to form a coalition with clearly centre-right parties, SaS & KDH. We should always keep the national context in my mind and not try to rate parties in a too internationally-based scale. For example there were couple of discussions about Smer and how we should describe them (2010, August 2021, September 2021, June 2022, December 2022 with many edit wars not reflected) and here the center-left & social democracy side have prevailed, changing PS because of social issues would have to restart this discussion one again. Braganza (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but SaS is libertarian and their "social progressivism" like supporting same-sex civil unions comes from the idea of a small government and the belief that the state shouldn't tell people how to live, PS focuses more on the "inequality" and "discrimination" part like left-leaning parties traditionally do.
After the election they would probably need to cooperate with center-right parties but I don't see how that changes their ideology. Nor their voters coming from the "right". For example REPUBLIKA is described here as a far right party but 45% of their voters describe themselves as centrists, 26% left-wing and only 21% right-wing and they're willing to form a government with Smer after the election. So I don't think who they're willing to form a government with should be a big factor when positioning them on the political spectrum because then we'd need to do it with other parties too. CaeCalig (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thats the thing when Smer is centre-left despite their social conservatism and their alliance with nationalist parties (like SNS) is listed as just centre-left because it sees themselves as the "Slovak Social Democracy" while REP and SNS are nationalist parties through and through.
and in what way is PS pro-equality but social progressivism, e.g. in their program they explicitly enforce cuts in unprofitable sectors and reduce bureaucracy (We will follow the principle: let's invest where we will get the most return. We will therefore focus on supporting education, healthcare and green transformation; We will look for savings in the least effective expenditures, which means, for example, a leaner bureaucracy and the cancellation of inefficient subsidies) and like many other liberal parties we list as just centre they want a more "simple, efficient" tax system. A party which is just progressive isn't centre-left like D66 or the Laisvės partija. Braganza (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In their program they also have a chapter called "Equality is future which includes:
  • putting hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity into the penal code
  • strengthening the penal code against gender-based violence
  • free contraceptive pill (paid from the public health insurance)
  • days off for women who are currently menstruating (paid by the state)
These aren't things that liberal-right parties such as the libertarian SaS would probably be for since it's strengthening the state and makes people more dependent on it so there is a significant difference between them in this area. They aren't for raising taxes like in 2020 and they want to support businesses too so I guess economically they aren't totally left-wing but a part of their program is pretty left-leaning. That's why I added it to the infobox, the "centre" was still there but I added "to centre-left" so people would know some of their policies are left-wing. CaeCalig (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i don't deny that
"That's why I added it to the infobox, the "centre" was still there but I added "to centre-left" so people would know some of their policies are left-wing." – if smer was labelled instead of "centre-left" like: "Economically: centre-left / Socially: Right-wing" i wouldn't oppose that actually but as long Smer is just centre-left, i am strongely against it. These parties are different on most issues and shouldn't appear similar Braganza (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support the political position in the infobox being "Centre to centre-left". The political position of centre-left is cited with multiple sources in the main body of the page. The addition of this to the infobox breaks no Wikipedia guidelines and omitting one cited political position for another when both are well cited is clearly unfair and not balanced (see WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT). Helper201 (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/655967-dzurinda-sa-nuka-marne-lidri-stredopravych-stran-si-zatial-veria-a-maju-aj-obavy-z-osudu-sdku/
  2. ^ https://zemavek.sk/koalicia-sa-spaja-delenim-opozicia-dostava-sancu-na/
  3. ^ https://veci-verejne.sk/veci-verejne-romana-michelka-gorila-sa-vracia-alebo-zufaly-pokus-dzurindu-vratit-sa/

Suggestion: Change Position to "Big Tent"

[edit]
Stiner226 (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not really diverse Braganza (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economically liberal

[edit]

How can economically liberal, neoliberal party be "left-wing"? 188.32.244.225 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progressive_Slovakia&oldid=1224262237"