Talk:Slovak National Party

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

Testing[edit]

Testing... Please, write your objections, if you have any! Laddy

Thank you for editing... I was thinking, that I should have named the headline more neutrally. :) Laddy

Please, do not change the name of the sub-article "SNS in the common state of Czechs and Slovaks" to "SNS in Czechoslovakia". Czechoslovak Republic was renamed in 1938 and became the Czecho-Slovak Republic. My headline makes the situation easier, so please, let it be! Thanks! Laddy

Laddy = Liberal Nationalist

I hope Juro won´t change ĺudáci to Slovak People´s Party. At that time they weren´t organized as a party. Liberal Nationalist 13:22, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

This is a linguistic problem - you cannot translate ludaci with "populars" - that's impossible. The only possible translation is Populists, but for obvious reasons populists is not suitable as well. Try to find another solution, like "the (future) People's Party" or something like that. Juro 03:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


After reading this article, I still have no clue about the party's ideology. I don't speak Slovak, so I have no idea how to research for this, but someone ought to be able to. User:Mordac 18:51, 26 Jun 2006 (GMT)

Can someone, please,[edit]

explain, where the latest edits have disappeared? Not only from the article, but from the history. --91.127.63.46 14:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They´re back now. --91.127.63.46 14:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes[edit]

This page has been the target of ongoing edit wars, and I am disappointed to see that there has been absolutely zero attempt to engage at the talkpage. I have protected the article for 24 hours. When the protection is lifted, this does not mean that edit-warring can continue. Anyone else who continues to revert without discussion, is at risk of being placed on editing restrictions, and/or having their account access blocked.

For further information, or to raise any other issues about the disputes or the behavior of the editors involved in them, please see User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. --Elonka 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Na fóre internetovej stránky SNS bola od novembra umiestnená mapa Európy, na ktorej bolo územie Maďarska rozdelené medzi Rakúskom a Slovenskom. Píše o tom dnešné vydanie maďarského denníka Magyar Hírlap.

Denník zisťoval u hovorcu SNS Rafaela Rafaja, či názory prezentované na fóre sú totožné so zahraničnopolitickými postojmi strany a ak nie, prečo národovci umožnili takúto mapu zverejniť na svojej stránke. Do utorka na tieto otázky Magyar Hírlap síce nedostal odpoveď, ale mapku podľa novín z fóra odstránili.

Mapa Európy umiestnená na fóre bola podľa vyjadrenia strany príspevkom vloženým do diskusného fóra.

"Aby sme predišli prípadným vykonštruovaným kombináciám úplne nepodstatnej informácie spomenutého maďarského denníka, Slovenská národná strana pre TASR zdôrazňuje, že išlo o príspevok vložený do diskusného fóra, kam môže prispieť prakticky hocikto a SNS reaguje v pravidelných intervaloch na vložené neprijateľné príspevky na svojej internetovej stránke po ich preskúmaní," informovala TASR tlačová tajomníčka SNS Jana Benková.

Periodikum spolu s niektorými ďalšími maďarskými médiami monitoruje slovenské médiá, ktoré informovali o kauze predsedu SNS Jána slotu. Ten podľa dokumentov z archívu Ústavu pamäti národa údajne kradol v Rakúsku autá a na Slovensku vylúpil obchod.

Maďarské médiá zverejnili podrobnosti týchto dokumentov. Denník Népszabadság v článku pod názvom Mladý Slota kradol, oslovil slovenského politológa Gregorija Mesežnikova, podľa ktorého v krajinách, kde platia normy politickej kultúry, takýto politik vyvodí patričné dôsledky. "Na Slovensku je takýto krok takmer úplne vylúčený," dodal politológ.

(spravodajca TASR Ladislav Vallach)

Nothing to talk about. I linked Magyar Hírlap's page. It then gone around in the Hungarian media.[1], [2], [3], etc.

It was on SNS's webpage since november. What did Jana Benková (spokesman of SNS) told? :) "Aby sme predišli prípadným vykonštruovaným kombináciám úplne nepodstatnej informácie spomenutého maďarského denníka, Slovenská národná strana pre TASR zdôrazňuje, že išlo o príspevok vložený do diskusného fóra, kam môže prispieť prakticky hocikto a SNS reaguje v pravidelných intervaloch na vložené neprijateľné príspevky na svojej internetovej stránke po ich preskúmaní," informovala TASR tlačová tajomníčka SNS Jana Benková." It was uploaded by a forum user, and was removed during a regular maitenance. Well, its not that regular, ot they were aware of its existence and let it be on their page. This is how SNS works.

So at least it could be mentioned at least as a "controversy". --Rembaoud (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove map[edit]

I think we have discussed the matter enough at Elonka's experiment page (see archive of discussion). I insist on the opinion that use of map of divided Hungary is not proportionate to the importance of controversy, it is just one of many surrounding Slovak National Party. We have agreed on the approach and specific sentence in discussion that was freely available to anyone not blocked within 3 days of its run and even later. Therefore I am removing the map from the article. Are there any new arguments? --Ruziklan (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-fascist[edit]

Sorry, but isn´t it too much? Neofascist? When exactly SNS did oppsed liberal democracy or parliamentary system. If you want to put it into some group because of statements of it´s chairman than you should define it´s as populistic. If you want to go this way than also SMK is neo-fascistic because it´s underchairman wrote in his book that HUngarians should not marry Slovaks because of genetic degeneration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed
I Agree, the neo-fascist labeling is inappropriate. The party is not anti-system one and it's programme does not contain any aspects that could be linked to neo-fascism. Moreover, it is not properly sourced, the article it refers to is an opinion piece in which the label is used without further elaboration or analysis. When proper sources are found the label can be used, until then it should be deleted. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources As it seems, it has become a ritual here to revert my deleton of the neo-fascist label solely on the basis that it is referenced. Here is my argument to support my stance:

The source for the label is ohmynews.com - a 'news portal' principally similar to Wikipedia - it's the individual users who contributes the content. The content is not subject to peer review and it is not experts nor proffessional journalists who contribute it. It does not fulfill the criteria of a reliable source. It is in fact equal in reliability to a regular personal blog.
In the article itself the use of the label is ad libitum, without any reasoning or elaboration. If I call the USA a fascist regime, unless I have sources and arguments to support the thesis, it is no more than my personal opinion. And personal opinions should not be found in encyclopaedia - Wikipedia included.
The fact that the logos are similar has nothing to do with whether the party is in fact neo-fascist or not. There is no clear definition of neo-fascist, but there is no argument claiming that it does fulfill even the current vague one. Geert Wilders' rhetoric is similar, he's not labeled neo-fascist though. Anti-system nature of a party is a key attribute to be looked at when evaluating its 'neo-fascist-ness' = SNS does not fulfill it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladthemlat (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the neofascist label because 1) this is not true 2) sources were no good. Do not revert without real sources. --Jg333 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on point 1), that the Slovak National Party is not neofascist? On what do you base this statement? Hobartimus (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis can you say that any party is not fascist? Are we to assume that all political parties are fascist until proven otherwise?Royalcourtier (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page looks odd on Explorer...[edit]

...there is a big white space. Are both infoboxes needed? – Alensha talk 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logo comparison[edit]

While it is certainly interesting and entertaining to see those two logos compared, placement of those images misleads the reader. The similarity has its own context, which should be explained. One way or the other, the images should be moved further down the page as it is more of a quirk than an actual encyclopaedic information. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logo comparsion was moved further down as asked. Hobartimus (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current SNS logo is copy of historical SNS logo established in 1871. And now - when was NSDAP party established? Wasn´t it in 1919 by any chance? And now, please, care to exaplain what connection do you see between logo of party which was used since 1871 and logo of party established 48 years laters? I could also start ask about that neo-facscistic orientation, but I guess it would just bring another edit war. --EllsworthSK (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The swastika is even older well predating 1871. Yet if you use the swastika or nazi party logo today there is a different meaning to them then their original. If you have a source to your info (1871) it would be nice as well. Hobartimus (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Swastica is old budhistic symbol, I personally have at home statue of Budha with swastika in his hearth which I brought from Thailand but that doesn´t make me nazi, does it? Either way, SNS logo does not have swastika in it´s logo or anything so I don´t know where are you heading with this. And the source is for example Dejiny Slovenska by Slovak Academy of Science published in 1961. --EllsworthSK (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, if the logo is only a copy of the logo of the historical party, the comparison with NSDAP is way out of line. Historical SNS predates NSDAP, the heraldic was probably very common at the time, it is definitely not an allusion to the Nazi logo.The logo comparison should remain deleted as it is just a blatant and primitive POV push. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology[edit]

I think that the ideology of the party should be examined separately from its leader's rhetoric. The ideology is shown in the programme and in legislation the party initiates or supports. There are no sources to support the extremism (please refere to Extremism) or neo-fascist libels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladthemlat (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thoughts. Plus there are two sourced supporting the claim that SNS is neo-fascistic. The problem is that first source leads to blank page and second one does not even mention word fascistic or any of it derivation in it´s article. I suggest to delete AT LEAST that neo-fascistic nonsense. --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, to the neo-fascist libel I bring into everyone's attention this particular part of WP:RS

For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context.

As the fact, whether a certain party is indeed neo-fascist is an academic topic, the references are not that reliable and I suggest that the libel is only mentioned in the lead as "is labeled by some" but deleted from the infobox. Wladthemlat (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"See also: Slovenska pospolitost"[edit]

I don't see the connection between SNS and Slovenska pospolitost, can somebody explain? I think it's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg333 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might you have asked me? The Anti-Hungarian sentiment is that what I could tell you if I am a proper "somebody" to answer your question.--Nmate (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-hungarian sentiment is dominant in the case of SNS, however Pospolitost is more anti-Roma or generally xenophobic. I agree with Jg333, there is no direct connection between the two. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism ≠ Right wing[edit]

Can we remove the part in the lead that purports that racism = rightwing? The party appears to be socialist (left wing) and arguably racist. So why do we suddenly decide they are right wing. There are tons of left and right wing racists. I would do it myself, but I feel there needs to be a little discussion first. Metallurgist (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The party is not right wing it's far right. Where did you get that it was socialist/racist? Maybe you confused it with SMER,(another party from Slovakia and SNS coalition partner) who really do claim to be socialist? For example the SNS was never a member of socialist associations or the PES (party of European Socialists) even though it sits in the Eur. Parliament for at least 6 years. Hobartimus (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Their program actually contains more leftist than rightist points, but it would indeed need some citations before inclusion. Wladthemlat (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot call a party right wing just because it might be racist. Racists can be left or right wing. I know many left wing racists personally. The party calls itself socialist. That is supported by its stated policies. There is no basis for calling it far right. I note that the party's former coalition partner, Direction – Social Democracy, is described in Wikipedia as left wing nationalist.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation as far right NPOV[edit]

The party calls itself socialist and nationalist. For Wikipedia to categorise it as far right is contrary to the party's own self-proclaimed political position, and would be hard to justify. Even the article says that [only] "some" have called it far right. I would suggest that calling it "socialist" and "nationalist" would be more logical and consistent with the known facts.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Slovak National Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Slovak National Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Slovak National Party. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slovak National Party. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox length/Ideology[edit]

The 'ideology' section of this infobox on this article is getting very long, with several citations that failed verification. Instead of expanding this, maybe it would be better to describe the ideology in a new section within the main body of the article? Jay942942 (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could eliminate the ideologies in the infobox that are tagged with "failed verification", that, in my opinion would sufficiently reduce the infobox down to what is generally considered a normal size. Helper201 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support those changes, as well as removing anti-LGBT, as that falls largely under 'social conservatism'.--Jay942942 (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to highlight that the reference for the point about the party being anti-LGBT also claims that SNS has neo-nazi origins. This is a completely false claim about the origins of the party because this fact is not mentioned in any academic article or book that I am aware of that deals with the party or its history. I think that the reference should be removed as I consider the article to be unreliable because of this claim. Calzen05 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let do it like this!
ultranationalism
Right-wing populism
Euroscepticism 174.135.36.220 (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slovak_National_Party&oldid=1219501184"