Talk:Freedom and Direct Democracy

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

"neo-fascist"[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

the party is not neo-fascist[edit]

Argumentation of Martopa is improper, because his claim[1] 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.[2] On the official website we can also find article, which contains strict condemnation of fascism.[3] And third-party sources, which says Freedom and Direct Democracy is a extremist direct-democratic movement, but not neo-fascist.[4][5][6][7]

  1. ^ Benjamin Cunningham (1 April 2018). "Effets pervers de la lutte anticorruption en Europe centrale". Le Monde diplomatique (in French). Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  2. ^ "Politický program SPD". spd.cz (in Czech). 6 March 2016. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  3. ^ "Tomio Okamura: Oslavy vítězství nad fašismem (konec 2. světové války)". spd.cz (in Czech). 14 May 2018. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ "Okamura v Duelu Jaromíra Soukupa: SPD není fašistická strana". Týden.cz (in Czech). 22 February 2018. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  6. ^ "Je SPD fašistickou stranou?". marxistecz.wordpress.com (in Czech). 2 November 2017. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  7. ^

    "V těch mezích ve kterých se pohybuje, je to strana krajní, chcete-li extrémní, ale to hlavně výroky některých svých členů, kteří si nevidí do úst a nebo jsou s prominutím tak hloupí, že z nich vypouštějí, to co z nich vypouštějí. Viz na adresu holokaustu. Ale jinak to není hnutí fašistické nebo nacistické. Taková hnutí vypadají opravdu jinak a k nim by měl pan Okamura hodně daleko. Pan Okamura je sběrná nádržka všech, kteří by do toho nejradši praštili pěstí. A jako říkal kdysy doktor Sládek: „Se všema do Vltavy! Všichni jsou špatní!“ To je strana krajního protestu."

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

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

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)[reply]
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:

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

–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.[1]

  1. ^ "Redakce komentátorů, Petr Nováček". rozhlas.cz (in Czech). Retrieved 17 May 2018.

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:

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_and_Direct_Democracy&oldid=1199540208"