Talk:Slovak People's Party

Character of the party

The article (not only the lead) describes in details ideological orientation of the party and how it evolved in time, including its relationship to democracy and totalitarian regimes. Also from the article, it is clear that the party cannot be characterized in general, e.g. in 20s or in the time when it was a part of democratic Czechoslovak government "as a fascist and clerical nationalist group" and such characterization belongs to the certain period. This was properly summarized already in the lead of this this version [1]

Fakirbakir, why did you begin to reinvent the wheel again?--Ditinili (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No reaction. Because:

1. The previous lead and the article properly described a shift from democracy to totality.

2. It is clear that the statement cannot be used as a general characteristics of the party.

2. It is not compliant with the rest of the article.

4. It was repeatedly explained but reverted without serious reason or explanation.

5. There is none serious contradiction, but authors speak about different periods.

I am moving it from the lead to the appropriate place to the article. Ditinili (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Slovak Peoples Party alternate flag.png (discussion)
• Slovak Peoples Party.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Questionable sources

The Letz source really should not be used. Matica slovenská conferences are not reliable for articles related to the Slovak State because it is known for promoting a positive view of that state, against the consensus of virtually all historians who are not from Slovakia and many who are. All of this stuff is covered by better sources, such as Lorman, Thomas (2019). The Making of the Slovak People’s Party: Religion, Nationalism and the Culture War in Early 20th-Century Europe. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-350-10938-4. buidhe 18:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Letz (Prof. PhDr. Róbert Letz, PhD., https://enrs.eu/en/prof-robert-letz) is a qualified historian, the head of the Department of History, Faculty of Education, Comenius University in Bratislava. He is a member is a member of several editorial boards and scientific boards. He meets all the criteria for citing here in Wikipedia. What is more important - I do not think that any of the quoted sentences is controversial. By the way, several of his works are cited also by Lorman, Thomas (2019).--Ditinili (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ideology

Any ideology listed in the infobox should be correct for the party's entire history. Otherwise it is very misleading. No source says that the party was "Nazi" or "fascist" in 1913. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

All cited sources however clearly state that the HSĽS has swung decisively to the far-right by the 1930s, and has already started to harbour fascist radicals as early as 1923 within the Rodobrana militia for example, not to mention that Jozef Tiso himself has adopted Nazism in 1940. Attempting to remove any mention of the HSĽS' fascist ideology from the article without making the corrections to a supposedly incorrect infobox is tantamount to whitewashing, especially since the HSĽS is well-known for being a prime example of clerical fascism in practice by historians and analysts. 95.103.231.0 (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

... anyway, I'm pretty sure Jozef Tiso himself has adopted Nazism in 1940 is incorrect. The label clerical fascism is disputed because the party had separate clerical and fascist wings, which were rivals. The ideology in the infobox should be limited to the top two or three qualifiers that most typified the party, rather than a kitchen sink, of anything that is used to describe it. It is misleading to add fascism because when the party was founded, reliable sources state that it turned towards fascism and extremism in the 1930s during the last decade of its existence. However, infobox is not really suitable to describe ideologies that only partially apply to the party.

According to Yetayashu Jelinek, the party was not fascist in the 1920s: "Despite its fire-eating pronouncements, however, the party could hardly be considered fascist; as recently as 15 January 1927 the Ludaks had joined a coalition government." 10.1177/002200947100600307 He also seems to dispute that Rodobrana was a fascist organization: "Undoubtedly extremist in its leanings during the twenties, Rodobrana hardly represented a genuine, sui generis, fascist movement." (He doubts that local people knew what fascism really was at that time). (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification is a serious problem. I note that the Felak source does not support "ultranationalism", which it was cited for, and this is describing the party's ideology in the 1930s, not earlier or later. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Since the party eventually became Fascist, this means this should be included in the infobox, you're right that it was not always a Fascist party, in this case a parentheses should be added indicating when it became Fascist (in the 1930s, specifically 1938), not remove it, this is how it's done in Wikipedia, the source does not support it being "ultranationalist", but it does support it being a Slovak nationalist party, and you removed this from the infobox as well, also the party was a Catholic party, and you removed this from the infobox as well for some reason. -- 177.207.104.196 (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The source does not support National Catholicism which is part of Francoism. Slovak nationalism duplicates national conservatism, what other country are they nationalist about? (t · c) buidhe 00:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right but this was not what I was talking about, the party was a Catholic party, but despite this, you removed the religion part of the infobox, why was this the case? And how does Slovak nationalism duplicate National conservatism? Lastly, since the party eventually became Fascist, Fascism should be added to the infobox, it doesn't matter if the party wasn't always Fascist, again, in this case a parentheses should be added indicating when it became Fascist, not remove Fascism from the infobox. -- 177.207.104.196 (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The catholicisism part is still in the infobox. I just removed duplication so it wasn't listed twice.

As stated in this review of Lorman's book, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0265691420940525l , there were two main pillars of HSLS ideology: Catholicism and nationalism, and late in its history the party also approached fascism but (according to Lorman) never arrived there.

The clerical fascism label is used by some, but disputed by other scholars such as Ľubomír Lipták, James Mace Ward and Tatjana Tönsmeyer. I think it is better handled by a section in the body detailing ideology, and disagreements over it, than the infobox.

Kamenec 2013 states, "The development of Slovakia’s internal political system passed through

several stages: from an authoritarian regime to totalitarianism with significant

fascist elements, but also with several specifically Slovak features" (pp. 182–183) also "there were two wings with opposing views, a conservative-clerical

group headed by President Jozef Tiso, and a radical fascist one led by

Prime Minister Vojtech Tuka and the minister of the interior and commander

in chief of the Hlinka Guard, Alexander Mach" (184) so I think that stating fascism (faction) in the infobox may be the best way to handle the disagreement between reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No it's not, infoboxes for political parties have a specific part for a political party's religion, that is not duplication, so it should be restored. The term clerical fascism is typically used to refer to political movements which combine fascism with religious aspects, some scholars are against using this term but they are a minority. Kamenec states that the regime had "significant fascist elements, but also with several specifically Slovak features", but Fascist movements don't have to be completely identical, Nazism was not completely identical to Italian Fascism, for example. Some sources describe Tiso's faction as "clerical fascist" and Tuka's faction as "pro-Nazi", "radical fascist", etc.

This one describes Tuka's faction as "hard-core fascist" and Tiso's faction as "clerical fascist": https://books.google.com.br/books?id=d9Wg4gjtP3cC&pg=PA207&dq=tiso+clerical+fascism+tuka+nazi&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcqs3fhZrrAhVmUd8KHbp3D2sQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

I think it would be more appropriate to add "Clerical fascism (after 1938)" to the infobox, this would address one of your original concerns, though alternatively we could add "Clerical fascism (faction)" and "Nazism (faction)" to the infobox as well. -- 177.207.104.196 (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't support Nazism, and from what I've read clerical fascism is not the majority view among historians who actually study the Slovak People's Party. (Christopher Browning is not an expert on Slovakia, this description is cited to Jelinek, who apparently changed his mind by 1979, writing that "In his ideological framework-it was far from being elaborate and well-founded-Tiso combined nationalism, authori- tarianism, and some Catholic doctrines. Such a blending is occasionally de- scribed as "clerical Fascism," a term vague and undefined." 10.1163/187633079X00060 ) (t · c) buidhe 06:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I was just saying that some sources do say that Tuka's faction was pro-Nazi, but basically they Tiso's faction was more moderate while Tuka's faction was more radical, not necessarily that Tiso's faction was not Fascist. That would be something quite difficult to prove. Clerical fascism is a term typically used to refer to political movements which combine fascism with religious aspects, something which could be applied to some factions of the Slovak People's Party. Anyway, maybe we should add "Clerical fascism (after 1938)" to the inbox. -- 177.207.104.196 (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Cat

@Fayenatic london:,

I did not even know about that discussion, but thank you for informing me. Btw., I could not even get forward of it, since to the category I changed to is not the literal subject of the discussion (though may be related at one level distance).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: No problem! I meant no offence by tagging you in that edit; it was just easiest to do it as an Undo.[2] – Fayenatic London 23:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)