Talk:Slovenian Democratic Party

Janša's background

Is Janša's communist background really relevant in this case? At the time, the only way to enter politics was by joining the Communist Party, and virtually all of the major political figures in Slovenia have some sort of a communist background. Also, Janša was prosecuted for his critics of the Party in the infamous Trial of the Four and he doesn't associate himself with his communist past. Besides, other party articles (LDS, SD, NSi, SLS) do not include such data. edolen1 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

History of SDS

Two things should be mentioned about the history of SDS:

1. Its name SDS was most of the time of its history read as 'Social-Democrat Party'. They changed it only a few months ago to 'Slovenian Democratic Party'.

2. Now it may be a member of EPP, but at first it applied for a membership of another EU party - either Socialists or Liberals (I can not remember which).

Please someone with accurate information add this to the article. NikNovi 11:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism?

In what meaning is liberal conservatism listed here? As Conservative on moral and social issues, or as more libertarian, promoting individual liberty with economic freedom? Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Both, in fact: conservative in regards to moral issues and traditional values, and liberal (classical liberal, not liberal in the American sense of the word) in the economic sense, promoting economic freedom and individual responsibility, and a reform of the classical welfare state while maintaining some kind of security net. Check out Liberal conservatism. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. So SDP would be comparable to Republican Party in US and American conservatism, right? I already read that article, but it is really confusing - it doesn't clearly say what is the meaning of the term in modern European politics. --Novis-M (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be comparable insofar as they are both on the right side of the left-right division of the political spectrum. This is important also because of international relations (the SDP gets support from the International Republican Institute etc.). But if you take in account their programs and policies, I'm not sure how compatible they are. Someone who promoted a program similar to the SDP, would probably be left-of-the-centre in U.S. politics. In the European context, I'd say that the SDP policies are the closest to the Portuguese Social Democratic Party, the Finnish Kokoomus, or the Irish Fine Gael. Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see...I only don't understand why isn't liberal conservatism simply called conservatism - it seems same to me - conservative on moral and social issues, free-market policy on economic issues. --Novis-M (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's because in Europe, differently from the U.S., conservativism was historically not neccessarily liberal (that is, pro-free makret, individual freedom, etc.); an important part of European conservativism has been anti-Capitalistic, and before World War Two also anti-democratic. That is why in Europe, liberal conservativism is a rather different tradition from mere conservativism (which was often autocratic, authoritarian, traditionalist etc., frequently based on religious and traditional hierarchic values rather than on liberal values that have inspired the American constitution) Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see! You should add this information to the article about Liberal conservatism. So it is pretty much conservatism with elements of free market and more individual freedom. Then I guess we don't need to have Conservatism mentioned in the party's ideology. --Novis-M (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

possible bias

Hey y'all! I have some problems with the section "Radical Populist Turn". If I remember correctly, the section used to be called "Conservative Turn" which is more neutral. There's little sourcing for the party's radical populism of that period: and the two mentioned are problematic. Rudi Rizman is quoted as a political scientist although he's trained as a sociologist; and he's the sole and only reference in this regard (the other article quotes Rizman and bases his whole analysis on him - so it's Rizman all over again, with a detour). Jambrek's quote doesn't refer at all to the period 1996-2000 (when he was in fact a supporter of the party), but to the period of the economic populist turn (ie. 2009-2011): check the date and the quotes. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slovenian Democratic 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120801150748/http://volitve.gov.si/dz2011/en/index.html to http://volitve.gov.si/dz2011/en/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Pro-market"

Following this, let's talk about the use of the term "pro-market".

I think this term could mean different things to different people. For example, if the government regulates mergers to ensure competition between companies, is this "pro-market" because a market requires competition, or is it the opposite, because it is government interference in the capital markets?

As Jay points out, there are lots of sources that talk about SDS favouring deregulation, privatisation, tax cuts and labour market flexibility. So let us talk about those more meaningful things instead.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

So what exactly is your question? I think the phrase "pro-market" is quite well understood to refer to policies which generally promote a free market economy/economic liberalisation. What do you consider a "more meaningful" discussion? I'll leave the intellectual exercises regarding what exact policies promote a free market and which don't to the economists/philosophers of economics and go with what sources state for the time being.

By the way, don't you think you're taking this a bit too far, really? First you objected on the grounds of the source not being independent (which it was). Then you objected based on the age of the reference (4 years), claiming "SDS has changed a lot over the years so I think the date is important" (1. it hasn't changed all that much since 2014, and, 2. by your logic, no statement on Wikipedia should be made in present simple tense as all things are potentially subject to change and all sources have by definition been written in the past). Now you're contesting the meaning of the phrase itself, and the syntax of the description, saying "Even if we were to accept that this description is current, we would still need to say "described". "Pro-market" can mean different things, so we can ever really say anyone *is* pro-market." By that logic, we cannot definitively claim anything *is* anything, since every source will by definition contain a description which could conceivably be incorrect. By this logic, you should be insisting on rewriting half the article.

Just to get this strait; you'd consent if the phrasing was changed to "SDS has been described as broadly pro-market."? Jay Hodec (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes "SDS has been described as broadly pro-market" is correct. I would prefer "In 2014 SDS was described as broadly pro-market", but either is correct.

"SDS is pro-market" would require a lot better sourcing, in my opinion, than a blog post from 2014 and the claims of the party themselves. As you point out, whether or not "pro-market" means anything and what it should be applied to is the domain of economists. If we had several economists stating that SDS is pro-market (and had found none explicitly disagreeing) then this would be good sourcing for such a bold statement.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on what I meant by "more meaningful". I don't want to get into a philosophical debate. I just meant that the meanings of "privatisation", "de-regulation" etc are much clearer. Furthermore, we have several sources stating that SDS is in favour of those things, so lets state that they are in favour of those things.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I modified the section to use more equivocal language. Dating the claims does not appear to be the precedent on Wikipedia, so claims are generally assumed to be current until updated (consider what such pedantic standards would mean for e.g. scientific articles where the accepted dogma may always be changed at any moment - after all, all claims are potentially erroneous in light of newer information). Just to be clear, the source was not a "blog post", but a profile of the party by a non-profit NGO (apparently) specialising in European political affairs analysis.

Seeing that many Wikipedia articles have no inline citations, I think the claim passes the burden of proof by itself. However, the claim is bolstered by the context of the article; that is listing the pro-market policies the party has advocated bolsters the claim by putting it in a clear context without having to reference the specific policies in direct relation to the more general statement per se. Thus, the reader can infer the validity of the general claim from subsequent more contextual details.

International (English-language) media does not pay much attention to day-to-day party political affairs. Some specific policy proposals of the party may have been reported in English by STA, RTVSLO, or Slovenia Times. However, most concrete examples would likely need to be translated from Slovene-language news articles. I may add more details on the party's policy proposals/positions in the future, however, I think the article does give sufficient information to satisfy the standards of an encyclopedic overview as is. Jay Hodec (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I can accept the article as it is now. Thank you for discussing it and coming to a compromise solution.

Sorry about the "blog post" comment. The format/software used by the democratic society is that of a blog. Nonetheless, this should be treated as the considered opinion of potentially notable organisation. I don't want to imply that this is the throwaway comment of some random person on the internet, which is a meaning of that can be taken from the word "blog". I have been at the other end of this issue in the past.

Amusingly, looking at that old post of mine, I can see I use the phrase "advocates for the free market", which is basically the same as "is pro market"! All I can offer in my defence is that I was using a short hand on a talk page and not writing an encyclopedia article!

Yaris678 (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yaris678: "Pro-market" is always "deregulation, privatisation, tax cuts and labour market flexibility" because any government interference never brings more competition, then they ruin in the end. That's how everyone understands the term. --85.249.40.80 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Biased sources

I have added the {{unreliable sources}} and {{POV}} tags to the article. It is against basic writing hygiene to use the leftist Mladina to source an article on their political adversary. Not only is it impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in such clearly ideological sources, but the whole perspective is most probably distorted.[1] Mladina is used in as much as 69 instances. This source should be replaced with a more reliable one and the material should be left out if there is no replacement available. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: In some instances, Mladina is used in the /* Criticism and controversies */ section where biased notable sources are entirely acceptable in any case, in other instances, it is used to back up basic statements of fact (some of which simply went unreferenced before I sought out sources for the article). Mladina has a good online article archive, so it was a handy source for the pre-2010 period. For the more general discussion of why I think Mladina is generally a reasonably acceptable source regardless, refer back to our exchange here, however, let me just point out that it is SDS party dogma that all prominent media organisations both at home and even abroad constitute part of the leftist political opposition to the party - do you really think an interlocutor who is a supporter or member of SDS would find 24ur or Dnevnik or Svet24 or RTV any more "hygienic" than Mladina? As I've noted, even "biased" sources (sources with a clear editorial stance) are entirely acceptable as per Reliable sources criteria, so your objection/suggestion is not only merely a matter of cosmetics, but a futile one at that.

Kind regards,

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)