Talk:People's Party Our Slovakia

False neutrality
User:Sigehelmus, R. Rogel (the candidate no. 44 - in neo-Nazi symbolism SS, ex-signer of Juden Mord) is not perceived to be controversial by some "dissidents" who are not mentioned in the cited source. Here is his photo with tattoo with swastika, you can see it also here (1:09 - he shouted "raise your right hand" (sk: zvihnite pravicu), the audience answered "Sieg Heil!"), here is the cover of his album Arbeit Macht Frei. Holocaust denial: - some verses: "The Jew rules the world / we all know it / the Jew rules the world / our time is here / the Jew rules the world / you are lying, dog / the Jew rules the world / today, you will go to the oven." Of course, we can follow mainstream media and directly speak about neo-Nazis and fascists. However, if the judgment of the court is not available, the term "controversial" is very neutral and please do not "improve" it. Thanks. Ditinili (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Answers to your questions :
 * "Who is this 'Marián Magát'?" Marián Magát is the official candidate of the party to the parliament who admired Adolf Hitler (by the way, also other candidates admired various Nazi representatives or local Slovak collaborants like Alexander Mach or Jozef Tiso, I will add this information + references later).
 * "Why doesn't he have an article?" Not long ago, this party was absolutely marginal. The article about the party was created only on 5 March 2016 (6 days ago). Of course, there are not any wikipedia pages about most politicians from this party. Three years ago, the party did not have any representative in regional parliaments and just a week ago it was not a parliament party.
 * "Wouldn't this better suit an article on him?" I don't think so. This personal background of the party helps to understand why the party is perceived as a controversial.
 * "Why does one person in a party (whose position is not even STATED) have anything to do with it" Because it is not "one person" and thanks to these candidates, the party gained a wide attention of media. Of course, we can state also position of the party (if it is available), but this is not a reason to remove or to modify properly sourced content.Ditinili (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The edits you made are totally are out of the WP:MoS. A note for a political party should not contain a direct, unformatted quote from a member of the party.
 * "Marián Magát is the official candidate of the party to the parliament who admired Adolf Hitler (by the way, also other candidates admired various Nazi representatives or local Slovak collaborants like Alexander Mach or Jozef Tiso, I will add this information + references later)." What does this even mean?? Who is "the parliament who admired Adolf Hitler"? What does "official candidate" mean? What position does "official candidate" hold? Is he Party chairman? Supervisor? Vice Chairman? Janitor? Does he get the coffee and video games for the party rallies? You are being way too vague. And where is your proof? Furthermore, who exactly are the admirers of Mach and Tiso? How is that directly related to the article? What is the context of the admiration? What is the direct source? And why are you wording this like some kind of threat like I care? Why do articles on the inverse of the political spectrum, such as Communist Party of Slovakia have little-to-no information or controversy despite the massive crimes against humanity by the communist Czechoslovak regime? You keep trying to claim your edits are neutral, but they are not. However, I will concede some and edit the part back to just "controversial". But you need to learn what is relevant and what is not.--  Sıgehelmus   (Talk) &#124;д=)  02:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "official candidate" mean? It means that he was in the list of the candidates in the Slovak Parliamentary election, nothing more or less. Why is this information notable? Because it was published by mainstream media and such scandal has an impact on the image of the party.
 * And where is your proof? There is a link to reliable journal with the snapshot of his web page.
 * Furthermore, who exactly are the admirers of Mach and Tiso? E.g. here is the official website of the party where Jozef Tiso is described as "a great son of the Slovak nation" and "the only one real president".. Here are promotional materials of the party  with Tiso. And here, the chairman of the party calls him "martyr of the Slovak nation" . I can continue.
 * How is that directly related to the article? It is an activity organized by the party and its promotional materials.
 *  What is the direct source? The primary (direct) source is the website of the party, but of course, it can be found in other media.
 * Why do articles on the inverse of the political spectrum, such as Communist Party of Slovakia have little-to-no information or controversy despite the massive crimes against humanity by the communist Czechoslovak regime? I can only guess - because nobody did this work? E.g. Czech wikipedia contains information about persecutions, murdering, judicial murders. It has nothing with the article about Kotleba - ĽSNS. If some information is missing in the article A it should be added there, instead of removing information from the article B. Ditinili (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm busy so I can't talk much I apologize. However I will say your last edit is fine. I do not agree that your proposed information and claims to add are objectively relevant or fair to the main article in toto. Until I see the same sort of angles for parties not of this political alignment, I'm claiming POV pushing. Right now anyway the article is not of sufficient length to go into tedious detail of every party member's hopes and dreams.--  Sıgehelmus   (Talk) &#124;д=)  21:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about every party's member hopes and dreams, but about repeating scandals covered by mainstream media. E.g. yesterday was published information that one elected MP resigned (he allegedly beat a foreigner), and he was replaced by another candidate who also adored Adolf Hilter and Nazi regime. Ditinili (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2016
 * Why is this a scandal? Also you have to remember that Wikipedia is not a news blog; if it is not directly related to the article or significantly changes the party, it is not fit for mentioning. --  Sıgehelmus   (Talk) &#124;д=)  23:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Slovak National Party and Kotleba
Could anyone add information on the differences of these two far-right parties? Is the difference only in the degree of obnoxiousness (i.e. Kotleba party being openly Nazi) or some more strategical differences? --Dorpater (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're going to be this openly opinionated and biased on the talk page...You shouldn't. Please keep NPOV. You don't see me talking about how the Communist Party of Slovakia is openly Marxist given the bloody history of the former red regime.--  Sıgehelmus   (Talk) &#124;д=)  21:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowadays, Slovak National Party (SNS) cannot be characterised as a far-right party. SNS has a new leader (Andrej Danko who tries to reform the party, he has completely different rhetoric, etc. SNS refuses collaboration with Kotleba's party, but it is still open for collaboration with "Hungarian" Most–Híd (including a potential government coalition). Ján Slota was excluded from the party already in 2013. Ditinili (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

POV section - Program
It seems to be carefully whitewashed, e.g. any controversial rhetoric was removed. Where are all "parasites", "gypsy terrorists", etc.? I suggest describe the program as it is really presented by the party, without similar improvements. Ditinili (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ditinili, as the user who reworked the entire program section and added the Roma section, I had forgot to add quotations of the rhetoric and only focused on the quick outlines of the party's policies.I now have added these quotes so now the section should represent the party's views.I have made this account so i can solve this issue with you because up until now i just edited wikipedia pages anonymously. Sk12edit12Sk (talk) 00:18,24 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't remove sourced content
The Economist is a reliable source. The book by Ivan Kamenec seems reliable as well. Please do not remove sourced content. Thank you.  ~barakokula31  (talk)  18:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The book seems reliable enough to me, but it seems it's cited for background information on Tiso - does it mention the party? If not, that part seems irrelevant or even a synthesis of published sources to make a point none of the sources makes. Huon (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On a closer reading of the sources I'm not sure we can conclude from them that the party espouses neo-Nazism. Kotleba's now-banned previous party is called a neo-Nazi party by the BBC and The Economist, but they don't say much about his current party. The Economist says Kotleba now has a softer image to broaden his appeal, so it's not clear the new party shares the old one's support of neo-Nazi ideology. Huon (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I live in Slovakia so i know how it goes here. The Economist lies because it has no reliable source or evidence about neo-nazism in the party. There is also no evidence in party program mentioning neo-nazism as part of their ideology, and judging by their parliamentary actions, the party is strictly against neo-nazism. judging by candidates it had like Rogel or Magat doesn't make the whole party neo-nazi, + they are not even party members. any party can offer somebody a place on their candidature without really knowing their background. And judging by their actions, Kotleba and his whole party says that they are not neo-nazis or fascists, they are just nationalists. Also the party does not have program strictly against roma or jews, they have program to get roma back to work without them receiving too much minority status benefits, and there is not even a single mention about jews in the program. Yes, the Kamenec history book about the First Slovak State should not even be on a party page, that is something I can agree on. HistorianMatej (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding "The Economist lies", that's not how it works. The Economist and the BBC are clearly reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. You'd need some equally reliable source explicitly contradicting those. This isn't about some non-member candidates that the party might have endorsed; rather, the sources refer to Marian Kotleba himself, the party head and namesake, as a neo-Nazi. Few neo-Nazis officially endorse that concept, though the party does endorse Jozef Tiso, autocrat and Nazi puppet ruler. As I said above, the problem with Economist and BBC is not that they're unreliable (and certainly not that they're "lying") but that they do not explicitly say the party is a neo-Nazi party. There are, however, numerous equally reliable sources that do so. Huon (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A short information about Jozef Tiso helps to understand the context - why is the propagation of the Slovak state and Jozef Tiso by the party considered to be controvert and problematic. Ivan Kamenec is a top Slovak expert on the topic (along with Eduard Nižňanský and others). I don't think that this short summary information is a synthesis.
 * Over and above, Ivan Kamenec (and other authors) see clear analogies between ĽSNS and regime of the Slovak state (First Slovak Republic). It is not a synthesis like "some author wrote something about Tiso" and "other author wrote something about Kotleba". This claim can be supported by numerous Kamenec's articles, e.g. this one (in Slovak) where he tried to shortly explain the character of the regime of the Slovak state (authoritative-totalitarian with pro-fascist ("fažizoidný") tendencies) and Kotleba's ties to these ideas.
 * The Economist "does not lie" but rather oversimplifies. We should rely more on historians and political scientists who deal with the topic for years instead of BBC and The Economist.
 * "Also the party does not have program strictly against roma or jews". The program is a primary source and it should be formally compliant with the legislative requirements. Primary sources should be used carefully. Ditinili (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a textbook example of synthesis: Does Ivan Kamenec's book say the propagation of Jozef Tiso by L'SNS is "controvert and problematic"? I doubt the book even discusses L'SNS. Does the party say its propagation of Tiso is problematic? Certainly not. So you are combining those sources to support a point that neither source actually makes. If there are reliable sources that call L'SNS' propagation of Tiso problematic, those are the sources we should cite.
 * "If there are reliable sources that call L'SNS' propagation of Tiso problematic, those are the sources we should cite"." I fully agree. I mean that this information is not "synthetized", but can be properly sourced (one link is above).Ditinili (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, we don't have to rely solely on the party program to determine its politics. If reliable third-party sources label the party as neo-Nazi, and there are plenty such sources, we can make use of them. The two sources I cited are just a small sub-set of those explicitly describing L'SNS as a neo-Nazi party. Huon (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2017 :::
 * Slovak legal system does not allow existence of neo-Nazi party (or other party with a similar ideology). This includes the charter, the program and the activities of the political party (Act No. 85/2005 Z. z., §2 par 1). Such sensational statement spread by some media or political opponents should be really carefully evaluated. We should favor opinions of political scientists No doubts, members have a neo-Nazi background. Ditinili (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt the likes of the Financial Times or CBS can be dismissed as "some media or political opponents". Those are reliable secondary sources, and Wikipedia summarizes what reliable secondary sources report. These are hardly the only sources clearly and unambigously describing the party as "neo-Nazi". And whether or not Slovak law forbids neo-Nazi parties is irrelevant; I'm pretty sure Slovak law forbids murder, too, and still it happens. In fact, Kotleba's previous party was forbidden, likely for a very similar reason - and while Slovak law made that party's existence illegal and it was ultimately dissolved, it still existed for some time. Huon (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia summarizes what reliable secondary sources report" Wikipedia also says something about an expertise of the originator with respect to the subject, telling the difference between facts and opinions and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.
 * And whether or not Slovak law forbids neo-Nazi parties is irrelevant I don't think so. Neo-Nazism of the party is a serious allegation and such allegations should be used carefully. E.g. CBS write that "party members use Nazi salutes". The fact is that Kotleba was suited for the controversial salute "Na stráž!" (On Guard!) already in 2009 and he won. Thus, there is a valid decision that the salute (without additional attributes) does not violate the Law No. 300/2005 Z. z. §422 Expression of sympathy for a movement aimed at suppressing fundamental rights and freedoms.
 * I'm pretty sure Slovak law forbids murder, too, and still it happens... In fact, Kotleba's previous party was forbidden, likely for a very similar reason - and while Slovak law made that party's existence illegal and it was ultimately dissolved, it still existed for some time. The previous party was forbidden because it had goals like a restriction of universal suffrage, the state of estates, etc. If the court confirms that the party is Neo-Nazi and thus illegal, it is a different situation. Ditinili (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The basic fact remains that multiple reliable secondary sources (and those, not primary sources or our personal interpretation of Slovak law, are what Wikipedia content should be based on) label the party neo-Nazi. CBS describes L'SNS as a "proudly-neo-Nazi party" right in the headline and cites not just individual indications but also assessments by Slovak political analysts. The Financial Times calls it "the neo-Nazi People’s Party Our Slovakia (L’SNS)". I could pile on additional references supporting this point - would another three suffice? What kind of secondary sources would you consider evidence strong enough for this article? Or are you arguing that Wikipedia cannot describe a party as neo-Nazi no matter what reliable secondary sources say? The latter would go against the basic tenets of neutrality, Wikipedia-style. Huon (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing "that Wikipedia cannot describe a party as neo-Nazi no matter what reliable secondary sources say". I say, that e.g. a study published by a collective of political scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal is more authoritative than CBS. Ditinili (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, if they were available. Are you aware of any peer-reviewed papers discussing whether L'SNS is neo-Nazi? If we don't have that, news media quoting Slovak political analysts and endorsing their conclusions in the newspapers' own voice are the next best thing, I'd say. Huon (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * E.g. The authors explain terms like radicalism, xenophobia, extremism, chauvinism, etc and try to categorize the party. Ditinili (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see where that source discusses whether L'SNS is a neo-Nazi party. Could you point out the relevant parts, please? Huon (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sure what do you mean. The source discusses the problem how to characterize the party and it does not characterize the party as a neo-Nazi. I have absolutely no doubts about a neo-Nazi background of some members, extremism, adoration of the Slovak State or intentional provocations like usage of numeric symbols like 1488, 88, 14 (frequently used by neo-Nazis). However, I have some doubts, if its political program or its activities can be characterized in general as neo-Nazism or fascism.
 * I am not sure, that it is easy to find mainstream articles about corrupted Fico's government or that Vladimir Meciar organized kidnapping of Michal Kovac junior. The question is if this should be presented as an opinion or a fact. Ditinili (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have once again re-added the content in question. HistorianMatej claimed that the Financial Times and CBS News were "unreliable". I don't think that agrees with WP:Identifying reliable sources; mainstream news media subject to editorial oversight are clearly reliable sources. Huon (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Huon, Sometimes mainstream media spread articles that cannot be reliable or sensible in any way, did they asked anyone from the party about this? from what claims did they fabricated neo-nazism? People should not read lies on pages of wikipedia. HistorianMatej (HistorianMatej) 12:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So do you know of a reliable third-party source stating that L'SNS is not neo-Nazi? Is there any indication that the articles are unreliable or not sensible, except that you disagree? The party itself would likely not openly embrace such a label because there may well be judicial consequences if they did, but Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not on primary sources such as the party's on statements. Huon (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, they would not even function if they embraced such ideology because Slovak constitution doesn't allow it, neo-nazism is not even part of their party ideology, people who were on candidate list who may have been neo-nazis were not even in the party official structures or members of the party, the party statements are even aimed against neo-nazism, new world order, and globalism, party leader Marian Kotleba even claims, that he doesn't share anything in common with Hitler, so why should we, or particulary people rely on medial opinion about world's party politics if it doesn't comes from first hand or someone who actually sees it by himself? HistorianMatej (HistorianMatej) 2:35, 1 April
 * I take that as "no, I don't have any reliable sources supporting my point of view and will instead engage in original research." Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. That said, I really don't understand the line of argument that says "they can't be neo-Nazis because the constitution forbids it". Kotleba's previous party was forbidden; would you have argued the same about that party? That it wasn't neo-Nazi while in operation, because that's not allowed? Did it somehow retroactively become neo-Nazi the moment it was forbidden? Huon (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Constitution is not original research. This is like pulling out bunch of articles calling someone a murderer before he was given a sentence. It's simply not true, sorry. Once the party gets disbanded by supreme court we can brand them nazis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB04:1AF:9100:845F:63AB:ADF3:88D0 (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Huon, the fact is that different sources use different classification of the party. For example, this article in Annales Scientia Politica (a peer-reviewed scientific journal, issued by the Institute of Political Science, University of Prešov) describes the party as "anti-democratic, nationalistic and flirting with totalitarian ideologies", p. 46. Of course, this is not very favorable assessment, but much more moderate than "neo-Nazism". Ditinili (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean being anti-democratic, nationalistic would-be totalitarians somehow distinguishes them from neo-Nazis? We don't describe the ideology as just neo-Nazism and give a whole range of assessments, and I see no reason why this reliably sourced assessment should be removed. Huon (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, the authors do not describe the party as Neo-Nazi and you try to prove that their opinion is compliant with the term "neo-nazi", even if they chose less "radical" words. I am afraid that in this case, you do original research and synthesis.
 * "Anti-democratic and nationalist" is not equal to Nazi or Neo-Nazi. For example, Jozef Tiso (adored by LSNS) was a nationalist and a representative of anti-democratic forces (at least from late 1930s), but there is a very wide agreement between historians that he was not a Nazi. Thus, a term "neo-ludak" (ludak = a supporter of HSLS) or other term could be used as well as Nazi.Ditinili (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all arguing that we should describe the party as neo-Nazi because it is anti-democratic, nationalist and totalitarian. I'm arguing that we should describe it as neo-Nazi because reliable third-party sources describe it as such. Not all sources may use that specific term, but I have yet to see a reliable third-party source explicitly disputing that assessment. Huon (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the categorization of the party differs, I suggest something like:
 * The info box: "Ideology: far-right" (without details)
 * The body: "The party is often described as a representative of extreme far-right, anti-democratic, "flirting with totalitarian ideologies" or even neo-Ludak or neo-Nazi. The legal system of the Slovak republic prohibits the existence of Nazi parties and also LSNS official denies any ties to Nazi ideology. Nevertheless, some members of the party (including its candidates in parliamentary elections) had neo-Nazi background and the party gained public attention because of adoration of the Slovak state, Jozef Tiso or usage of numeric symbols typical for neo-Nazi scene. (...)" Ditinili (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, how do you intend to avoid original synthesis with that text? Have published sources discussed L'SNS in relation to Slovakia's anti-Nazi-party laws? Huon (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a mention about illegality of Nazi and similar parties in Slovakia is a "synthesis". A reader, who is not familiar with the Slovak legal system can be misguided and believe that the existence of Nazi party is legal. This is a relevant information. Do you agree with the rest of my proposal? Ditinili (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since just above you tried to argue that the party cannot be neo-Nazi because Slovak law forbids neo-Nazi parties, yes, that is synthesis. Luckily the "lying media" address this very question: Thousands have signed a petition demanding that the party be banned. So we can add not just that Nazi parties are illegal (which technically would still need a source) but that a petition to ban L'SNS is already on its way. Huon (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You probably misunderstood me. In my previous comment, I did not argue that the party cannot be neo-Nazi because it is forbidden. I say that a categorization of the party differs, there are much more moderate views and we should not present some opinions as facts. If some opinion was published in reliable source, it is notable, etc, so, we can/should mention it, but it is still only an opinion. If we speak about allegedly neo-Nazi party, it is relevant to mention a position o Nazi parties in the Slovak legal system to clarify and to help to understand the topic. Of course, a person or an organization can perform illegal activities. However, this is normally evaluated by a court and not by media.
 * A petition means more or less nothing. For example, a petition to remove President Andrej Kiska from his office was signed online (online votes) by 32,000 people and you say that something was signed by "thousands". What does it prove? Nothing. Alliance for Family gathered more then 400,000 signatures before Slovak same-sex marriage referendum, 2015. Ditinili (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You say the petition means nothing and pointing out that Slovak law forbids Nazi parties gives important context. Published sources have it the other way around. Wikipedia should follow the published sources (and those are news reports, not opinion pieces giving a commentator's view), not our own assessment of what is important about the party. In particular, when secondary sources contradict primary sources, Wikipedia follows the secondary sources. I still don't see either a reliable source explicitly stating that L'SNS is not a neo-Nazi party, nor a policy-based rationale why reliably-sourced content about the party should not be included. In fact, the last few people editing the article and removing the "neo-Nazi" description have resorted to polemics instead of arguments of any kind. Huon (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Huon, it is true that most of people editing the article did not try to discuss this problem and it was their mistake. In my opinion, it is not necessary to cite sources saying that party is NOT liberal, conservative, left-wing, neo-Nazi, etc. We should simply cite what they really say. An assumption like "if A says X and B says Y than X is true until B does not say that Y is NOT true" is wrong. We should simple say: according to A ..., according to B.
 * And yes, a petition signed by "thousands" means nothing, if we take into account the number of petitions and the average count of signatures. There are few notable petitions. Ditinili (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

So you think we should say that "L'SNS is a neo-Nazi party according to the Financial Times, CBS, Politico, Business Insider, the International Business Times and Le Parisien; it is neo-fascist according to Deutschlandfunk"? That seems cumbersome. If A, B, C, D, E and F all say X and no one says not-X, there is a point at which we no longer need to attribute X to the plethora of highly reliable sources that all agree. Regarding the petition, it was apparently not just notable enough to be reported in the international press, but Der Standard connects it to an investigation by Slovakia's prosecutors into whether L'SNS should be forbidden. I'll also note, since Trump was brought up in edit summaries as an analogy, that mainstream media explained in some detail why Trump is not a fascist (and I don't remember any news pieces calling him that - maybe some commentators did, but none of the above are opinion pieces). Huon (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Huon, do you agree with the fact that the party is characterized also differently and by more moderate statements than "Neo-Nazi"?
 * Do you agree that these sources are reliable as well?
 * Do you agree that a peer reviewed scientific journal from the region (written by political scientists who analyze the party policy in the long term) could provide more accurate information than Financial Times or similar foreign media that are otherwise reliable sources, but they are not academic sources?
 * Do you agree that this would mean that the program of the party, its activities or both are illegal but we should not say or suggest that some subject performs illegal activities until there is a valid decision of a court?
 * I suggest to say "the party is alleged of X.Y.", it is investigated by A.B.C, these public reactions are notable: ....". Ditinili (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the party is also described differently. I haven't checked the references for those other descriptions but am willing to accept that they may well be equally reliable. I also agree that we should provide those other descriptions, too, and have never removed any of those (there are currently seven labels given). In particular, I do not propose removing whatever that academic paper says. None of that implies we should not provide any other labels than those in that paper (I expect most of the seven labels that seem uncontroversial are not supported by that academic paper either).
 * The article currently does not say anything about the legality (or lack thereof) of the party's activities. It should mention the investigation by the state prosecutors, but it doesn't. We should not say anything about the party not supported by reliable third-party sources, and we don't. Adding its neo-Nazi ideology to the infobox would not say anything about criminal activity, and the one arguing we should discuss what Slovak law says about neo-Nazi parties, without any third-party sources connecting such a discussion to L'SNS, is you, not me. Huon (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Neo-nazism and Neo-fascism? Realy?
This party nowhere declares support for the totalitarian system in official declarations, so it is absurd to call it neo-fascist, and even more so neo-Nazi, because this party does not declare chauvinism or neo-paganism either. In addition, you say that the party is "Christian fundamentalism", which excludes the neo-Nazism you accuse, because one of the Nazi ideologues, Hendrich Himmler, literally equated Christianity with hated Judaism. Please fix it and don't sow manipulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.73.132 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, not what we might want to say or what the organization says about itself. If the sources in this article are not summarized accurately, please detail the specific sources and errors. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of the banned sources wikipedia does not allow been used here most of them are right of centre, including daily mail and breitbart. But you can use the far-left Guardian and Daily Mirror without any hesitation. There is a massive left-wing bias on wikipedia going on and wiki does not summarize accurately. It tries to demonize the right while even calling communists "progressives". Thats framing and hardly objective. 80.131.59.54 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * People’s Party our Slovakia is very much a far-right neo-Nazi party. They have a history of using fascist and nazi symbols - giving out money checks with nazi numbers, for what they even went to court, for example. 2A02:AB04:2AC5:9300:D5D:2435:4CC5:FC45 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it isn't neo-nazi, it's at least neo-nazi adjacent. Their ideology is fundamentally racial, and the neo-nazi label accurately reflects that. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)