Talk:Servant of the People

Comment
Here is source, and it is a blog, as one can see from the url. Moreover, what it tells does not support the statement. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ones again, this is blog. Given that the publication is about a living person, I am going to revert it per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Spelling
Hello, I just wanted to point out a spelling mistake. In the ideology and positions section, you use both "legalization" and "legalisation" in the same paragraph! One is surely correct. Hope someone rectifies this issue post-haste

70.33.230.4 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Leadership?
Is it possible for Ivan Bakanov to lead the party now that he is deputy head of the SBU? YantarCoast (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As for as I know members of security forces in Ukraine (SBU, police and army) are not allowed to be politicians. At least this was the rule at the time Yanukovych was president... I know so because I co-wrote the article about Vitaliy Zakharchenko —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  09:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Party promises "a mechanism for withdrawing deputies who have lost confidence of the voters"
In its today adopted party program one of the party goals is to introduce "a mechanism for withdrawing deputies who have lost confidence of the voters". (See: https://m.glavcom.ua/country/politics/z-yakimi-obicyankami-sluga-narodu-yde-na-vibori-16-punktiv-programi-600524.html) This promise sounds highly dangerous for a healthy democracy.... and something an ultra-right party might come up with.... —  Yulia Romero  •  Talk to me!  17:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Critics section of this Wikipedia article is problematic
At the time of writing this this Wikipedia article had a Critics section. Other Ukrainian parties have no such section while I do read plenty of criticism about them in Ukrainian press. It seems POV-pushing for this Ukrainian party to be the only one with a criticism section. It is like they have been singled out..... —  Yulia Romero  •  Talk to me!  17:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Two cases are listed backwards. The order should be corrected.Xx236 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References for future expansion of the article after 2020 Ukrainian local elections official results have been published

 * Servant of the People seems to have lost in all Ukrainian mayor cities 30% compared with the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election
 * Oleksandr Kornienko, head of the Servant of the People party and first deputy head of their parliamentary faction, considers the result of the "Servant of the People" in the local elections a great success —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  17:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ideology
Is “anti-corruption” even an ideology? I mean, this may be a topic that this party emphasizes on combating but in no way you'll see a some party being ideologically “pro-corruption”. ―Eduardogobi (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There's precedent: See Juntos_por_el_Cambio, at some point the party (which won Argentina's elections in 2015) was described as anti-corruption.

It's not terribly descriptive if you take it at face value, but when you compare it to similar parties it identifies some recurring aspects of a lot of coalition 'parties' from the last decade (I made a list of them but they were deleted).

Anti-corruption is a tactic of attacking the reputation of the incumbent office. Only really relevant for outsider challengers rather than established politicians with a career, think Donald Trump Mauricio Macri. I see it as a kind of counter-culture where there is no independent identity, but the party is defined as a negative of the incumbent office values. Pretty solid, if lukewarm, strategy for getting elected. Very related to the last decade's surge in impromptu coalition political parties with "change" or some variant in their name.

So in summary. It may not be a great example of an ideology, but generally it's a pretty useful descriptive adjective of a party.--TZubiri (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Corruption is a major issue in Ukraine; more so than most democracies. Public perception of government corruption (including separate arms-length departments) is very, very high, and corruption issues in Ukraine are more widespread than the vast majority (if not, at some times, all) of European democracies; therefore to have such a position (and policy programme alongside it) is definitely a notable ideology. Forvana (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved with modifications. With overwhelming consensus, this move request succeeded. Moved →  (per request) &  →  (modified to align with WP:NCTV). (closed by non-admin page mover) ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 09:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

– Obvious case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC- the ruling party of a major country is more relevant than a television show not really watched outside of Ukraine. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 03:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Servant of the People (political party) → Servant of the People
 * Servant of the People → Servant of the People (television show)


 * Support I agree, this is by far the primary topic now. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I would surely agree to move Servant of the People to Servant of the People (TV series), because I think that "TV series" is more suitable as disambiguation than "television show". I'm more skeptical about moving "Servant of the People (political party)" to "Servant of the People": the name of the party is based on that of the TV series, so I'm not sure about its prevailing meaning. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As the creator of the RM I neglected to look at the common naming format for these things- I'd support "TV series" as the disambiguation. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Servant of the People → Servant of the People (TV series) in line with naming convention WP:NCTV. 1857a (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Servant of the People → Servant of the People (TV series) --Likhasik (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support disambiguation for tv series, oppose political party as primary topic |Servant_of_the_People_(political_party) pageviews analysis shows that the topics are closely matched in views. The tv show is significant as a part of Zelenskyy's rise to power, and is not simply just a t.v. Show. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment- it's likely that many readers passed through the TV show article looking for the political party article. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The TV series preceded and inspired the creation of the political party. WolfmanFP (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support While yes the TV series is an undeniably critical part of Zelenskyy's rise to power, right now due to the ongoing war in Ukraine and looking forward, the political party, which has been in power for years now, is far more internationally recognizable and relevant than the TV show. Dangeredwolf (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with what Dangeredwolf has written.Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I think Servant of the People should be a disambiguation page linking to the show, party and other instances of SOTP. Danidamiobi (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I support the move proposal (in line with the naming convention as discussed above), however, I also agree with the idea by Danidamiobi that SOTP be a disambiguation page that links to the two SOTP articles in question and that neither should be the primary article. -boldblazer 01:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Servant of the People → Servant of the People (TV series) & Servant of the People (political party) → Servant of the People - the political party is now more significant than the TV show - Bthrussell (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge Voting instead of contributing to the article(s) is a distraction. The topics are so closely intertwined that it's actually harmful to split it into multiple topics. Two articles will coexist, let them be redundant, each holding their own bias and perspective, improve them, and once they are mature, revisit this discussion if necessary. --TZubiri (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support 👍 : as per nom. --   Manasbose   (talk &#124; edits) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Per nom, major political party beats an obscure TV show for the unparenned name This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not an obscure TV show, it came first and was the genesis of the political party. Did you read the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZubiri (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment How can it be said that the TV show is "obscure" if it is the basis of the success of this party?? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – Zsovar3 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as per nom. Forvana (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove the Critics section
It seems wrong to have a critics section for a political party (in fact this is the first one I have encountered, as someone who is regularly using Wikipedia for political parties) and the warning template appears to have been there for over a year. The section itself seems to have its main feature as a questionable and seemingly unjustified accusation (possibly even verging on outright discrediting) from a singular, personal source. I can't see why this has remained intact for so long and therefore would like some form of consensus to remove it in entirety. Forvana (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how long it has been tagged, that the issue has already been noted above and no one has objected, I'd say just go ahead and remove it. Jah77 (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Google search results
When searched through google, the short summary of the article contains a swastika and an information that the party is neo-nazi 109.189.57.54 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's as a result of the article recently being vandalised. It's since been fixed but I think the Google result takes time to refresh. — Czello 18:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Liberal party?
Ukrainian wiki says that their ideologis is centrism. Russian wiki says it's radical-centrism and they both provide links to the sources. 176.99.213.103 (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * And liberalism is sourced too. Centrism nor radical-centrism aren't ideologies. Vacant0 (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's personalist party therefore it's hard to pin down ideology and why they changed it few times before landing on "Ukrainian centrism" and how it is currently described on party's website. Closest liberal and populist party of personalist type is Yesh Atid. -- Svito3 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * considering the party is officially affiliated with EU's "Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party" I think that "liberalism" stance of the party is warranted. 78.58.3.21 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's far-right bias
Why is the Wikipedia page for the Liberal Democratic Ukrainian Party "Servant of the People" not protected, whereas the page for the fascist United Russia party is protected, given that it is Russian, not Ukrainian/European/North American users who act as trolls, spread misinformation and vandalize Wikipedia pages? This is a biased measure that protects the bad guys (Putin's supproters) and exposes the good guys (Ukrainians and pro-democracy Russians).


 * We protect articles based on the levels of vandalism they have received. Yes, the United Russia article has received far more continual vandalism than this article does. The level of vandalism this article has received has, fortunately, not necessitated permanent protection. — Czello (music) 09:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation! - The user who wrote the first comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.176.254 (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)