Talk:Voice for Children and Families

So Jay, just asking casually here, is there any reason that you think this tiny fascist Slovenian stunt party with more words about it in this article than votes it received is more notable than DOM was decided to be? I have to rely on Google translate, of course, since there are no English sources, but they seem the same to me, only even smaller. Help me understand why you think this page will succeed where DOM failed. Grung0r (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As stated previously, I think that the pages meet notability guidelines and are also inherently valuable to a reader who is interested in a summary overview of the contemporary political landscape of Slovenia/EU (as esoteric as the field might be). Coverage of recent political history of Slovenia - as is the case with many other nations - is sadly quite limited (sadly because it can be a handy tool when trying to understand (inter)national contemporary political currents/political history).


 * I must address the part of your comment reading "tiny fascist Slovenian stunt party". I don't see how that's has anything to do with the wiki coverage of right-wing politics. The rise of contemporary extreme/radical politics globally would seem to me an inherently notable subject (talking in the general sense of the word - not wiki-wise). Also, not that it's relevant, but this party can't really be described as fascist (as opposed to the Homeland League, which definitely had an undercurrent of neo-fascism/crypto-fascism). Rather, its more akin to what paleoconservatism is in the US.


 * I got around to writing this party article and a couple of other ones after creating the Opinion polling for the 2018 Slovenian parliamentary election page which linked to the (then empty) pages for this (and some other) parties (including one that supplied the future PM). Prior to the election, this party received quite a bit of coverage as a possible kingmaker and pawn of the leading right-wing party, SDS (a similar dynamic was speculated regarding the Homeland League). Of course, in retrospect, the party may seem less noteworthy, however, at the time, this was not so obvious and things could have turned out different. Here one must point out that if something is notable on wiki once, it is always notable since Wikipedia prizes scope of coverage. Otherwise you could go around searching for 15-year-old articles about antiquated topics and deleting them saying "nobody cares about this anymore". Or maybe just deleting articles about esoteric historic topics: Who cares about Weimar-era politics or Spanish Second Republic-era politics, right?


 * Look, I have no doubt that you may very well succeed with an AfD proposal again but I feel that you are deleting pages that meet notability standards and that the deletion proposals are misguided. However, I'm not going to go so far as to seek further redress since I'm not that invested in this stuff (nor do I have the time). Let's just act on democratic principles and say that a majority of people being wrong makes them right (even though Wikipedia is not a democracy).


 * P.S.: You could argue that the article may be a bit too extensive, but that's a different topic ...


 * Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You say that you are trying to increase the coverage on English language Wikipedia of Slovenian political currents and current events. I find this to be a very noble goal. I find it strange then this article links to an explicit piece of propaganda linking the White rose to anti-abortion activism(http://24kul.si/angelci-likovic-bela-vrtnica) This propaganda is plainly a press release published on a partisan site, and isn't even arguably independent or verifiable, much less neutral. Do you really consider this source to be encyclopedic? Do you think the supposed moment celebrated in the propagandic press release, namely, a flower being given to a member(?) of a party that would soon merge into another, equally unnotable party, worthy of being commemorated in the encyclopedia?  Or did you put it there for another reason? Grung0r (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a neutral statement of fact which one can interpret any way one wants. Primary sources are appropriate in such circumstances. I thought the information was notable as illustrative of an extreme culturally conservative ideology (especially for a country where a large majority has expressed support for reproductive freedom and where no parliamentary party currently opposes abortion). The statement and "White Rose" award garnered quite a bit of criticism which I didn't mention because I thought it might seem biased the other way and that readers can make up their own minds. If you'd like, we can mention the criticism. In either case, a maintaining NPOV has nothing to do with article notability ...


 * And, conversely to your objection, another editor thought one of the passages in the ideology section "give[s] the party [a] fundamentalistic sound" (i.e. carries an undue negative connotation).

[...] Or did you put it there for another reason?


 * What exactly are you trying to say?


 * Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Another reason. The "another editor" bit sealed it for me. Thank you for your honesty. Grung0r (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've got no idea what you're talking about. Look, c'mon, this is pointless and a waste of both our time. If you've got something to say, go ahead, but this is ridiculous. I'm sure we've both got better things to do in life than engage in passive-aggressive spats on Wikipedia (of all places).


 * Jay Hodec (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(Replying to since deleted comments by )

A prominent wiki guideline is Assume good faith. The editor provided a reason for his/her opinion. As to her/his real motives; motives should be irrelevant on Wikipedia; all that counts are arguments and community guidelines. I was ambiguous regarding the clarification; I did not find it objectionable/biased before or after.

As to the editor's other change, (s)he was objectively correct; the party officially registered a different abbreviation. The abbreviation GOD only appeared in some earlier sources before the party was officially registered so it would not be appropriate to list the abbreviation as it was subsequently never in use. In fact, party leaders apparently (source is unreliable) objected to such an abbreviation (as is their right). Here's a excerpt from a Delo (newspaper) (own translation):

It's interesting that the party's short name is Voice and not GOD which could be the acronym. They likely avoided the acronym (which would spell "god" in English) because it would somewhat to directly suggest the party's leanings. However, there is no doubt that the party has a religious, Christian, and Catholic leaning. They don't even hide it. [...]

By the way, god in Slovene actually means "name day" (which is however mostly celebrated by Catholics).

As to the White Rose wikilink; it is stated in the primary source that they named the award after the White Rose anti-Nazi movement which is what I tried to succinctly point out. If you think this needs to be stated explicitly we can disambiguate. As to this being propaganda; whichever way you turn it, most pro-abortion readers will likely find this ludicrous and offensive, while most staunchly anti-abortion readers won't see anything wrong. All in all it's illustrative of the party/movement's objective ideological commitments.

Anyway, hey, c'mon, I really don't want to have some long-winded metaphysical debate again. If you've got anything concrete to say, say it, but I really really don't want to do this dance all over again. All I can say is that I try to follow the wiki community guidelines and edit in good faith to the best of my abilities and I really don't want to engage in petty squabbles. I think my editing history bears this out and that you're engaging in some deep chicken entrails-reading here ...

Sincerely, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please. If you didn't want to be involved in the continued existence of this page, then you could have just not said anything and let it get deleted by PROD. Stop acting like it's some burden to you. Grung0r (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry for inconveniencing you by objecting to groundless deletions of pages that meet notability standards while also not wishing to spend hours on end in a fruitless discussion with a hostile and nonconstructive interlocutor inconveniencing me. If you have nothing more to add I'll stop responding now. I think I have addressed all your concerns sufficiently. If you disagree with my counter-arguments, you may seek redress by building consensus through seeking 3rd opinion, filing a requests for comment, even AfD is you're so committed to this vendetta of yours or whatever this is.


 * Take care, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)