Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:ANO (political party)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:ANO 2011)

Centre-right?

[edit]

I wonder whether the three English-language sources casually glossing ANO as a "centre-right" party are all that reliable as authorities on the matter (the third one looks generally more reliable than the others, but more importantly none of them really explain the assertion.) The "ideology" section of this article makes it quite clear that ANO aren't easy to place on that spectrum, yet there is nothing in that section that explains how the party could be considered "centre-right" save for that Dubček-esque soundbite stated by Babiš himself, which is hardly WP:RS for a factual statement on the party's ideology, and contradicts the assertion earlier in the section that the party does not wish to be assigned a position on the spectrum.

The sources that merely state ANO are centre-right without any further explanation should probably be given a lot less weight than these two cited in the aforementioned section, which discuss the issue in more depth and make it fairly clear that a) the expert opinion is that ANO are centrist and b) other centre-right parties do not consider ANO to be a centre-right party. I think we should change the position in the infobox just to "centre". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make some sense. However, this party is a conservative-liberal party. I think it is right to write down the spectrum of this party as 'big tent' just like United Russia.--Storm598 (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there is no doubt about the conservative part but the liberal part is rather difficult Braganza (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to "conservative", No to "liberal". Storm598 "account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts". ANO 2011 grew from liberal origins, to illiberal entity. Like Fidesz. Szozdakosvi (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Oppose. "Centre-right" is clearly referenced with third-party scholarly sources, and if anything should take precedence over anything published on websites.--Autospark (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ANO 2011 is a rich man's political wing and a "constituent company" of his holding conglomerate Agrofert, agri + fertilizers or agri + chem, (one-man-political vehicle, as opposed to internally democratic party). It keeps pushing its and his interests throughout the years. To push them it uses populism, populism, and populism - and as such it amoebically KEEPS CHANGING ITS POLITICAL POSITION WITH TIME and those who happen to become its voters. 2011 it used to speak up lean state, managing state as a corporation, it ***USED TO BE CENTER-RIGHT*** (used to appeal to younger middle aged economically active voters). In 2014-2022 it turned leftist and conservative (appealed to elder and senior voters) and undercut social democrats. 2022-mid 2024 it is keeping the leftist and conservative narrative adding strong nationalist tones (still appealing to elder voters and voters of lower education, yet newly woeing in nationalist voters in an effort to overtake voters of and undercut main Czech right-wing to far-right party [SPD]). During 2023 leaders of ANO 2011 spoke of their party in Czech pronouncements using the English term "catch-all party", i.e. big tent. Rich man's political wing. Populist. Changing. => the original "political position" label (Centre to centre-right) from 2011 turned disservice to truth years ago already, say since around 2014, 2015. Szozdakosvi (talk).

Conservative liberalism

[edit]

There is only a single source for this, compared to four for "populist", seven for "centrist" and three for "centre-right". In a google search for "rechtsliberale ANO" (german translation) [1], you get three hits (one about Slovak ANO from the early 2000s & 2 from World Socialist Web Site; if you search for "conservative liberal ANO" you even get two hits (one from a wikia, the other one does not have to do with ANO) [2] and the source used only lists them alongside other (former) ALDE members (DP in Lithuania, NDSV in Bulgaria, LPP/LC in Latvia, FF in Ireland, B in Iceland, PNL in Romania, PSD in Portugal) all of them are either known for their notorious populism, social conservatism or are just bad examples, same with ANO which is neither socially nor economically really liberal. They do not even call themselves liberal as far i am aware of Braganza (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Autospark and Checco: Braganza (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know a lot about Czech politics and I have to think throughly about it. The current version, with "populism" first, might be OK, but I would like to see more sources. I am not sure on the conservative nature of the party, let alone its liberalism. Would a generic "liberalism" be better, due to its ALDE affiliation? Also, the party is classified as "centre to centre-right", but isn't it the main opposition party to the centre-right government? As you see, I am quite confused by this party. --Checco (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I seems that the party is, overall, populist in nature, but with members who are conservative and liberal. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they formed a coalition with CSSD and are generally close to both SPD & Communists, they aren't liberals just centrists Braganza (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
members matter fairly little though, this is rich-man-party, one-man-entity (Babiš, 1954, is the one-man). Liberal members were and are leaving and being purged; some voters are liberal. Regarding ALDE "liberals" is factual, yet still too many "liberal", "liberal", "liberalism" unfounded mentions in (current) "Ideology and platform" part of the article as of May 2024. It used to be factural till abt 2015. Szozdakosvi (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANO seems to be mainly affiliated with centrism and populism. There's no doubt that sources for liberalism exist, although I've found much more sources that use populism for example:
  • Crum, Ben; Oleart, Alvaro (2023). Populist Parties and Democratic Resilience: A Cross-National Analysis of Populist Parties' Impact on Democratic Pluralism in Europe. Taylor & Francis. p. 31. ISBN 9781000834628.
  • Emerson, Peter (2019). Majority Voting as a Catalyst of Populism: Preferential Decision-making for an Inclusive Democracy. Springer. p. 118. ISBN 9783030202194.
  • Detterbeck, Klaus; Hepburn, Eve (2018). Handbook of Territorial Politics. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 125. ISBN 9781784718770.
  • Heath-Brown, Nick (2017). The Statesman's Yearbook 2016: The Politics, Cultures and Economies of the World. Springer. p. 392. ISBN 9781349578238.
  • Joshi, Mahesh; Klein, James R. (2021). Global Business in the Age of Transformation. Oxford University Press. p. 94. ISBN 9780192847232. – this source for example states that it does not fit in the right-wing categorization
And centrist-populist:
  • Hajdinjak, Sanja; Chromková Manea, Beatrice; Chytilek, Roman (2022). Behind the Illiberal Turn: Values in Central Europe. Brill. p. 57. ISBN 9789004514041.
  • Lynggaard, Kennet; Dagnis Jensen, Mads; Kluth, Michael F. (2023). Governments' Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic in Europe: Navigating the Perfect Storm. Springer. p. 136. ISBN 9783031141454.
  • Haverkamp, Rita; Vogeler, Lena. Der rechtliche Umgang mit Menschenhandel zum Zweck sexueller Ausbeutung in Europa. p. 304. ISBN 9783643139689.
There's also "centre-right populist" (1st) and "liberal-populist" (2nd and 3rd):
  • Navarro, Julien (2022). A Litmus Test for Democratic Politics in Europe: Parliaments, Brexit and the Future of the European Union. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781000813968.
  • Barczyszyn-Madziarz, Paulina; Żukiewicz, Przemyslaw (2022). Gender and LGBTQ Issues in Election Processes: Global and Local Contexts. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781000557268.
  • Freedom House, ed. (2019). Freedom in the World 2018: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 265. ISBN 9781538112038.
Vacant0 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source is also interesting, as it says "The party is also often ideologically placed in the centre with broadly liberal, anti-establishment and centre-right political themes. To an extent, this demonstrates a Catch-all form of populism.", while Jacobin described it as "In 2012, Czech billionaire Andrej Babiš — a local Donald Trump/Silvio Berlusconi variant — launched his populist ANO 2011 party as a syncretic option for voters dissatisfied with the Social Democrats but opposed to the neoliberal policies of the establishment right." Vacant0 (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i will remove it today afternoon CET if they are no obstacles Braganza (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThecentreCZ: please take part in this discussion instead of removing it Braganza (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sources added doesn't anyhow contradict the original sources. There should be maintained custom on Wikipedia, that during concurrent elections in any country and massive possible misuse of factical base of Wikipedia pages, we always revert recent massive reeditations of content, in this case known fact given on this page for at least 7 years and never questioned. Factical base should be maintaned. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as i said there are only a hand full of sources which calls them conservative liberal, they also have little in common with other conservative liberal parties, we should not just pick every single source but rather follow the general mainstream Braganza (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a place for self-research but purely sourced facts from general sources. No sources contradicts broad fact about a conservative-liberal party, which is commonly known and not needed to be specifically called. Earlier there was also doubts about that if "populism" is a factical proper political ideology, but not factical description of group's nature same as for example "catch-all party" etc. So there was decided to include description of a populist and syncretic nature also as the pure ideology of the party. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)--ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well a party which cooperates with a communist party, is softly eurosceptic, opposes "neoliberal policies of the establishment right", is syncretic and is outspokenly populist is hardly conservative liberal
i don't see any proof for their conservative liberal nature in any way (like for example FDP, Swiss FDP, VVD, LRLS ect.) Braganza (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is commonly known, can you present more sources for "conservative liberalism" then? Vacant0 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza: Its not anything for your to assume what is hardly or softly. Conservative-liberal political party can cooperate with a communist party perfectly fine. Liberal Liberal Democratic Party of Germany cooperated with the communist party in East Germany, also currently conservative-liberal Basque Nationalist Party cooperates with government of Communist Party of Spain inside government coalition of Unidas Podemos, as a external support, exactly like ANO 2011 cooperated with Communist Party until 2021. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LDPD was a so called bloc party, so it was hardly anything and EAJ-PNV only very indirectly cooperates with PCE (which is not the main party of the coalition) Braganza (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza: Yes, that is true LDPB was a bloc party. EAJ-PNV in parliament externally supports government consistent of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the Communist Party, PODEMOS and others inside Unidas Podemos bloc. In 2017–2021 government coalition of ANO and the Social Democratic Party was supported by the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. Communist Party was never member of the government coalition, as a leftist party, it have been always closer to the Czech Social Democratic Party. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you know the contest of EAJ-PNV decision though? PP moved towards centralism so the nationalists had no other option left
and does it matter? no because there is only a *single* proper source for it, if you follow previous discussions like about FDP, C, FPÖ or other parties you see that many poorly sourced or unimportant ideologies got removed Braganza (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco: i saw you mentioned this discussion, please let us your opinion know Braganza (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by this discussion, I did not understand User:ThecentreCZ's opinion and, as I wrote above, I do not know Czech politics very well. My sense is that a sensible solution would be to keep "populism" and replace "conservative liberalism" with a more generic "liberalism". Given the context, I think that "conservative liberalism" as well as "conservatism" would be misplaced. Finally, "syncretic politics" is no ideology. --Checco (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think "liberalism" would need further clarification Braganza (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think i will remove it this evening Braganza (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't change principal descriptions on the day of election in some country. Changes on the day of elections or prior is very believable and accurate. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThecentreCZ: please explain, in what way is ANO conservative-liberal
it is just this single source in the whole internet - so it not a "principal description" Braganza (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, "conservative liberalism" has fewer and weaker sources than "liberalism". This said, while we are discussing the party's ideologies, I am happy that the political position has been changed from "centre to centre-right" to "centre": for the little I know, it seems more accurate. By the way, is it true that Babis was supported by the Communists in the run-off? And what about the Socialists? Central-eastern politics might be complex to understand, but surely ANO 2011 is to the left of the conservative coalition governing the country as well as to the left of the Pirates and the Greens: am I wrong or did I get something right? --Checco (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CSSD supported Pavel for some reason, and yeah ANO is to the left of the current coalition, i am not sure about the greens but they are to the economical left of the pirates too Braganza (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BastianMAT: would you like to join too? Braganza (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco: I am supporting current source, which is from an advanced study. Usual common journalist from a credible newspaper usually uses broad description as populist-liberal, which is a broad description rather than proper definition. Although broad liberalism is also possible as the "conservative liberalism" is a form of a liberalism. I am sure that ANO 2011 is "centre to centre-right" as in 2021, ANO 2011, centre-right Civic Democratic Party and far-right SPD approved tax cuts againsts their coalition partners Social Democrats as well as left-wing Communists, centre to centre-left Pirates and centrist KDU-ČSL and STAN which were also against. I support right-leaning Conservative liberalism because ANO 2011 was viewed as ideological successor of Public Affairs party, from where base of their support emerged in 2013. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conservative liberalism in general is often associated classical liberalism (so a free market economy) even though you could argue that they're "liberal" + "conservative" (socially to some extent), conservative liberalism would be missleading (ODS, TOP09, STABMN are sometimes called that way too) Braganza (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the centre-right being included in the party's political position, but instead the ideology should be described as conservative liberalism. Liberalism is a bourgeois ideology in European expression. Andrej Babis is a typical businessman, and ANO 2011 is in solidarity with liberal parties in Europe. I think ANO 2011 is an economic interventionist conservative liberal. Conservative liberalism does not necessarily guarantee economic liberalism. Conservative liberalism is different from classical liberalism. The ideology of ANO 2011 is "Conservative liberal" and its political position is "Centre". Mureungdowon (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be true for South Korea but in Europe conservative liberalism is very much associated with economical liberalism Braganza (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be taken into account that ANO 2011 belongs to Renew Europe, and that the party is somewhat socially conservative. Mureungdowon (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we maintain "conservative liberalism" on the premise of adding "economic interventionism" to infobox? Mureungdowon (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you present the sources here that describe ANO as "economic interventionist"? Also, keep in mind that there is only a single source for conservative-liberalism, so including it in the infobox would not be really due as it is poorly sourced. Vacant0 (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll set up a RfC now considering that this would be a better way to end this discussion. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Infobox

[edit]
The initial RfC began on 31 January in an effort to reach a consensus on the ideological and political positions of the Czech political party ANO 2011. This discussion reached a strong consensus to describe the party's ideology as populist and their political position as centre. On other points, there was intense disagreement on precise descriptors: there is no consensus to include any of the following terms: centre-left, centre-right, liberalism, or conservative liberalism. There was slight consensus in favour of syncretism as a political descriptor, but centre should be preferred.

This initial discussion finished, for all intents and purposes, on 25 February. It was not listed at WP:CR and not formally closed, despite having an unclear result. Discussion resumed on 19 June, with participants acknowledging that the previous discussion had not been closed, but not attempting to rectify the situation by the methods at WP:RFCEND. Another RfC was started on 6 July. with the justification that the previous discussion had not reached a consensus; as this close finds that the initial RfC reached a strong consensus, I have closed the second RfC and made it a subsection of the primary RfC.

This close may of course be overturned via a subsequent RfC which acknowledges and does not dismiss the consensus of the previous RfC, or via a close review at WP:AN. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

What ideologies and political positions should be listed in the infobox? --Vacant0 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Options for ideologies (backed up by reliable sources): Populism, Liberalism, Conservative liberalism
  • Options for political positions (backed up by reliable sources): Centre, Centre-right, Centre-left

Survey

[edit]

Pinging @Braganza, Autospark, Checco, ValenciaThunderbolt, ThecentreCZ, and Mureungdowon: as they took part in the previous discussion and pinging @BastianMAT: as they made changes to the infobox recently but failed to respond on the talk page. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Populism, Centre – I see why Thecentre wants it similar to VV but unlike VV ANO cooperates with the left and is additionally vague on almost everything so i don't really see (conservative) liberalism fitting for them (unlike many other border-line liberal parties (DPS, VVD, Venstre ect.) they don't even see themselves as liberal (i would also accept centre to centre-left or syncretic Braganza (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populism, Conservative liberalism, Centre to centre-right – As i explained previously I see no reason to change inclumbent description here for years. Cooperation with left parties is absolutely no argument for fitting of any party, as it evolves with election results. In 2013–2017 ANO 2011 was in coalition with centre to centre-right Christian Democrats and centre-left Social Democrats. Centre alone can also suggest that ANO 2011 might be radical centrist party which is not real, as ANO 2011 participed on great tax cuts with right-wing parties in 2021. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populism and liberalism are the safest ideological descriptions of the party, provided that they are jointly mentioned. I oppose conservative liberalism because it is such a specific ideology and the party seems quite far from it. The party's position is centre, possibly centre to centre-left. --Checco (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populism and Conservative liberalism - This party cannot be regarded as a liberal in the general sense. However, it cannot be said that it is not a liberal party at all. These are liberalism with weak economic liberalism but conservative elements. Its political position is centre or centre to centre-right. Mureungdowon (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populism and Centre These two descriptions are most commonly and mostly used by scholars. Regarding Conservative liberalism, there is only one source that describes it as such, so including it in the infobox would be undue. Regarding liberalism, I've found this scholarly source which states that ANO used LGBT issues to appeal to liberal voters, while this source describes it as socially centre-right. ANO is also opposed to neoliberalism of right-wing parties. There is also this source which states "Finally, the results show that ANO is located in the ideological centre, closer to social democrats rather than to right-wing parties. Besides this, ANO covers a smaller ideological space compared to traditional political parties." and "Besides this, ANO is an example of a vote-seeking party without strict ideological bonds" So, I don't think that liberalism itself would be due enough either. I've also listed a bunch of sources in the discussion above that ANO is mainly associated as a centrist and populist party (there is also one more source that states that it does not fit in the right-wing categorization, one that describes its populism as a catch-all and one more that describes ANO as a syncretic option for voters dissatisfied with the Social Democrats but opposed to the neoliberal policies of the establishment right). Regarding centre-left, this view seems to be in the minority like conservative liberalism, so including it would be very much undue. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populism, Syncretic. I echo the points of Braganza and Vacant0 into why ANO shouldn't have the liberal descriptor. I don't think the populist element needs to be discussed.
Regarding primarily the position, I think one of the main reasons why ANO is so hard to label is because it doesn't stick to one ideology or one set of ideas - it will work with the communists one day, with the far right the next. Others have suggested that the party spans from centre-right to centre-left, but I think the best compromise and least controversial option is to suggest it is a syncretic party. Quinby (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populism and liberalism, coupled with "centre to centre-right". Much as I'm open to the description of the party being able to change over time as its positions shift, the description "centre-left" seems to be an outlier.--Autospark (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to say that the ones with the most sources should be used, whichever they may be :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populism and syncretic per Quinby and Vacant. Not too bothered if we also use centre, as it's a label widely used in RS to describe ANO. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    so as right now (out of 9 participants):
    Ideology:
    • everyone agrees on populism
    • Conservative liberalism 2 out of 9
    • Liberalism 2 (+ 2 for conservative liberalism, so 4 out of 9 in total)
    Position
    • Centre: 7 out of 9
    • Syncretic: 3 out of 9
    • Centre-right: 3 out of 9 (with Valencia 4)
    • Centre-left: 2 out of 9
    Braganza (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Braganza I would suggest this is enough of a consensus to change it to Populism and Centre. Conservative Liberalism should certainly be removed, and it can be established to whether Liberalism is included at a later date potentially. Quinby (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Subsequent discussions disputing RfC result without closing.

Editors shouldn't be using a 6-month-old survey to remove cited info from the infobox. The position of centre-right now has 7 (seven) supporting citations including the main text and the infobox and given the age of this survey it doesn't appear a consensus is going to be reached on this. To remove such a well cited claim is ridiculous. To stall any changes to the infobox until some possible eventual conclusion here is clearly unreasonable. Helper201 (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is: ANO is not what you usually describe as centre-right
  1. ANO is against economical liberalism
  2. populist
  3. runs on a pretty social conservative platform
Braganza (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, that's WP:OR. Secondly, I've seen no reliable sources ever state that a centre-right party can't ever be populist in any country or context, or that social conservativism is somehow counter to a centre-right position. Helper201 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard that populist party can't be conservative liberal. Talk consensnus applies or does not apply. ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ThecentreCZ, there is literally a single serious source in the whole internet
books can be wrong Braganza (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you repeating your statements from the survey? Its conclusion is either current or not valid anymore. ThecentreCZ (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we go back to the consensus, please? It’s not what I’d have chosen, and is a compromise for everyone here, but it was a recent RfC.-- Autospark (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah thats the thing of a RfC
it's not even 6 months since the consensus, why breaking it Braganza (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is consensus? I would say definitely "populism" (mentioned by 8 users out of 8), possibly "liberalism" (mentioned by 4 users out of 8) and "centre" (mentioned by 7 users out of 8). The current version, including only "populism" and "centre" is thus consistent with consensus. What is the problem? --Checco (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco: [3] there is/was an edit war to change it back to conservative liberalism, populism, centre & centre-right
i reverted it Braganza (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus the centre-right can't be included in the infobox. I'd strongly disagree with not allowing this given how well it is sourced. There was never any conclusion to this discussion, so it’s not for editors to enforce what they think this in-progress discussion represents by denying soured information to be added to the article. Helper201 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201: a RfC is to archive a majority decision, the decision went nowhere
you aren't allowed to single handedly denounce the results, you can start a new discussion ig but not start an edit war Braganza (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Braganza WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. It was you that concluded a consensus, not an actual agreement from those in the discussion as a whole that the matter had reached a consensus, nor a conclusion. This is partly seen from the fact the discussion has not concluded or ended on this topic. You're unilaterally declaring a consensus. There's not an agreement that one has been reached. Also, only select editors were pinged on this matter, which is against Wikipedia guidelines and clearly not fair or neutral. Editors can’t select their audience and then extrapolate from that a general consensus. Helper201 (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i only pinged people who are generally involved in such discussions or were active on ANO Braganza (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they didn't even agree with me Braganza (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still not how this should be done. Helper201 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the RfC was clear: "centre-right" should not be included in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should centre-right be in the infobox?

[edit]

information Administrator note A user asked for review of this close in May 2024. Regardless of the merits of the close itself, it is generally not appropriate for a user to close a contentious discusion when they particpated heavily in it. I would say this close is somewhat tainted by this fact. I have elected not to re-open it due to the age of the discussion.Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closure is in violation of the rules and the now-blocked user ThecentreCZ determined the consensus simply by counting, which is not how you acheive a consensus. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another RfD started on 6 July 2023 disputed results of previous broader discussion RfC: Infobox which was closed on 25 February 2023 and confirmed on 8 July 2023 by AirshipJungleman29. Discussion didn't reached any consensus, although result is leaning towards confirmation of previous RfC.
In this statement of closing on 3 September 2023 I state that rationale for opening the topic soon after consensus was reached in the last RfC, which resulted in Populism and Centre, was not proved in any way, when most of expicit sources were known at the time of closure of the previous RfC. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should the political position of centre-right be in the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes There are 7 (seven) supporting citations for this claim in the ideology section, which is more than there even is for the position of centre which is currently used in the infobox. I have argued that A. a consensus was not reached in the prior discussion. B. that discussion was not shut or concluded but editors seem to be enforcing what they think is the conclusion to it. C. only certain editors were pinged for that discussion, meaning it may have encountered a bias being the discussion involved a selected audience. More to the point, the position claim in question is more than well enough sourced for infobox inclusion and its clearly not fair or neutral to omit such a well sourced claim. Helper201 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We now have 8 (eight) supporting citations for centre-right. Helper201 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Helper201 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last consensus survey on this talk page was closed on 25 February 2023. All of these sources were known back then. Its not even 6 months after, if the settlement is going to be changed in this short period of time, principally we need to include ideology. It is wrong not to include conservative liberalism as ideology, because it it correct description of the basis of the party. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any evidence of a survey being properly shut then, nor any more than one or two select editors saying that a consensus was reached (i.e. neither the majority nor a large section of those involved seem to have indicated as such). I have no problem with the principle of adding or changing the ideology. Also, I just added The Telegraph source, so that wasn't likely known by editors here before. I could also provide other reliable sources that are not included above that call the party centre-right. Helper201 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source which explicitly states commentators are saying that the party has become "more right-wing". Helper201 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More right-wing is not centre-right. I have no problem with adding that when conservative liberalism will be added as well, but another consensus talk will need to be opened again. ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying more right-wing is centre-right, I'm just saying that sources have indicated a change in the party’s ideology and political position. This is a talk I've opened for consensus. Helper201 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are still unable to explain in what way ANO is conservative liberal with the exception than VV was called that way.
If you think ANO should be described like them, you should rather propose to change VV. ANO has almost no similarities to FDP or VVD which are the golden standard for conservative liberalism in my opinion. Braganza (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A "populist" party in modern Europe cannot easily be also a "liberal" or a "center-right" party. Such parties are usually firmly on the right wing. The strand of ideology linking so-called "populism" across the continent is anything from "Euroscepticism" to downright hostility towards the European Union. "Center-right" also denotes a significant support for free-market policies, which are often denounced by "populist" politicians on the basis of such policies going against their country's interest, as they perceive it. One more word: Marking the ideology of a political party in Wikipedia is extremely significant. We should be both very clear in our terminology and most careful in source selection. -The Gnome (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against: ANO may have been kinda linked to the traditional centre-right (ODS, KDU-CSL, TOP09 and most specifically VV which spiritual successor they are) but nowadays they are clear enemies, ANO is more complicated than just "centre to centre-right". As i already said multiple times the party opposed economical liberalism but is more conservative than liberal-conservative parties which is the only right-of-centre thing about them but in central/eastern europe this is not an exclusive centre-right feature. Many centre-left parties tend to be more conservative than the centre-right (like in Slovakia) Braganza (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also Comment: the ALDE source states: "self-defines as a centre-right political party" and since it's the european party of ANO it's not neutral Braganza (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here’s the problem, you are using original research and your own personal views and thoughts here. We go by what reliable sources say, and even if you discount the ALDE source there's still 7 reliable sources calling the party centre-right, still more than there is for centre and plenty enough for infobox inclusion. We go by what reliable sources state, not off of the reasoning or views of editors. Editors’ views should not be overriding what reliable source state. To maintain only one of the two sourced political positions in the infobox is clearly not adhering to fair balance. Helper201 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To whom is this addressed, Helper201? -The Gnome (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My above comment was directed at Braganza. Helper201 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion of "centre-right" in Infobox, as per the case convincingly made by Helper201.--Autospark (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose things like "centre to centre-right". Thus, in my view, it should be either "centre" or "centre-right". Also in my view, "centre" is more correct than "centre-right". Thus, I oppose the inclusion of "centre-right". In case, it is included, it should supersede and replace "centre". --Checco (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on change of the previous RfC was not reached.

[edit]

For centre (3/7):

  • Braganza
  • Checco
  • ThecentreCZ

Comment leaning towards centre (1/7):

  • The Gnome

For centre to centre-right (3/7):

  • Autospark
  • Helper
  • Lukewarmbeer

Change of the consensus of the previous RfC which determined that political position in the infobox should be Centre, was not proven eligible. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Denial of multiple reliable sources

[edit]

All I see in the rejection of having centre-right in the infobox above is the opinions of Wiki editors. Are the opinions of editors really allowed to rule over what a bunch of reliable sources state? Surely third-party sources take precedence over editors opinions. This really needs wider discussion and better scrutiny. 2A00:23C6:E884:2A01:257E:AE98:A86D:357D (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, ThecentreCZ I'd like to politely but firmly reject in the strongest form the idea that a consensus has been reached here. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The above discussions seem to have been concluded on using the fact that one opinion had a small majority over another by editors, not what really matters, which is the substance and merits of the arguments made. As pointed out above (which also gives evidence to the fact this is still rejected by yet further users and that the matter is not settled) the arguments against including centre-right seem to be primarily based on editors own opinions and original research. Whereas the political position of centre-right is able to be supported by several reliable sources and is not a matter of editor opinion, nor original research.
Also, just because a majority of editors did not select the option of centre-right in the January/February discussion shouldn't prevent editors from adding this over 6 months later when it is supported by several reliable supporting sources that can be used as citations. Again, the conclusion to the original "consensus" seem to be entirely based on weight of opinion rather than what could be supported with evidence. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Helper201 (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that most of the sources describing ANO as centre-right are slighly old (only one after 2019). Back then, I would have agreed with that, but the party has since repositioned itself as centre-left. This evolution probably requires fuller explanation in the body of the article itself, rather than over-emphasis on the infobox. Jdcooper (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jdcooper, there's two citations in the main text from 2019 and one from 2021 that state that it is centre-right (on top of multiple others from earlier that also state this):
It’s also stated in A Litmus Test for Democratic Politics in Europe published in December 2022 that the party is centre-right. Search for the term "centre-right ANO" in Google Books and you should come across the preview in this book where it is stated. Plus, it is stated in this source from June 2023 that the party has become "more right-wing", not that it has moved to the centre-left. Helper201 (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political position in the infobox

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Speedy close. Not entirely sure if I can do this, but it has been one bloody month since the closure of the last RfC, the questions are leading, what is under discussion is unclear, etc. This really isn't an RfC in the first place. Fermiboson (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Asking for editors’ views on the prior discussions regarding ANO 2011's political position in the infobox. Was an actual consensus formed and did prior discussions violate the Wikipedia is not a democracy guideline? Also, can editors’ views alone hold precedence over what is explicitly stated by multiple reliable and academic sources by denying the inclusion of what these sources state? Helper201 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article name change to ANO?

[edit]

It seems like most recent news sources describe it just as ANO and not ANO 2011. Jay942942 (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANO is already a disambiguation page so we'd need to demonstrate that the Czech political party is the primary topic, which is going to be difficult. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with filelakeshoe.. the "2011" serves as a handy disambiguator. Jdcooper (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even ANO themselves don't use ANO 2011. I think "ANO (Czech Republic)" or "ANO (political party)" would work better ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this suggestion, with a preference for ANO (political party).--Jay942942 (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to change the article's name, but I would have "Action of Dissatisfied Citizens" in full. --Checco (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above. “Action of Dissatisfied Citizens” if not the status quo title (ANO 2011), as both are naturally disambiguated.— Autospark (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are taking WP:COMMONNAME into account, then I oppose Action of Dissatisfied Citizens. It's barely known, let alone widely used. Jdcooper (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer ANO, since it has the dual meaning of 'Yes' and so isn't just an abbreviation. I would then include 'Yes' as the English translation in the lede.--Jay942942 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I change my preference to ANO (political party). The "2011" part isn't heard at all anymore, it's true. Meanwhile, I've slightly expanded the lead to explain the origin of the name, quite odd that it wasn't included previously. Jdcooper (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reflecting consensus, I have moved it.--Jay942942 (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Position Social/Fiscal split in Infobox?

[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Given the uniqueness of the party's position, I'd like to propose we bring back the Fiscal: and Social: distinction in the Infobox, with Fiscal either being "Centre", "Centre-left, or "Centre to centre-left", and Social being either "Right-wing" or "Right-wing to far-right". Thoughts? Support/Oppose? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling (as with on the many articles where this kind of question poses problems) is that endless tinkering with the infobox is less helpful to readers than a well-sourced and fully-explained section in the main body of the article that explains the nuances in full sentences. Jdcooper (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I thought the Right-wing to far-right was fitting for the party. BrendonJH (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well either way, this is a good forum to seyablish consensus on the position as when I created this discussion, it said simply "Right-wing", when you responded, it said "Right-wing to far-right", and now it says "Centre to right-wing". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really that unique. Fidesz, Party for Freedom, Law and Justice and a lot of other "right-wing" European political parties take a relatively pragmatic, centrist approach to economic issues, it doesn't seem like there's a particular need to make a distinction here. Also, while ANO is socially right-wing on migration issues, it is a lot less so on other "social" issues being debated in the Czech Republic, like same-sex marriage, so specifically highlighting the "social" dimension of its policy agenda with an infobox split doesn't make much sense. Using "Far-right" as an overall descriptor seems an excessive descriptor for this party and isn't particularly well sourced. "Centre-right to right-wing" or "right-wing" would be fine, and it seems the bulk of recent sources, following its shift away from centrism, are for these descriptors. --Jay942942 (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Does the claim that the party is fiscally centre-left have any basis in any sources at all? I know that the party presents itself a lot as wanting to add money to retirees. But I see that as purely opportunistic politics to maintain a voter base. Otherwise, its politicians make statements about who is more right-wing (and right-wingness is perceived as a virtue in Czech discourse). Unloose (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I can determine – it seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH. It is increasingly frustrating that some en.wiki editors cannot seem to use referencing correctly.-- Autospark (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Position, more broadly

[edit]

@Jdcooper @Autospark @Checco @Jay942942 @Brendan

If the split isn't going to be restored, what position do you all think the party should have? I would prefer to exclude Centre if Right-wing is to be included, in such an occurrence, I would suggest Syncretic as a replacement for both, but Right-wing on its own would be marginally preferred.

I am quite confused by this party. In a country where centre-left parties have virtually disappeared, this party is surely not part of the centre-right and has been in alliance with centre-left and left-wing parties in the past. The best thing would be to leave the "position" parameter in the infobox blank, otherwise I would support either "centre" or "centre-right". --Checco (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past is the important distinction. today, there is nothing centre or centre left about it. Or even centre-right. Zlad! (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would completely remove the position, just as it happened with M5S. ANO itself doesn't want to put anywhere, instead they call themselves "catch-all." They are switching between left-wing and right-wing politics very frequently. IIiVaiNiII (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore. All centrist and centre-left politicians seem to have left the party and now they are a very cohesive right-wing party. Zlad! (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with not having the "position" in the infobox until we get a consensus from RS about it (this means scholarly articles which actually address the topic in depth, not random news pieces) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The politicians of that political party call themselves right-wing, just as they call the party as such.[1][2][3] In contemporary academic sources, it is described as right-wing (or, more accurately, right-wing populist),[4][5][6][7] which is a change from the past when it was an example of centrist populist parties (and a member of ALDE). They have also currently co-founded the second largest right-wing faction in the European Parliament – Patriots for Europe. What is the problem with mentioning that position? If it is purely the fiscal dimension, apart from the fact that it is not so relevant for determining leftism or rightism (see Law and Justice, Fidesz, National Rally etc.), it may also be the result of pure opportunism rather than ideology. --Unloose (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my thoughts and reasoning. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, says its a duck, joins a European group for ducks and whose policy is very pro-duck, then it's a duck. No more centre to right-wing, just right-wing. But up until we reach a consensus, it should stay centre to right-wing. Zlad! (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrendanJH @Jdcooper @Autospark @Checco @Jay942942 The discussion has gone quiet, let's bring it back up. Personally, I'd favour Right-wing to far-right, but am willing to settle for Right-wing, "centre" should not be included at all. What do you all think? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I favor just Right-wing. Zlad! (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right-wing seems most appropriate if centre-right to right-wing is no longer an option.--Jay942942 (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Centre right just does not fit at all and I’m even more opposed to it than Centre to Right Wing Zlad! (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that they are constantly shifting depending on the forum, or who's asking. So I feel like anything we put here is an over-simplification. I would favour keeping it blank (or if anything: "Syncretic politics" < but that needs to be sourced). Then explaining the situation with nuance and sources in the main body. Jdcooper (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not shifting anymore lets be honest. They are just a right-wing party now and even claim themselves as one. As I said: duck duck duck duck duck Zlad! (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support "centre" or blank space. --Checco (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
by far the worst take of all Zlad! (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just right-wing now. We have a load of sources for this in the infobox. The party left the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and joined Patriots for Europe, a group dominated by right-wing to far-right parties. Helper201 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ideology Infobox, let's find consensus

[edit]

The following discussion 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.

As the title suggests, let's find a consensus for the ideology. Social conservatism, Euroscepticism and Right-wing populism are my suggestions. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose social conservatism, it isn't well-sourced and the party isn't really that socially conservative on issues other than migration. Conservatism would be my preferred descriptor. Euroscepticism would be okay, but soft euroscepticism would be better since it isn't really a defining policy of the party and the party seems fairly pragmatic about it. I'm fine with populism or right-wing populism.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like Euroscepticism is very well sourced and they just joined quite an overt Eurosceptic group in EU parliament, so I think it should stay. Zlad! (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czech nationalism should also been included as there are third-party sources (supporting this). [4][5] [6] – FellowMellow (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't follow that Czech nationalism should be included in the Infobox – it can and perhaps should be referred to in the Ideology section of the article body, yes, fine (as long as the sources actually describe the party thus), but it's too imprecise a term to include in the Infobox, and not a general political ideology anyway.-- Autospark (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet is used very commonly. Not sure what difference would be? - FellowMellow (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euroscepticism is a policy position, not an ideology, so should not be listed in the Infobox. "Social conservatism" is redundant if "right-wing populism" is listed (social conservatism being an inherent part of that kind of populist ideology), and honestly, I'm not convinced by the references for social conservatism – none of the articles referenced even mention the term. --User:Autospark (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have simply "populism" in the infobox, but I am open to "conservatism" too. I surely oppose "Czech nationalism" (a generic long shot) and "Euroscepticism" (policy, no ideology). In the meantime we achieve consensus, we should remove the items that were added without consensus, especially "Czech nationalism". --Checco (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. Populism and possibly conservatism too (not social conservatism, as there doesn't seem to be any specific references for that). Not Euroscepticism, not Czech nationalism.
      (Also, I think this is one party which shows the need for a well-referenced Ideology section, and why Infoboxes should only show the basic, broadest terms – this party is hard to pin down ideologically, noting the wealth of terms used to describe the party in sourced material that has been referenced.)-- Autospark (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether Euroscepticism is technically an ideology or a policy, there's longstanding precedent for using it, and it's simply more informative to have it there than not to have it. If RWP is added, I'm alright to omit Social conservatism, but if "Populism" is added in its stead, I feel it needs to be clear that the party holds socially conservative viewpoints in the infobox, whether that be through a "Social conservatism" or simply a "Conservatism" label. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose to Euroscepticism being included in the Infobox (it’s a policy, not an ideology) and if possibly stronger oppose to including an invented neologism like “soft euroscepticism” (are we going to say soft, medium or hard populism as well?). Again, just because an ideology cited by a reliable source doesn’t mean that it has to be in the Infobox. At most two recognised ideologies are enough for any Infobox. The article body, Ideology section preferably, is for describing a party in a detailed way.— Autospark (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the existing references used for “conservative”, one describes Babiš as (a) conservative rather than the ANO party. The others are almost sound, yet are journalistic sources, therefore need to be improved with scholarly sources, if available. Certainly we need higher quality sources for that claim. In the meantime, I support “populism” alone in the Infobox, and would not object to “conservatism” being the added to the Infobox were some higher quality sources supporting that claim added. (Obviously non-ideologies I still strongly object to.). This is a difficult party to pin down ideologically…—Autospark (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite persuasive: let's have only "populism", which better describes the party's syncretic ideology. --Checco (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by nationalism, let alone Czech nationalism. --Checco (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I have provided a source that confirms nationalism for ANO. I am happy to provide it again and more. @Autospark @Checco - FellowMellow (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not think that is an acceptable addition for the Infobox (which is meant to be a summary, not an exhaustive list – that is what the Ideology section of the article is for). Populism or, if decided upon, right-wing populism are still more broadly descriptive. (Also, the claim for Czech nationalism is weak, placing WP:UNDUE on a single journalistic source based on WP:RECENTISM, plus I would argue that the source doesn't claim what you say it does – it appears to be referring to a Czech party which is nationalist, rather than a Czech nationalist party.)-- Autospark (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the best lineup.
Conservatism
Populism (or right-wing populism)
Soft-Euroscepticism Zlad! (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the party truly conservative, or its conservative(-like) rhetoric is just the result of the party being a right-wing populist? It would make more sense to me to have right-wing populism listed as the primary ideology since everything else (including nationalism, antiimmigration, euroskepticism, etc.) stems from that. Unloose (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with that.
right-wing populism
soft-euroscepticism Zlad! (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should include Czech nationalism into the infobox. I have provided a source and can again (third-party), but was ignored for a while. - FellowMellow (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, they're a member of the nationalist ESN group, I feel like nationalism is relevant enough to include. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patriots, but thank you for the input! :) - FellowMellow (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oop, you're right, the amount of far right EP Groups now is doing my head in haha. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is incredibly illogical to claim because Party X is in European Parliament Group Y that therefore it has ideology Z. These EP groups are often alliances of convenience and very heterogeneous in their composition, particularly the sort of populist group like Patriots for Europe – you'll note that the history is that such groups rarely have lifespans beyond a single EP term. Utterly junk reasoning to categorise ANO 2011 in that manner. We categorise parties based upon what reliable third-party sources tell us (of which there are already many referenced in the Ideology section of the article), not 'gut instinct'. Please read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:SYNTH for more information.-- Autospark (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable alternative sources for its nationalism, I just meant that its joining the EP Group is a reason to consider it a notable enough facet of the party's ideology to add it to the infobox. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, isn't Czech nationalism different from just the nationalism of the Czech people? I see it as being connected with figures like František Palacký, Karel Havlíček Borovský, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, and others, who promoted an ideology sometimes called "liberal nationalism". This is different from the nationalism promoted by right-wing populists. -- Unloose (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary ideology should be specified as right-wing populism,[8] which is a change from the past when the party was centrist technocratic populist (and a member of ALDE).[9][10] I cannot find any academic source that would describe the party as social conservative. Unloose (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Autospark and I would have just "populism". --Checco (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism, Czech nationalism and right-wing populism. All are cited in the Wikipedia article for this party and reflect the party now. Helper201 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Populism

[edit]

Let's bring back Populism. It's the single most important ideology to the party. It doesn't matter whether its just populism or right-wing populism. It needs to be in the ideology section. Not a single user has argued about having some sort of populism and since regular populism includes right-wing as well as left-wing populism I propose we bring it back until a consensus is reached on whether right-wing populism is more appropriate or just regular. Zlad! (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that populism should be listed among the ideologies, and I would be even more in favour of explicitly listing right-wing populism. Another possibility is to divide the ideology into two blocks, one being historical, and listing technocratic populism, and one being contemporary, and listing right-wing populism. The party's ideology has evolved, as reflected in its departure from ALDE and the co-founding of the Patriots for Europe. Different scholarly articles mention different kinds of populism in connection with the party, but that is precisely because the articles were written at different times. -- Unloose (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with adding either populism or right-wing populism to the infobox. When both positions can be cited, we shouldn't weight in favour of one or the other. Its sufficient to explain the nuance of the situation regarding its stance on populism within the main text of the article. Helper201 (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right-wing populism is just a specific form of populism. I don't see the fact that both of these terms are used as a reason not to include one of them in the infobox. -- Unloose (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am for the inclusion of either populism or right-wing populism. This is a key differentiator between this party and its main rival in Czech politics, the ODS, which is also a conservative party. I don't see right-wing populism and populism as opposing either, right-wing populism just falls under populism.--Jay942942 (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Populism has been listed in the infobox for an eternity for the party. If anything making such a bold removal requires a consensus. Do not remove it again! Zlad! (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also surprised that someone felt the need to delete populism from the infobox and then use the excuse that there is not enough consensus to include it. On the contrary, it seems to me that there isn't enough consensus to not include it. Especially when just about every scholarly source that deals with the party's ideology labels the party as populist. -- Unloose (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Populism" without "right-wing" qualifier, the party may have originally been a catch-all populist affair, it is now firmly right-wing populist. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When the party has become right-wing populist over the last few years, and this observation is supported by scholarly sources, it should be explicitly stated as such instead of the general term "populism". -- Unloose (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RWP only, it's well-sourced and distinct from regular populism – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, ANO is primarily populist and not right-wing. Surely, "populism" is more accurate and sourced than "right-wing populism". --Checco (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if right-wing populism was a valid ideology which I do not think it is ANO would probably qualify for that, but populism alone is just way better sourced anyways. Zlad! (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RWP is very well-sourced though? I don't understand this claim that generic populism is better-sourced when in the infobox alone the sources are almost exactly even between RWP and generic P. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support re-inclusion of populism as the primary ideology, not right-wing populism. This after all is a personalist political party, whose positions have changed over time with its leader's shifting stances. There is plenty of references from scholarly sources describing the party in varying ways, which do not indicate the typical European right-wing populist party.--Autospark (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also Support the re-inclusion of populism as the primary ideology, not right-wing populism, as I'm generally opposed to having either "right-wing" or "left-wing" qualifiers for ideologies such as populism and nationalism. But its not a deal-breaker for me and I'd rather have some type of populism listed than have nothing. Zlad! (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support "populism" instead of "right-wing populism" and I agree also with the argument against "right-wing" or "left-wing" qualifiers. This is finally something we can agree on. Of course, I still oppose "Euroscepticism" (not an ideology, but at least it is a correct policy for the party) and "nationalism" (inappropriate). --Checco (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Schillerová: Nejsem rozhazovačná. Mám největší schodky v historii, ale umím s tím žít | Aktuálně.cz". Aktuálně.cz - Víte, co se právě děje (in Czech). 2021-07-12. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
  2. ^ Karel Havlíček (2023-02-08). NA ROVINU s Karlem Havlíčkem. Aktivisté proti konzervativcům. Retrieved 2024-07-19 – via YouTube.
  3. ^ "„Jsme pro EU, ale…" Havlíček vysvětluje nové ideologické směřování ANO - Seznam Zprávy". www.seznamzpravy.cz (in Czech). 2023-05-04. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
  4. ^ Ekrem Karakoç (2018). Inequality After the Transition: Political Parties, Party Systems, and Social Policy in Southern and Post-Communist Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 312. ISBN 978-0198-82692-7.
  5. ^ Iván Szelényi; Péter Mihályi (2020). Varieties of Post-communist Capitalism: A comparative analysis of Russia, Eastern Europe and China. Brill. p. 79. ISBN 978-9-004-41319-1.
  6. ^ Snegovaya, Maria (2024-01-29). "What Happens when Left Moves Right?". In Snegovaya, Maria (ed.). When Left Moves Right: The Decline of the Left and the Rise of the Populist Right in Postcommunist Europe. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–33. doi:10.1093/oso/9780197699027.003.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-769902-7.
  7. ^ Hilmar, Till (2022-03-29). "Restoring economic pride? How right-wing populists moralize economic change". Journal of Contemporary European Studies. 31 (2): 291–305. doi:10.1080/14782804.2022.2056729. ISSN 1478-2804.
  8. ^ https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2022.2056729
  9. ^ https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2019.1580590
  10. ^ https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12299
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ANO_(political_party)&oldid=1246931717"