Talk:Republic Movement

Rename article to Republika (Slovakia)

The translation of the party's name to Republic only leads to misunderstandings, see that both versions are used in other articles in Wikepedia, e.g. on the 2023 elections. Meerwind7 (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a fascist party

L’sns are the fascists these are right wing populists like the afd in the article it says that milan ulrik(party leader) rejects fascism 93.106.8.187 (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's irrelevant.

Firstly, no one calls them fascists. They are objectively not. Neo-fascism is a separate, albeit related, concept.

Secondly, what their official stance on these subjects is, while relevant, ultimately not the ultimate deciding factor on what they can be considered as a subject. For the same reason one is not necessary innocent no matter how much they plead they are.

Thirdly, your revert included the removal of the fact they're considered extremist. While we can discuss whether or not it should be worded this way, whether they're neo-fascist or not, the general, undisputed consensus is that they are indeed extremist. They are one of very few parties advocating for a Slovak Brexit, among other things, the only notable party advocating for the same thing being ĽSNS, the "fascists," as you call them.

Anyways, I'm open to constructive discussion about this! But since this is not at all convincing, I reverted your changes. Please do not revert it again as to not cause edit warring. Please do leave a comment if you have anything more to say about this! — Soggy Pandas (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soggy Pandas: I think we should change the ideology in the Infobox back to what it was in this revision (and potentially alter it a bit). Currently the ideology and the political position link to the same thing (Far-right politics). Ideology and political position on the political spectrum should be distinguished. --CaeCalig (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That's all good with me. My aim was to simplify it a bit, as quite a few articles on political parties only have a single ideology mentioned. But it can be changed back if this isn't considered an ideal solution, of course. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Anything that is unsourced should not be added back into the infobox. National conservatism, in this case, can be added back if there is actually a reliable source that describes the party as such. The source that was in the article until now was an interview with Uhrik in which he described the party as "conservative and nationally oriented". Vacant0 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems this part of the infobox is quite controversial. I didn't put much thought into it before, since getting the rest of the article right is what mattered to me. But I'll actually review what's best to put there according to reputable sources. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reached the conclusion that defining the party's ideology as far-right populist, Eurosceptic and Russophilic is the most correct way to address this.

My reasoning behind this stands primarily on what interviewed experts define the party as. It should be noted that experts do not consider the party to yet be properly neo-fascist, even if it does have neo-fascist links and tendencies. This is why I view it is best to state this on the page, but leave it out of the infobox, and why I wrote the second sentence of the article the way I did. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing here justifies my edit being reverted. There are multiple citations given for neo-fascism and "far-right populism" is not a political ideology. Helper201 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You could have waited for 5 minutes. Putting this frustrating behaviour aside, see what I wrote above. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, "far-right populism" is not a recognised political ideology we use on Wikipedia. Secondly, we have multiple citations for neo-fascism, so I strongly disagree with any sort of removal of this. Helper201 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how that's relevant. But feel free to use "right-wing populism". It is far less clear and less accurate, but if you so wish, then so be it.

I'm trying to make the article as accurate to expert assessment as I possibly can. And as it stands, according to political experts, not journalists, Republika is an extremist, but not neo-fascist party. While it's great that you have links to news articles calling the party neo-fascist, confirming that it is, in fact, regarded as such, again, it is not actually considered neo-fascist by political experts. Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate as possible, and that's my goal. I consider the appreciation of nuance to be crucial to understanding politics, and by lumping the party into the same category as ĽSNS without making it clear what the difference is hinders that.

TL;DR: As it stands, the party should be, by all accounts, considered an extremist one, and its neo-fascist members and tendencies must be noted. But the primary definition of the party shouldn't be "neo-fascist", as it's not accurate and directly contradicted by expert assessments. The neo-fascism infobox should be removed and primary ideology defined as far-right populist, or "right-wing populist", if you so will. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point and apologies if I've angered you. However, there's nothing wrong with using news sources on Wikipedia. While expert opinion is preferable, that doesn't mean that any of us can deny or dismiss what is stated by news sources. Helper201 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not my point. My point is that while the party is widely considered neo-fascist and often described as that, it is not the most accurate description despite being popular, as stated by political experts. And I believe this article should take make that clear. — Soggy Pandas (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If it’s widely considered and described as such the article should reflect that. It is not up to editors to decide upon what is accurate and not accurate. We shouldn't be selecting certain academic sources to try and combat non-academic ones or pit them against each other, nor imply or come to our own conclusions. Either way, neo-fascism has plenty enough evidence for infobox inclusion. The ins-and-outs of the party's relation to the ideology and who describes it as such can be detailed in the "political positions" section but I strongly disagree with removing neo-fascism from anywhere this ideology is currently mentioned on the page. Helper201 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine, then. I disagree with your conclusion, but ultimately, I think the difference between our versions of the page is minimal enough that I'm leaving it be as is, for now. We'll see how the party profiles itself in the future, and whether it goes more-so in the neo-fascist direction or merely right-wing populist. If the latter, this conversation might have to repeat itself.

PS: I've noticed you've edited the Slovak Wikipedia page to reflect what's written here. Good luck with that! Also, it's "neofašistické", not "neofašista". The former is an adjective, the latter a noun! — Soggy Pandas (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

articles came out after the edit on wikipedia it could be posible that there is a circular reference going on where journalist want to write an article about this so they google republika see wikipedia article says it is fascist. question no further (because they hate all right wing populist parties) and then write an article about it being fascist.

it is noteble that in articles published earlier than these described republika as far right and having split from fascist/nazi L’SNS and they write about a difference and don’t say both are evil fascists or whatever 193.210.200.72 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Here are even more citations that call the party neo-fascist:

• https://www.milano.zone/2023/08/18/republika-fined-and-order-to-apologise-for-spreading-hate/
• https://spectator.sme.sk/c/23206525/news-digest-president-dismisses-politicians-wild-claims-of-a-coup.html
• https://www.thefreelibrary.com/News+digest%3a+President+dismisses+politician%27s+wild+claims+of+a+%27coup%27.-a0761413829
• https://www.zazoom.it/2023-08-18/the-hateful-eight-di-tarantino-stasera-in-tv/13367508/

Helper201 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The party is undeniably neofascist

Members like Uhrík and Mazurek are Ex ĽSNS members who continue the neonazi ideals. Mazurek is also known for throwing stones on an arab mother. He also publically said that the only true president of slovakia is Jozef Tiso who was the nazi collaborator during the slovak state T. ButterII (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Find reliable sources explicitly labeling the party as neo-fascist. PeterP44 (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Slovak far-right with neo-Nazi origins eyes government
Criminal Complaint Filed against Far-right LSNS Legislator Uhrik
Mazurek is the first certified Nazi
US refuses visa to Slovak far-right MEP Milan Mazurek On 9 April, 2026 , Mazurek stated - “I just got back from the US embassy in Brussels. They denied me a travel visa, because I am on a list of members of a Nazi party.” Dasomm (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, so all your sources seem to be invalid

First source: no notion of Republika as neo-fascist or neo-nazi, just notion of "coming from a Slovak neo-Nazi movement"

Second source: written 4 years before Republika was even founded

Third source: written 2 years before Republika was even founded

Fourth source: Republika described as far-right, no notion of Republika as neo-fascist or neo-nazi PeterP44 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

So, was the U.S. Embassy wrong to deny Mazurek travel after explicitly stating he is a member of a Nazi party? Dasomm (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the key issue is whether a claim is supported by reliable sources, rather than whether one agrees with the description itself. In this case, the question is not whether Republika is neo-Nazi or neo-fascist, but whether there are reliable sources that explicitly support such a characterization in an encyclopedic context.

In my view, the U.S. Embassy is not an appropriate source for making ideological classifications of political parties, and certainly not as a primary source in the absence of any other. The U.S. Embassy is a foreign government office in Slovakia and is not a scholarly or media authority and therefore should not be used as a basis for labeling a political party’s ideology in Wikipedia articles. And it is especially important when using highly charged classifications such as neo-Nazism or neo-fascism. PeterP44 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand your point regarding the distinction between scholarly analysis and government actions, Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources and Verifiability does not limit us strictly to academic papers.

The denial of a visa based on membership in a Nazi party is an objective, verifiable fact involving a sovereign government's official assessment. It is not just an opinion; it is a diplomatic action with documented legal consequences.

Regarding the other sources, the fact that Republika's leadership consists of individuals with proven, legally-certified ties to neo-Nazi movements like the ĽSNS is highly relevant under WP:DUE weight.

If the leadership has not explicitly denounced those specific ideals, their documented political background remains a core part of the party's encyclopedic description. We do not need a source to use a specific label if we can cite reliable sources describing their policies, rhetoric, and political lineage as part of the far-right extremist spectrum.

The statement by the U.S. Embassy is not being used to classify the party ideologically in a vacuum, but to report on a significant international event involving a Member of the European Parliament.

To omit the specific reason provided by a government for a visa denial would be a violation of WP:CENSOR. Dasomm (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I respect what you advocate for. However, I would like to remind you that the founding and leading figures have declaratively distanced themselves from their past in the ĽSNS.

Either way, I think that a debate should be opened on this issue to reach a consensus, to which other users will also contribute PeterP44 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I have written my answers. If you have any support for your claim, I don't see any reason why not to change it, so let's wait for answers from others. However, I am not the only one who has reverted your edits, and I am not the only one who disagrees with you on talk page. Dasomm (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Categorization and description of party ideology

Should the Republic Movement article include descriptions or categories related to neo-Nazism? Specifically, should the lead section or infobox mention allegations of neo-Nazi ties, and is there a consensus that reliable sources support such a description? Dasomm (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Survey

(Post 'Support' or 'Oppose' here with your reasoning)

Support: The article should reflect the party’s documented political lineage. While leadership claims an ideological shift, the People's Party Our Slovakia origins of figures like Milan Uhrík and Milan Mazurek are biographical facts. Mazurek’s 2019 criminal conviction for racist remarks and his public praise for Jozef Tiso are verified events that reliable sources link to neo-Nazi ideology. Furthermore, the article should mention significant international incidents involving the party’s leadership. On 9 April, 2026, Mazurek stated: “I just got back from the US embassy in Brussels. They denied me a travel visa, because I am on a list of members of a Nazi party”. Dasomm (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

BADRFC, there is nothing to support or oppose here, because it is not a discussion about opinions. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. If reliable source describe it as such, and it is DUE, then it should probably be mentioned. If not then not. Having an RfC about that is invalid because people's personal opinions, including mine, are irrelevant. So I recommend closing it and making a table of RS and quotes of how they describe RM instead. Polygnotus (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with that making a table of sources should be done before an RfC is opened, but determining what is WP:DUE is something RfCs have to deal with quite often because it's unavoidably subjective, so if a table sources is made but editors cannot agree on whether or not it shows a mention is due or not it would be reasonable to open an RfC. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes DUE is in the eye of the beholder; in other cases it is not. We'll burn that bridge when we get to it. Polygnotus (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

People can disagree whether or not the sources support a statement or whether or not they make something DUE for inclusion. This is not a BAD RFC, per se. Katzrockso (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, no sources found on this page stating that it is a neonazi party. polish ✹ kurd 08:22, 2 May 2026 (UTC)