Talk:Far-right politics in Slovenia

Biased article

42 out of 119 sources are from the same website, Mladina, which is known for its left-wing bias, which it's even pretty open about (even its Wikipedia article admits it). Every other sentence SDS is mentioned and compared to neo-nazis, which is not only disruptive to the reader but also makes it look like the writer wrote this with the intent of defamation. I suggest this article be rewritten, this time having it comply with WP:NPOV. Jelincic (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I relied quite heavily on Mladina articles while writing this article because the magazine covered the topic quite extensively and thoroughly, was not paywalled at the time and had an extensive article archive. While Mladina is known to be left-leaning ("bias" is another matter), its investigative reporting is reputed to be factual. Do you have any particular concerns regarding the factual accuracy of the information in the wiki article?

The political ties were covered to the extent that these were pertinent to Slovene political discourse at the time.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article sources should be replaced with less politically charged ones. There is a clear bias in using the leftist Mladina to provide a view on right politics (for this or another article, like SDS). As if one would ask Americans to describe Russians or vice versa. Not only is it impossible to judge fact from fiction in clearly ideological sources, but the whole perspective is most probably distorted.[1] (for an example, see this diploma thesis). Mladina is used in as much as 88 instances. This source should be replaced with a more reliable one and the material should be left out if there is no replacement available. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"Its investigative reporting is reputed to be factual." By whom? Who did the analysis? --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, let me attempt to respond by tackling your objection from a couple of different angles ...

Firstly, as we're both Slovenian, we probably both know that practically all major established media organisations in SLO are viewed by a significant share of the right-wing as being of the political left. And, to be honest, they are half-way correct - journalists and media organisations really are often politically more left-leaning, and this is the case in many countries. Therefore, swapping Mladina for Dnevnik or Večer doesn't really address the "using [left-leaning publication] to provide a view on right politics" objection. In fact, since the far-right is about equally reprehensible to the far-left as to the centre-right, you would presumably need to seek out far-right publications to give a fair portrayal to this topic, which is an obvious fallacy. Furthermore, a lot of additional reporting on the issue of the far-right in SLO was contributed by investigative journalists Delić, and Cirman, Vuković and Modic who have also been labelled as leftist activist journalists by a portion of the SLO right-wing, so the same objections can be levelled against their reporting regardless of the publication they were working with at the time. This also applies in the other direction; Valenčič made a RTV investigative documentary about the SLO far-right, while also penning much additionaly reporting on the issue for Mladina; so, is his work for RTV kosher and that in Mladina not, or is he entirely a reliable source because he worked with RTV, or the opposite because he also worked with Mladina? And, more generally, with the "establishment" media organisations in SLO generally viewed as left-leaning, there isn't really an equivalent on the right; most right-wing publications don't really do much original or investigative reporting, heavily focusing on opinion and commentary, instead. We don't really have a WSJ or a Telegraph. Lastly, Mladina as a current affairs magazine also focuses more on social/cultural reporting, so social movements (including far-right movements) are it's bread and butter compared to e.g. daily newspapers.

It is also understandable why left-leaning publications would be more interested (dare I say eager) to report about far-right movements, as would be the inverse with right-leaning publications. Therefore, the discrepancy that you take issue with is understandable and only natural. I don't think it diminishes the legitimacy of the reporting when/as the general reliability of the source is evaluated independently. I actually considered trying to write a companion article about the SLO far-left which would surely rely more heavily on right-leaning publications, however, there simply isn't enough to go on thus far.

I also think there's a more profound error in your line of argument. To draw an example based on your statement: "As if one would ask Americans to describe Russians or vice versa." I'm sure you wouldn't really argue that e.g. The New York Times can't be a reliable source for articles about the ongoing Russian invasion on Ukraine because of Russophobia being pervasive in the U.S. or the West in general, or at least that such is the impression of a majority of Russians and that therefore any article about Russia relying on "Western" sources will be biased or at least understandably viewed as such. This flies in the face of core tenets of the wiki Reliable sources criteria. To expand this analogy to the issue of political bias: should NYT or the Guardian not be used for articles about the U.S. or U.K. far-right as they are widely (and perhaps justifiably) percieved as part of the "liberal leftie MSM"?

Now, to come to the key issue. The editorial stance of a publication is one thing, the reputability of its reporting another. Even a publication with a clear editorial political bias can strictly observe journalistic standards in its reporting, just as one without an editorial stance can have no journalistic standards. To address your specific objection: Mladina has a long track record of investigative reporting and its original reporting is regularly picked up by other media, at the same time as its reporting is seldom found to be factually inaccurate.

Regarding: "Not only is it impossible to judge fact from fiction in clearly ideological sources, but the whole perspective is most probably distorted." I would concur that Mladina occasionally blurs the line between strict factual reporting and editorialising, but it must be noted that this is also more or less the case with many other prominent SLO publications (and can may actually be even more insiduous when the editorial line is less clear and the editorialising takes the form of populist sensationalist remarks), and I've generally found that with Mladina, the one can usually be distinguished from the other.

With this, I come back to my original point: what specific claims in the article do you think are or could be false or innacurate due to source bias? Most of the content of the article are matter-of-fact statements, as is the content of the sources the content of this wiki article is based on. So, due to reasons I've put forward above, I think only specific founded objections to particular passages are justified, and not sweeping objections impugning the(se) source(s) as such.

Kind regards,

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. There are other neutral media with a higher publication standard that we can use to balance the reporting. In particular, scholarly and peer-reviewed articles or publicatitons may be available, which are much more reliable than politically driven magazines. Also established mainstream media are much better even if they have an inherent left-leaning or right-leaning bias, which as you say is almost unavoidable. Are you really comparing the editorial process and trustworthiness of Mladina with the editorial process and trustworthiness of New York Times? As to specific claims, I cannot do judgement on the veracity; I'm not doing investigative journalism. However, the bias may be revealed by consulting and citing other sources besides Mladina. Just one example; characterizing Slovenia as "a veritable Mecca for international activity and cooperation of extremists" and writing on "the tolerant attitude of the authorities" based on a single Mladina article (which is even behind a paywall) strikes me as an obvious political stance. As to what should be done now, the aim would be to replace Mladina with scholarly articles and monographies where possible and to replace the many Mladina refs with the media that are less politically inclined and at least in principle strive for balanced reporting (RTV, N1 info etc.) or balance them with the reporting of other dissenting news sources where appropriate. For discussion of reliable sources, please see WP:RS. --TadejM ^{my talk} 20:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: First, let me just quote the Reliable sources criteria that you've mentioned:

   Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.

I agree that scholarly sources may be preferrable to news/current affairs publications as sources, however, we must note that scholarly sources are entirely lacking or insufficient for certain subjects (e.g. recent political, cultural, or societal events or trends). In such cases, news/current affairs publications are entirely acceptable as sources as per wiki guidelines. It should be noted that journalistic standards and editorial oversight are the equivalent of peer-review in such cases, and one must similarly evaluate the reliability/journalistic standards of a news source as one would of peer-review for a scholarly one.

I must object to the characterisation of a publication with an ideological editorial stance as "politically-driven". One could then just as soon characterise e.g. The Economist or the Financial Times as ideological (e.g. classically liberal or neoliberalism) etc., which however does not affect their reliability as such.

Mladina is just as much an established publication as the prominent newspapers, it's just a different type of periodical publication than are daily newspapers.

My NYT comparison was merely a rebuttal of your comparison re: "As if one would ask Americans to describe Russians or vice versa."

The article was not behind a paywall as of the time of writing. I've seen similarly colourful language in prominent SLO and foreign newspapers - dull language is no proof of source reliability in this context. But let me present the entire paragraph where the passages you reference can be seen in context:

   [...] Neo-Nazi social activity has mostly centered in the cities of Domžale, and Žiri, where members own or have access to venues available for staging various group activities (including annual celebrations of Hitler's birthday). Neo-Nazis have also established cordial relations with their foreign counterparts, mainly those from neighbouring countries. Though neo-Nazi groups are not on the whole more common than in other countries and represent a relatively low security risk, the tolerant attitude of the authorities towards neo-Nazi-organised events has led to a boom in private neo-Nazi social gatherings/parties/concerts; because such activities are not prohibited by law per se, Slovenia has become "a veritable Mecca for international activity and cooperation of extremists", according to a parliamentary investigative committee looking into the matter.

These are all matter of fact statements, and the passages you object to are in fact the findings of a parliamentary investigative committee. I must reiterate: statements of fact can be either correct or incorrect, bias doesn't factor into it. So, do you think the facts stated in the above paragraph may be straight out incorrect because Mladina has a track record of false reporting (e.g. that it has misstated and misquoted the findings of the committee or even entirely fabricated them), or are they likely to be factual regardless of the editorial stance of the publication?

Look, you haven't really answered my argument: Erik Valenčič has contributed reporting on the subject for both Mladina and RTV, so why is his reporting biased and untrustworthy when published in Mladina but not RTV? And N1 has only been around for a year or so, surely you can't expect it to be a ready substitute - and, if it did, it would certainly build off of and expand upon the existing reporting from Mladina, which simply is one of the main - if not the main - source of original reporting about the SLO far-right.

Look, let me just give one final example: Mladina was the pre-eminent dissident publication of the late Yugoslav era. If we duly applied your standards, Mladina revelations could not be used in articles about the Yugoslav state and society of the late 1980s and early 1990s not only if Wikipedia existed at the time but even now or in the future, since it was clearly biased against the Yugoslav political and societal model and the Yugoslav authorities so all of its content on this subject is inherently forever tainted.

Finally, I must object to your use of issues templates on the page. The only template that could be justified is the unreliable sources one since this is what you're disputing (even though unjustifiably IMO - refer back to the citation form the reliable sources guidelines at the top). On the other hand, the single source is unjustified prima facie (since it refers to notability, and the topic of the article would be notable even if all Mladina references and their corresponding content were removed since sufficient coverage exists in other publications). Lastly, you haven't explained what specifically you find to be non-neutral in the article - your objections about Mladina do not justify this objection as such, since you seem to be questioning the factual reliability of it as a source, which is a separate issue from NPOV. I would please ask you to put forth specific falsifiable arguments for the inclusion of these templates or else to remove them, since I find it hard to prove a negative (i.e. that the article is not not neutral).

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Look, it is really simple. The template {{One source}} clearly states: "This template alerts people to encyclopedic content which appears to rely on a single source. A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved." Building the narrative for the most part around a single magazine prima facie that has been found to be seriously biased by independent analysts ([2], [3], [4]) makes the whole article biased, so all the three templates are warranted. That's what I find non-neutral here.

Regarding using a single source as the golden grail of truth, here is just the most pertinent claim from one of these analytical sources: "The results of the content analysis of the two magazines show that they did not share the same view of events and reality." I have stated above what was an example: "the tolerant attitude of the authorities towards neo-Nazi-organised events has led to a boom in private neo-Nazi social gatherings/parties/concerts, because such activities are not prohibited by law per se, Slovenia has become "a veritable Mecca for international activity and cooperation of extremists"" This is a really strong claim so more than an article from Mladina or a single parliamentary statement are required to make it relevant and should be balanced with opinions of other people, particularly researchers on extremism. What makes me wonder is how on the one hand, you request scholarly sources for claims where it is not needed, but here you just do well with Mladina... This was an opinion reported by Mladina or a deputy and you presented it as the only relevant comment, almost as a fact.

As to the 1980s, Mladina was indeed crucial at that time for the process of democratization, but we now use secondary sources for reporting about what was published in Mladina in that period. As to comparing Mladina to The Economist or NYT or even peer-reviewed sources, that is like comparing apples and oranges. The Economist and NYT have stringent and fully stated out editorial and other practices (and are in general not accused of severe political bias in serious analytical publications), while I have yet to see that for Mladina.

I think we are making no progress here and should seek WP:Dispute resolution, e.g. third opinion. --TadejM ^{my talk} 13:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: For starters, the quote about the single source guideline plainly flies in the face of what you go on to argue. The article clearly does not rely entirely or largely on a single source or even a single publication; a sufficient number of additional diverse sources not only exist but are also already referenced in the article to establish notability of the topic beyond any doubt (and it is notability and nothing more that the "single source" template relates to). However, as noted before, Mladina has perhaps covered this topic the most extensively, yet you arbitrarily wish to exclude all its original reporting, thereby requesting untold hours of unnecessary labour from either me or other editors to suit your fancy and threatening to deplete the wiki article of much of it's content if this is not done.

You seem to be using the phrase "independent analysts" rather loosely. I'm sorry, but an argumentative batchlor's thesis (one by a linguist no less) just isn't an authoritative "analysis". And let my just reiterate once again: we all agree that Mladina has a clear editorial stance. Nobody is denying that. That simply does not mean it's reporting isn't up to par regarding journalistic criteria. Again, please, refer back to the passage from wiki reliability criteria about biased sources I've pointed out to you.

To quote the analysis by Pod črto:

   Jasna ideološka opredelitev za politične tednike ni neobičajna in sama po sebi še ne pomeni, da medij ne more biti verodostojen – poročati o pomembnih temah v javnem interesu, razkrivati nepravilnosti in podpirati kakovostnega novinarskega dela. Vendar je za kritično branje njihovega poročanja zelo pomembno poznati njihove lastnike: imen, ideoloških prepričanj, poslovnih interesov in političnih motivov. Kar je še zlasti pomembno pri slovenskih političnih tednikih, ki so zaradi majhnega trga in močne prepletenosti gospodarstva s politiko zelo občutljivi na ekonomske pritiske in na ugibanja, katera interesna skupina »stricev iz ozadja« financira njihovo delo.
   [...]
   Oglasi državnih ali z državo povezanih podjetij so lahko na slovenskem medijskem trgu ključni za preživetje določenega medija. Z usmerjanjem teh oglasov lahko politika omogoči delovanje »prijateljskega« medija ali kaznuje »sovražnega«. Ugotovili smo, da v takšnih primerih oglaševalci ne sledijo merilom stroke – nakladi, dosegu ali nagovarjanju ustreznih bralcev – ampak upoštevajo neformalne želje zakupnikov medijskega prostora. Včasih so razlog osebne zamere, ko mediji »ugriznejo roko, ki jih hrani«. Drugič želja direktorjev državnih podjetij, da bi tudi pod novo oblastjo ohranili položaj. Pa tudi strah direktorjev zasebnih podjetij, da bi z oglaševanjem v neprimernem mediju ogrozili donosne posle z državo.
   Mladini se je v zadnjih dvajsetih letih zgodilo vse troje. Kar kaže, da je preživetje političnega tednika v Sloveniji zelo odvisno od tistih, o katerih poročajo: politikov in razmerja moči med političnimi strankami.

So the analysis you yourself reference clearly contradicts the claim that you use it to bolster. Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you elsewhere, the exact same criticism not only applies but indeed has been applied by Pod črto to other established media organisations in the country that you meanwhile seem to regard as reliable. From the passages above quoted, it is clear that Mladina was one of the few publications that successfully weathered political pressures specifically during the first Janša government to maintain editorial independence at great financial cost to itself which actually testifies to its greater reliability in contrast to other major SLO publications that have proved more willing to cave to political financial pressures on their editorial independence. The fact that you're ignoring this fact at best speaks to negligence or obliviousness on your part, and at worst to rank hypocrasy.

As to the comparison of Mladina and Mag that you reference, it must firstly be noted that it deals with Mladina's reporting 20 years ago or more whereas most sources used in the present article are less than 15 years old. Secondly, you're ignoring the following sentence: "Razlikovali sta se v količini pozornosti, ki sta jo namenjali političnim strankam, v odnosu, ki sta ga imeli do njih, in v temah, ki sta jih v predvolilnih obdobjih izpostavljali kot najpomembnejše. Skupna jim je bila predvsem kritičnost v njunem pisanju, saj je bil to prevladujoč način obravnavanja političnih strank in kandidatov." Therefore, the criticism does not seem to apply to the factual accuracy of the reporting as such. So, the fact that Mladina e.g. focuses more on reporting about the far-right than about the far-left does not mean it's reporting is therefore not factual or inappropriate use as source in wiki articles. Lastly, why do you assume that major daily news publications would fare any better if they were to undergo such an analysis - at best you don't seem to know either way, right?

How is it a "strong" (I think you mean "controversial") claim that events by neo-Nazi groups are not banned outright in SLO so that neo-Nazis from neighbouring countries travel to SLO for social gatherings? Why is this any more controversial than any other claims about neo-Nazism in SLO in this article? Why isn't a report by a parliamentary investigative committee that drew upon official reports and spoke to expert witnesses (including security and intelligence officials as well as legal experts) sufficient as a source?

   "[...] should be balanced with opinions of other people, particularly researchers on extremism [...] This was an opinion reported by Mladina or a deputy and you presented it as the only relevant comment, almost as a fact."

How is this an "opinion" that needs to be "balanced"?? What the hell are you talking about? Here, since you insist, here's a bunch of other sources stating roughly same thing: [5][6][7][8] And I'm sure you could find more if you cared to look. To quote from the Žurnal piece:

   "Slovenija je mali koncertni raj za neonacistična gibanja. Organizirajo jih denimo v Domžalah in Žireh, trdi naš vir. Vzrok je v zakonodaji, ki v nasprotju z avstrijsko in nemško ne omejuje javnega izražanja nacistične ideologije. Takšna srečanja, dodaja vir, spodbujajo nasilje."

So I guess you'd be content if we swapped "veritable Mecca" with "a small paradise", then? Is the information a fact here because it's reported by a daily newspaper, but an "opinion" when the same information is reported by a weekly political magazine, even though both pieces are written by investigative journalists overseen by an editor and bound by journalistic standards? Do you not see that what you're arguing is nonsensical and absurd? BTW you'll furthermore note that these sources point out that police are aware of the events and even intervene, but do not disband the gatherings even though this could technically be done on the grounds of the prohibition on public incitement to hate, which even further corroborates the "tolerant attitude of the authorities" passage above and beyond the comparative legal aspect regarding legislation on extremist organisations in of themselves.

Look, I'm sure you'll be able to back up most of the content that references Mladina with other sources if your heart so desires. However, I strongly object to the assertion that there is any need to do so whatsoever, and even more strongly object to having to do it myself if I don't wish to see the entire article gutted (i.e. all passages that use Mladina as source removed). The Mladina sources are just fine and in no way unreliable/objectionable, Mladina's reporting on the subject is entirely congruent with reporting from other publications on the matter, is in no way more extreme or fanciful, and even most often entirely overlaps with reporting from other publications. However, it does also afford some additional information that is not available in any other source. You're free to try and find additional sources for every datum presented in the Mladina sources - be my guest, I mean hey, the more sources the better if you've got the time. But I most strongly object to any need to call into question or even remove content that is currently only backed up by Mladina sources.

"The Economist and NYT have stringent and fully stated out editorial and other practices [...]" Yes, exactly. And Mladina abides by editorial and journalistic standards as well - just as much as other Slovenian daily publications. And let's leave the fact that you're misrepresenting my point aside, and likewise with Mladina in the late Yugoslav era.

With that, you're free to seek arbitration, however, I fear it may not be sufficiently forthcoming due to the arcaneness of the dispute, so I fear this will just become a "frozen conflict" ...

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

1. The article contains 127 references, of which 88 (69%) go to Mladina. A source with poor editorial process and known criticisms provides the foundation for this article.

2. The documentation of the single source template mentions accuracy and bias, not notability. I'm not trying to exclude Mladina in full, but find it important to complement and support sensationalist claims "Mecca, hell, etc." with factual claims and figures sourced to methodical research.

3. Yes, the reporting of Mladina isn't on par regarding journalistic criteria. In addition to the criticisms in publications posted above, see also here or here. More could be found.

4. I really can't find anything in the cited material that would confirm that Mladina managed to resist political and economic pressures. All that was found was that media are very vulnerable to such pressures and that the ownership of Mladina remains spurious and unclear, so that rather raises doubt.

6. Here: "Po drugi strani pa dvomim o njeni organski rasti, saj so določene politike SDS in vlade zelo nepriljubljene v javnosti in sprožajo močan odpor." An expert on political extremisms says that he doubts about the organic growth of the far right in Slovenia. This goes against the claim currently in the article. Also here: "Kar se tiče Slovenije, zaenkrat ne moremo govoriti o opazni, močni skrajno desni stranki." [At the moment there is no notable, strong far-right party in Slovenia]. This also does not exactly confirm the thesis about Slovenia being a far-right Mecca.

7. You should refrain from personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

I'm going to file a request for a third opinion. --TadejM ^{my talk} 16:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@TadejM: When writing the article, I did a thorough search for all published sources on the matter, and Mladina's article archive was a great help. I cited every available source that backed up the same claim for good measure, so there's overlapping references, so the bare share of Mladina references does not necessarily tell you much. Nonetheless, Mladina has extensively covered the phenomenon of far-right movements, so it definitively has a very extensive archive of content on the subject which I hold is fair game.

I think you've just pulled the "poor editorial process" claim out of thin air just now. And if the editorial process was your main concern all along, you should have said so from the beginning and furnished evidence to justify your claim instead of engaging in a motte-and-bailey fallacy with arguments about the publication's leftist editorial stance (which is a separate matter). And "known criticisms" doesn't mean anything.

Referring to this: Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. And how can you in good conscience try to justify the use of this template imediately after noting the article has 127 references, including about 50 that you don't object to whatsoever? I mean, do you really not understand, or are you screwing with me, or what?

Did you skip over the additional sources that I provided you that make the same point? Is the Žurnal article "sensationalistic" - what will you compliment it with?

I'm sorry, but I don't intend to read 200 pages of two decades old batchlors' theses. Not least because based on a perusal, you seem to be misrepresenting what they claim. If there's specific claims in there that back up your assertion, please, point them out. But the mere fact that some student wrote an argumentative thesis about implicit negative bias in word choice in Mladina articles (not excluding opinion pieces) about opponents of homosexuality doesn't really do anything to prove your point. The existance of criticism isn't proof or unreliability. Especially since you do not apply the same standard to the sources you do find reliable. I mean, are you really trying to say that RTV hasn't been criticised as being biased towards the left? Are we living in the same country?

Regarding the Simič article, Mladina claims that they did not receive the court summons resulting in a default ruling that did not evaluate the veracity of Mladina's reporting.[9] Accusing media organisations of lying and suing them seems to be Simič's favourite passtime, by the way.[10]

Really, you can't? How about this passage:

   Ko je po parlamentarnih volitvah leta 2004 mesto predsednika vlade prevzel vodja SDS Janez Janša, so nekatera državna in z državno povezana podjetja iz Mladine umaknila oglase. Mladina je v dveh letih po menjavi vlade izgubila za skoraj milijon evrov prihodkov od prodaje, čeprav je ostala naklada enaka ali se je nekoliko dvignila – kar naj bi bil za oglaševalce najpomembnejši podatek.

Or, as the editor-in-chief Repovž put it in the NYT back then:

   Grega Repovz, editor of Mladina, an influential left-of-center political weekly whose covers feature mocking caricatures of the prime minister - including a recent one depicting him as a crying chicken - says that after Jansa came to power, such companies stopped advertising in the pages of Mladina, nearly putting the magazine out of business.[11]

So what exactly are you saying? That Mladina is somehow not only biased towards the left, but also caved to financial pressures and is now also biased towards the right at the same time? How does this make sense? And if it caved, why the continued financial pressure then? But let's put the issue of whether "Mladina managed to resist political and economic pressures" aside for a moment since we can't confirm it didn't as you say, because we know that in the same period, Delo, Večer, STA, Primorske novice, RTV, STA ... DID cave to political pressure. I mean, Pod črto has contributed reporting on this subject as part of the same project that you reference. Do you not know this and just spaced out while reading the paragraphs where I explicitly repeatedly pointed this out to you, or are you intentionally lying by omission by turning a blind eye to facts that undermine your argument? Which one is it? Is Delo a reliable source or not? Please, do tell.

And finally, as the article clearly states:

   [...] Neo-Nazis have also established cordial relations with their foreign counterparts, mainly those from neighbouring countries. Though neo-Nazi groups are not on the whole more common than in other countries and represent a relatively low security risk, the tolerant attitude of the authorities towards neo-Nazi-organised events has led to a boom in private neo-Nazi social gatherings/parties/concerts; because such activities are not prohibited by law per se, Slovenia has become "a veritable Mecca for international activity and cooperation of extremists" [...]

Now, do you really not understand the Mecca analogy (prispodoba, as we would say)? You know about the pilgrimage to Mecca, right? Wikipedia even has an article about it. I mean, pardon the sarcasm, but come on. You also seem to neglect the distinction between far-right parties (which the article quite purposely omits, even though SNS and DOM definitely warrant a mention) and far-right groups and movements. BTW did you even check the additional sources I gave you?

Lastly, I feel that I have refrained from personal attacks. However, I'm definitely exasperated and irked about having to rebut/defend against what I feel are at best incoherent and half-assed and at worst dishonest arguments all day long, and I don't doubt that it shows.

Yes please do, and let's hope reason prevails.

I wish all a merry Christmas and happy holidays, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I have posted a request for a third opinion and will not discuss this any further at this moment. Merry Christmas, --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion has taken place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Here is a brief summary; Jay Hodec may write his own. As Jay Hodec is currently busy and can for this reason currently only edit MED articles, the article is open for editing to anyone. While there has been no agreement regarding the reliability of Mladina, it has been established that it is not a first-tier but rather second- or third-tier magazine. Mladina is better than Nova24, but there is still a lot of editorialising and occasionaly insufficient fact-checking, confirmed both in the court and in front of the journalist tribunal. Nonetheless, they also do serious investigative journalism particularly in niche topics not sufficiently covered by other media (like this one) so references to Mladina should not be massively deleted but should be evaluated case by case, cross-checked and only removed if there are some dubious outlying claims that fall outside the general media narrative or in case of claims about living persons that may be constructed to be libellous and can't be confirmed elsewhere. If possible, the article should be complemented with material from diverse sources (this will perhaps now be more easy than when the article was created). The sentence on the far-right being low-risk in Slovenia but Slovenia being a far-right Mecca should be rephrased, properly attributed and balanced with opinions of experts and other sources that don't attribute great political popularity to the far-right in Slovenia. Also a /* Political parties */ section should be added. Perhaps the article should be renamed to Far-right in Slovenia (or along this line), which will be discussed at a later point. --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I would just clarify that I don't think it has been definitively established that Mladina has significant lower editorial fact-checking standards / accuracy of reporting than other prominent SLO media we agreed were "first-tier" since no comparison of the frequency or severity of such blunders was made. I also find the merits of the court rulings against Mladina for false reporting dubious.

I also think that TadejM has consistently misinterpreted the "Mecca" claim in the wiki article which actually refers to the (de jure or de facto) legality of private neo-Nazi concerts/gatherings in SLO and consequent foreign attendance at such events from countries where such events are strictly forbidden, as I've previously repeatedly noted. I have furnished additional sources from other publications to the same effect.

And I'd just like to further elaborate that Mladina is a weekly current affairs magazine rather than a daily news magazine which may allow it to cover said "niche" topics in greater depth since journalists at daily news publications can face constraints regarding article length, topic, and number (lower word count limit per article, more general interest coverage, and greater number of articles per week required by employer), hampering investigative journalism.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Please note that all such articles in this category are entitled "Far-right politics in [country]", so there seems to be community consensus around such a naming convention. I don't know if we should buck the trend without broader consensus.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding fact-checking, Lenart Kučić said it best:[12] "The Slovenian media persistently reinforce the image of the country as a battleground between the imaginary Murgle and Grosuplje, which was imposed on the public by the post-independence politics. [...] No fact-checking team has yet been trained and introduced by any editorial board - not even those whose way and nature of work makes them the most prone to errors, conflicts of interest and undetected Blairite practices."

It would be great if there was any published comparison on this topic, but there is no hope it will soon be published. Even if it was, there would be disagreements about its quality and pertinence. At the moment, we can only make an educated assessment based on the sum of the court judgements pointing to a lack of fact-checking,[13] the adjudications by the journalist tribunal pointing to a lack of fact-checking,[14][15] and the general criteria: transparency of ownership, political impartiality, and the general views of other media people (who may or may not have vested interest).[16] None of these is hard proof, but a caution is warranted in any case. Also there is no reason to assume all articles (or journalists) are of the same quality. Significant editorialising, mixing of facts and opinion, makes an article less trustworthy.

Regarding the Mecca claim, I understand it is about foreign private attendance at far-right events, but the manner of presentation matters. As mentioned, it should be put in the relevant context.

Regarding the title, yes, this is a topic for a wider community. Nevertheless, there is an established procedure for this, which is Wikipedia:Requested moves. --TadejM ^{my talk} 01:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@TadejM: From what I hear, reducing fact-checking standards and editorial oversight is a common cost-cutting measure that publications use to cope with decreasing revenue from print and subscriptions, shifting to clickbait, human interest and volume instead of carefully researched and accurate long-form investigative reporting. This is apparently a pervasive and global problem in contemporary journalism.

Well, a good start would be to just compare and contrast the frequency and severity of NČR's rulings against "first-tier" publications. If these are roughly comparable to rulings against Mladina, Mladina's lesser reliability cannot be claimed based on this metric.

Again, bilious ideological opinion pieces lambasting Mladina really aren't a measure of reliability (but let me just note the irony of the author saying that the NČR is controlled by Mladina's allies). You can find just as many if not more directed against "first-tier" publications, you just aren't looking for them.

I thought mentioning that neo-Nazis are not more numerous or a greater security risk in SLO in the same sentence was the relevant context.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The missing context is the expert opinion that the organic growth of the far right in Slovenia is limited,[17] as well as the fact that there is no notable far-right party in Slovenia.[18][19] It would be better to say that the far right is marginal in Slovenia compared to the neighbouring countries (Italy, Croatia, Hungary).[20][21] This directly contrasts with the description of Slovenia as a far-right Mecca, no matter what is understood under this 'Mecca', or at least puts it in an entirely different light. It makes it clear that in Slovenia, the far right is no political force. With its concerts and parties it rather resembles "folklore" or an underground culture. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@TadejM: How in the hell are you still not getting this?!?! I have clearly explained this how many times now?

Look, I'm sorry, but if you intentionally or unintentionally fail to engage at least so much as not to keep raising the same objection (that is build on a false premise) again and again and then ignoring the explanations ad nauseum, your objection is to be considered moot and the dispute resolved since one party is clearly not honestly engaging in the dispute resolution process.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is you who don't get it. How can you after all this talk write "I thought mentioning that neo-Nazis are not more numerous or a greater security risk in SLO in the same sentence was the relevant context." Is it not clear that saying this or saying that "the organic growth of the far right in Slovenia is limited" and "there is no notable far-right party in Slovenia" is not the same? What you say does not stand in direct contrast to the "Mecca" claim, while what these sources do does. Anyway, feel welcome to consider this dispute moot if it easier for you to live on this way. --TadejM ^{my talk} 08:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@TadejM: I'm awaiting 3O since it's pointless for me to try and refute proof by assertion. Please, do not make changes to this section until 3O is forthcoming. If this is your only substantive objection to the article in its present form and all others stem from this one, I intend to regard all your objections as groundless.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There will be no 3O as the request has been removed as stale.[22] --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Šiško

Any source for classifying Šiško as a "fringe far-right politician"? He objects to this designation [23] and I will remove it if there is no source. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this unsourced statement (as per WP:BLPRS). When I have more time, I'll do a more thorough reading to possibly remove other potentially libellous information. --TadejM ^{my talk} 22:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@TadejM: Here's the BBC:

   "Fringe far-right politician Andrej Sisko [...]"[24]

Or N1:

   "[...] far-right politician Andrej Sisko [...] who also heads Gibanje Zedinjena Slovenija, a fringe nationalist party [...]"[25]

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems fine now, thank you. --TadejM ^{my talk} 02:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)