Talk:Gregor Virant

Party's Political Philosophy

While the party describes itself as classical liberal, both its policies and its political sympathies are not consistent with this claim. The party is behind the introduction of the Bad Bank bank bailout, which is a policy which every classical liberal party in the sense that this description is understood today, opposes. I have edited the page accordingly and provided references to reliable sources evidencing this. My edits have been repeatedly reverted. Please kindly stop engaging in edit warring like this, and explain what specific objection you have to my edit, what your specific objection is and what specific assertion you claim I have not evidenced by reliable sources before undoing my edits. Thank you. Anti.udbas (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that classical liberal parties don't support bank bailouts is your claim. You haven't provided a source for this. Your edits aren't 100% original research, but they are a mix of information from a source and your own beliefs, which are not supported by the sources you cite. That the Civic List supports the bank bailout is sourced. That a party that supports bank bailouts can't be classical liberal, is not sourced, but your assumption. Even more so your claim that a party that supports bank bailouts must be left-wing (or centre-left). The German FDP, for comparison, is considered a typical example of a classical liberal party and supported bank bailouts as well.

I don't argue that Civic List is a classical liberal party. I am not Slovenian and my knowledge of Slovenian politics is negligible, so I would never dare to argue with you on the factual truth of this categorisation. But I know Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines pretty well, and I must ask you to please comply with them if you want to edit Wikipedia. And this means that the statements you add have to be fully supported by the sources you cite, and should not be not a mix of referenced information and your personal analysis (the latter being considered WP:original research or WP:synthesis). --RJFF (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that my latest edit is acceptable for everyone. Whether we agree that the party is classical liberal or not, the membership in the liberal ALDE party is an objective fact and cannot be refuted. I have moved the information about bank bailouts to the article Civic List (Slovenia), as it was not Virant, but finance minister Šušteršič who introduced them. Still, I think that the information is notable for the party as a whole. --RJFF (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That classical liberal parties do not support bank bailouts is well-known. I will provide a source for that. Membership of ALDE is proof that DLGV is not classical liberal, but “liberal” in the American sense, i.e. left-wing. Anti.udbas (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

OK I see what you mean about being members of ALDE. Yes the current wording which describes it as a member of ALDE (which is factual) rather than classical liberal (which I claim is not factual), is satisfactory to me. Anti.udbas (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent UDBA-style attacks on ex-coalition partners

Dear RJFF, as you described them youself, the Anti.udba's edits meet the criteria for WP:synthesis.

Since you are not familiar with Slovenian politics, you probably are not aware of the current political situation in Slovenia either. It is interesting to note that the members of Janez Janša's party feel let down by Gregor Virant, a president of one of the three parties that have decided to leave the coalition in response to His decision to ignore the official Slovenian anti-corruption commission's report revealing that Janez Janša Himself and His opponent Zoran Janković have BOTH systematically and repeatedly violated the law by failing to properly report their assets.

In response to the report, He decided to first ignore it, then He begun attacking it as "an act of political inquisition". His supporters begun sending letters to the right-wing European Parliament members claiming that the Commission itself (and its allegations) are part of the "campaign led by ex-communists and ex-UDBA members that begun in 1983 with the aim to remove Janša from politics".

Those letters having been ignored by the Europe, so He begun to attack Ad hominem those presidents of ex-coalition parties who responded by leaving the coalition, by claiming for example that one of them, Karl Erjavec, would have "sentenced Him to death", if that would help Karl retain the position of his party's president.

User Anti.udba, introducing WP:synthesis, tries to present Gregor Virant as a covered leftist (if not an ex-udbas and a "communist trying to remove J.J. from politics").

How come J.J.'s party had no problem with bank bailouts - until the coalition partners' responded to His attacking the anti-corruption Commission, one may ask.

The answer is that His attacking ex-partners is indicative of His style - one could say that the recent anti-UDBA style is just another form of the UDBA-style attacks, the way anti-matter is just another form of the matter. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 10:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Thank you for the enlightenment. I think it is important that we, as Wikipedia editors, try to be neutral and not take sides in this political conflict. --RJFF (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, although WP editors - like any other living person - do have our (sometimes very different) points of view, including political ones, we should edit articles in accordance with the WP rules. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 14:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

...

Sorry but actually I have nothing to do with either Janez Janša or his party nor am I trying to portray Gregor Virant in any particular way, I merely made a factual correction to the article. I really cannot comment on what Janez Janša's party supports or not, or did support, or did not support (e.g. bank bailouts), but Janša's party is clearly not a classic liberal party either. However, this is irrelevant to an article about Gregor Virant.

The Slovene anti-corruption agency report DancingPhilosopher mentions was prepared by Goran Klemenčič, who was a permanent secretary in the LDS administration (a party known to be left wing, acknowledging it is left wing, and known to be controlled by udba). LDS is not connected to Gregor Virant's party, indeed it is supposedly a bitter electoral enemy of it. However, the report is widely known to be a sham so I am not quite sure what DancingPhilosopher's point is.

Nor am I really sure what most of the rest of DancingPhilosopher's rant is all about, but someone who rants at length like that does not impress me as trying to be either impartial or objective.

I suggest we stick to the facts. While Gregor Virant's party does describe itself as being classical liberal, its policies are not. I have pointed out at least one of its policies which is not, please prove me wrong and provide at least one policy that party is pursuing, at least one law they have introduced into parliament, which can in any way be described as classical liberal (in the way that most people understand that term). Thank you. Anti.udbas (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)