Talk:ANO 2011

Hi @Unloose:, I don't agree with referring to the social democrats as Social Democracy. This is misleading, in my opinion, as that name was not used then and denotes a more recent version of the party. The "social democrats" is better but is slightly vague. "Social democrat" means different things in different places (eg Robert Fico), whereas CSSD is precise. This article is effectively a historical record, I think it makes most sense to use CSSD as that identifies the specific institution as used in sources. Interested in hearing your thoughts! Cheers Jdcooper (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right in that since this is the part of the article that describes history, the old party name would probably be more appropriate. However, I don't really like the use of abbreviations in the text (especially if it's an obsolete acronym) and my main intention was to get rid of them. -- Unloose ^(talk) 12:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair, I've gone back to a compromise version, Social Democrats with capitals to indicate the party. (As I feel it is POV to state that they are actually social democrats. Hope that's ok with you now! Jdcooper (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There have been conflicting RfCs in recent years that have thrown up different results. Let's drill down and discuss a workable solution, especially considering the potential to show changes over time. Quinby (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The last RfC a year ago established the following labels: Conservatism, Czech nationalism and right-wing populism. This was a substantial change from the RfC in 2023 which put the party as populist and centre. I audited the sources for the ideology in the infobox and it leaves 4 sources for Right-wing populism, 2 for Conservatism, and 1 for Czech nationalism. For such a major party and one with much literature and many articles surrounding it, I do not believe that this provides enough backing to include most if not all of these. In RW populism's case, I believe that the previous consensus on solely populism has more sources and agreement around it.

Regarding the party's position, the sources on right-wing overwhelmingly come from the last couple years (especially following the party's shift from Renew to PfE). I believe there is a discussion to be had, especially following previous RfCs, on whether the party should be "Historical: centre", or similar.

My view is that the infobox should read
Ideology: Populism
Position: Right-wing
Historical: Centre

I would most welcome other comments or suggestions, especially from those who took part in the former RfCs. Regards, Quinby (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Partial oppose, the party is undeniably conservative in nature, and sources (albeit not that many) back that label up. I wouldn't be strictly against changing "Right-wing populism" to merely "Populism" (as long as "Right-wing" is retained as the position), but my preference remains for "Right-wing populism". Nationalism can either go or new sources can be uncovered to support the label. Historical should not be added here, as, echoing Autospark's remarks, the party isn't old enough to have a "history", and the "centrist" past it had was simply based on Babis's opportunism. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Are there sources saying the party was never truly centrist? Otherwise that could be OR. Quinby (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe there are some sources that would support a centrist label for the party, but in my opinion, that should be left to the body, it's not information that's needed to understand at a glance how the party currently operates. There are articles out there, such as Freedom Party of Austria, where the party had a dramatic shift in policy and ideology, and have been around long enough to classify the old ideologies as "historical". However, it's my view that, in much the same way New Zealand First has been called "centrist" or "centrist-populist" in the past to be called "right-wing" in the present day, it's just a matter of the party's leader modifying rhetoric and window-shopping policies that changed public perception that caused the change in sourcing, not an actual meaningful shift in party ideology from one "historical" period to another. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• support maybe historically centre to centre-right? Since at the very start it was kinda traditionally centre-right Braganza (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

  I have no objection to Quinby's suggestion or Braganza's adjustment. I also don't object to "Right-wing populism", especially if the sources are more recent/current (per WP:AGEMATTERS), but I agree the "Historical" note is necessary/informative in this case. My only real issue is with Czech nationalism, which has a specific historical meaning connected with Czech statehood. ANO and their PfE friends are simply nationalists - connecting this ideology with the struggle for statehood is thus POV language in favour of ANO(+) narratives about the European Union. Jdcooper (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support especially on ideology that should be just "populism" (I am particularly opposed to Czech nationalism), while I would better have "centre-right" or "centre" as current position. Anyway, I would not oppose User:Quinnnnnby and User:Braganza's proposals. --Checco (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I definetly think we should keep right-wing populism, as four sources is plenty and the party has certainly shifted right (as seen from its change of European affiliation, change European Parliament group and change of political position), plus they are all academic sources, giving them even more weight. Here are even more sources for right-wing populism though: 1, 2, 3, 4. Given Babiš' attendance and speaking at CPAC, I definetly think conservatism is reasonable, though it could do with better citing. I'd certainly be in favour of removing Czech nationalism unless it can be better cited. One citation is undue weight for the infobox. I'd be okay with having "Historical: Centre" or "Historical: Centre to centre-right" in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  I wonder whether it would be useful to also have Historical: populism for ideology. I would also suggest that speaking at CPAC is not evidence of conservatism, Fico did this year and the sources do not prescribe that to him. Quinby (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe regarding placing populism under historical, I'm not sold either way on that at the moment. The CPAC thing is a contributing factor. The party's founder and leader throughout its entire existence speaking at a conservative conference could definetly be considered a factor in indicating the orientation of the party. Fico's party is described as socially conservative. Helper201 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I went to check how we do this for Five Star Movement, and their ideological anabasis is explained in footnotes in the infobox. I think that's a better approach than adding "Historical: centre" under right-wing, especially since ANO's position on the left-right spectrum was also a point of contention before 2024. For the position and ideologies we should ideally look for recent academic sources which discuss the position of ANO in more detail rather than just relying on newspaper headlines which use an adjective.

Also agree that Babiš speaking at CPAC doesn't necessarily make the party conservative. Drawing such conclusions is OR anyway, we need to reflect what RS say. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Štrúdle Hi, thanks for your updates to the ANO ideology. There's an ongoing discussion as to what the infobox should read here. Please feel free to contribute so we can come to a consensus. Quinby (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. Describing the ideology as right-wing is not quite accurate, as it ignores domestic politics and the recent election program, which consists mainly of left-leaning policies. The party has also largely attracted voters from the social democratic SOCDEM. The conservative stance is also not entirely authentic, as it is part of a populist reaction to opinions in society. I therefore believe that the only indisputable characteristics of ideology can be populism, as provided by the academic source and as per above, and in terms of position centre-right to centre-left, with historical position centre to centre-right as per Braganza. Štrúdle (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Štrúdle overwhelmingly the sources label it as right-wing recently, regardless of the policies. Unless there are a lot of sources recently labelling them as centre-right/centre-left/centrist, I don't think that change could be made. Quinby (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood, there are some sources for centre-left (1, 2), but they are not sufficient for the infobox. Although right-wing is based more on views on international and cultural issues, I would then agree with ideology: populism, position: right-wing, historical: centre to centre-right. Štrúdle (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

A party's election program would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source and any editor's personal interpretation of said primary source would be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• I partially support the proposal, as in keeping solely "populism" in the Infobox, which I am fully in favour of. However, I do not support placing a "historical" position in the Infobox; the historical label should ideally only be used for political parties which have had a long lifespan (many multiple decades) and had significant changes in position and ideology. ANO does not meet that description, being a relatively 'new' (by historical standards) and personalist party. My personal preference is to return the position to "centre-right", although I am open to other descriptions.--Autospark (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I think in an attempt to come to a conclusion here the one ideology all can agree upon is the populist label. There seems to be a broad agreement its current labelling is right-wing, but that a note may be in order to explain the complexity. I will try to update the infobox based on this, though I recognise some editors may believe this is bold. I will not close the RfC just in case. Quinby (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)