Talk:League of Polish Families

message: I didn't make up any wild claims. I was interested in this subject because I knew nothing about it. to learn, I talked to polish friends, read the articles I linked to (and a few others) and related wikipedia articles. I personally added very little content. The section you keep removing, about homosexuals, is not my writing. Thats info from this article, and other wikipedia articles, which I slapped together here. 
I can agree to some rewording, or explaining differences of interpretation. I understand that some of these claims are false. They still need to be included however, because they are verifiable, and have sources. If you have sources for alternate data, please include them as well. 
NPOV is presenting all verifiable points of view. Trust me, I want to hear all sides, and I know some of this information is unfair. But balance it, instead of deleting whole sections! Sam Spade 22:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the section Wp:npov#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 (especially the inllustration). The section about homosexuals, (why do You place it under history BTW???) is a minor topic, unlike topics like taxes, social policies (paternalistic welfare rather than far-right), foreign politics or attitudes towards the EU (btw the party isn't only sceptical towards the EU is openly against it which distinguish it from other parties with representation in the parliament). Those affect the everyday life of Poles. I also don't really see what's the use in reshuffuling stuff around in the article and including it in several places and dumping stuff or rewriting parts of the article about Roman Giertych here. The real problem however is that you keep alleging some sort of a relationship between completly seperate parties. The RfC seems like a good idea, per haps that way we can get more contributors familliar with the topic, and hopefully ones with better command of English than I have, who could help explain those matters.
Trust me, I've been editing here for a couple of years now, and I can say w some degree of confidence that were going to have to solve this problem by ourselves. An RfC might not be a bad idea, but its very unlikely to bring in editors more knowledgable than we. I think the best case scenario is that we put as much work into the article as we have the talk page, and balance things out. 
I don't agree w deleting content, but it can be re-worded, cited, and balanced out w other additions to which you agree. The best way to serve the reader is to provide them with as much citable, relevant information as possible. If we can manage to cooperate and compromise it will not only benefit the article, but should be more fun for us as well. Sam Spade 17:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm familiar with the topic (but by no means an expert), however my English is quite poor and I'm apparently unable to coherently explain the issue. I't would be really usefull if we could find someone more fluent then me to detail the explain the Polish political stage. However I'll have to admit I share your scepticism, I've been trying to correct the misconceptions for almost two weeks now and I suppose by this time if there was someone on wikipedia interested in the topic, he would have noticed the problem here and came forward to help.
Your english is fine, and I think I understand you perfectly. Perhaps you misunderstand me? I will try to say things again differently. Some of the information i added may be unfair. Some of it may not be true. But it is Wikipedia:verifiable, and I feel it should be included. I am ok w you rewording, adding more information to balance things, and providing your own wikipedia:Citations, but i disagree w deleting the info. BTW, you seem like a very nice and polite person, which I appreciate, thank you very much. Sam Spade 22:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll have a look... Sam Spade 23:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild claims 

message: Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) (PiS) is seen by some to be another anti-semitic polish nationalist party. Sam Spade 00:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) (PiS) 

message: This article is badly out of date. Seems like there hasn't been anything substantive added since early 2006, and a lot has happened since then. At the very least we should mention their membership in the current governing coalition. Anybody feel like doing the dirty work? --24.58.14.1 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date 

message: user:Piotrus also known as the "Prokonsul" and self proclaimed wellspring of knowledge regarding Poland on English Wikipedia, has accused the League of Polish Families to be an extremist organization. Is this factual and correct? Dr. Dan 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point out where I have made such accusation. Please also point out where I have proclaimed myself to be a wellspring of knowledge regarding Poland. Please note that you may be blocked for continued violations of WP:NPA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On November 8, 2005, you created a very peculiar article titled Żydokomuna. You made the acusation in your opening line (please check the history of the article's earliest entry). You also stated at that time, that besides being an extremist organization, the League is anti-Semitic. Regarding your being a self-proclaimed wellspring of knowledge regarding Poland, I am in error, and do apologize for the statement. You are definitely not. Dr. Dan 05:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, Dr. Dan, I was just translating the Polish Wikipedia article, and as I had no sources to defend the translation, I had no problems with the term extremist being removed soon afterwards by another editor (this also thought me to be careful translating articles from Polish Wikipedia, which is habitually underreferenced). Thus please stop misinterpreating other's actions: I did not call those organizations extremist, I merely translated a source that said this. PS. I will not dignify your personal attacks here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I see Piotrus, that you made the statement (without an explanation, citation, apology or retraction). I also read the original Polish link and your declarative statement is not a "translation" of the Polish version, but an extrapolation of the Polish entry. That Prokonsul, is a significant difference. But perhaps you can now tell us if you do believe that the League is an extremist and anti-Semitic organization. Dr. Dan 14:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should work on your command of Polish language so you can be better qualified to comment on the translations. ...określenie stosowane w kręgach antysemickich... obecnie stosowane przez niektórych ekstremistów w grupach takich jak Liga Polskich Rodzin czy Samoobrona translates quite nicely into ...theory supported by some anti-semitic extremists parties in Poland. EOT.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My command of the Polish language is sufficient to tell you and anyone else following this, that your statement made on November 8, 2005, when you started this almost obscene article called Żydokomuna, does not translate into ...theory supported by some anti-semitic extremists paries in Poland. Rather your statement (unreferenced and without citations) states, "Żydokomuna" (Jewish Communism) is a conspiracy theory supported by some anti-semitic extremist parties in Poland (Liga Polskich Rodzin, Samoobrona, stating that Jewish Communists control (or want to control) the Polish Government. Unless one were to attempt to read your mind, you wrote what you wrote. Have you ever attempted to qualify or explain these remarks before I brought them to your attention? You can always say that it's your lack of command of English that created the very definite implication that these organizations are extremist and anti-Semitic. Dr. Dan 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Perhaps I was wrong - it appears that after all you have problems with understanding not only Polish, but English too. Sigh.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Accusation

message: Evidently MordechaiCH is willing to call a spade a spade. Thank you! Dr. Dan 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Into Perspective

message: I'd suggest changing the label of the party's ideology. A label used for similar parties is Radical right-wing populism, although I don't see anything right-wing in any of these parties. Of all the ideologies in Europe during the last 100 years, LPR is presumably clost to fascism as it was practiced in Franco's Spain. JdeJ 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... we seem to have different understanding of the term "right-wing"! How do these parties not fit that term as you understand it, J? --Orange Mike 15:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My definitions aren't that special, they coincide with the political compass. Right-wing parties, as I see it, are parties that emphasise a free market, little government interference in the economy, low taxes and the further right you go, a rather individualistic society. Left-wing parties emphasise a well-fare state, relative high taxes to fund it, and the further left you go, a rather collectivistic society. Almost all the policies of LPR are traditional left-wing policies. Both nazism and fascism were of course more left-wing than right-wing. JdeJ 19:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better re-read that article! That is the other axis on the "political compass" (the "Libertarian-Authoritarian" axis) which you are describing. The Right-Left axis is the other one; on the Right-Left axis, the LPR policies are definitely Right rather than Left; on the compass (which I do not swallow entirely, but...) they fall clearly in the Authoritarian Right quadrant. --Orange Mike 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know about that, although I agree that a healthy scepticism to the compass is a good thing. Of course I also agree about the authoritarian part, their policies of forcing their religious convictions on others is a typical case. However, the article clearly says that their economic policy is left-wing, not right-wing. I didn't find one single right-wing policy on these pages, but I found a number of left-wing ones. Maintaining universal health care and public education are left-wing policies (policies I fully agree with, but that's of course beside the point here). JdeJ 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have doubts if their political ideology should be described as national conservatism, i suggest to look at the definition of this term in Wikipedia: "National conservatism is (...) a type of conservatism which is mainly concerned with promoting nationalist feelings, as well as upholding cultural and ethnic identity. Many national conservatives are social conservatives, in favour of limiting immigration, and in Europe, they usually are eurosceptical. (...) the views of national conservatives can range anywhere between support for a planned economy to advocating a centrist mixed economy to upholding a laissez-faire economy. As such, national conservatives can be distinguished from economic conservatives, for whom free market economic policies are the main priority." On the political compass, LPR could be put somewhere on the border between Authoritarian Left and Authoritarian Right. They are not a typical right-wing party, as they strongly oppose laissez-faire economy, but also they are not a party of the left, because they strongly oppose communism and are social conservatives (sometimes to the extreme). Ammon86 11:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the "national conservatism" tag. Nonetheless, again, you are conflating the two independent axes of the political compass scheme. Not being free-market has nothing with being right-wing! --Orange Mike 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely what I said. If you're not free-market, you're not right-wing. JdeJ 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Not being free-market has nothing with being right-wing!" Orange Mike, now compare it with the definition of Left-Right axis from political compass: "the Economic (Left-Right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "The Left" is defined as the view that the economy should be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes), while "the Right" is defined as the view that the economy should be left to the devices of competing individuals and organisations." Ammon86 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National conservative 

message: Polish Wikipedia describe LPR as (Official ideology/political position) :
(pl.) "Konserwatyzm" - (en.) "Conservatism"
(pl.) "Narodowa Demokracja" - (en.) "National Democracy"
(pl.) "Eurosceptycyzm" - (en.) "Euroscepticism"
English Wikipedia have only one category - "National conservatism" (which is not on Polish Wikipedia, look above)... I think that LPR doesn't have anything similar with the ND movement but thats my opinion (I can give the proofs that they aren't ND...)... We have to do something with the categories, I think that we can trust Polish version of the article.
--Greetings Krzyzowiec (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official ideology/political position 

message: "The party's opposition to gay marriage and several other political goals of people who practise homosexuality people has led to condemnation from The European Commission[3]"
the source, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/16/poland15512.htm, says
«
The European Commission in December 2005 condemned Poland’s Education Ministry for rejecting a European Voluntary Service project on the stated grounds that it would “propagate homosexual behavior and attitudes.” The Commission held that “homophobia is not in accordance with the principles of the EU and is a severe violation of human rights.”  
»
Arronax50 (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV concerning homosexuality 

message: The lead misquotes given sources.Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead  contains OR 

message: The right leans to decentralized society based on economic freedom and civil liberties - so the party wasn't right wing. It protested against privatisation of important companies and demanded more state control, harsh laws. Xx236 (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's only one variant of "right-wing" (Anglo-American/"Austrian School" freemarket conservatism; traditional conservatism can be highly statist and/or authoritarian, and thus the League fits very well in the right-wing camp. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Right-wing]] 

message: Can someone please give me a steer on why LPR declined in popularity and is now out of parliament? There must be some verifiable causes of this. I suspect it was their crazy ideas about Tesco and the Teletubbies and their friendship with Lepper. But surely these factors alone weren't enough to cause their destruction? -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline and fall 

message: Would it be accurate to characterize the party's political position (so far put as 'right-wing' with no sources available) as 'far-right', as a number of scholarly sources do  , ,  (“extreme right”), , ? Estlandia  (dialogue) 19:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask Maunus. Volunteer Marek  23:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Absolutely! What are you waiting for? --RJFF (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If the party is "national conservative" it is not far right. A conservative party cannot be far right.203.80.61.102 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far-right? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on League of Polish Families. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615184110/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28390/centre_right_parties_almost_tied_in_poland/ to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28390/centre_right_parties_almost_tied_in_poland/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am not sure if your edit summary  is meant as a joke, if you really believe it, or if it is just plain dishonest. Let's look at some of the sources given for the sentence linking the LPR to the term "far-right":
*Arato et. al.: Euroscepticism and European Integration says  (page 186)
*Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Politics says  (page 479)
*Mudde: Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europe says  (page 146)
*Auer: Liberal Nationalism in Central Europe says  (page 94)
*Fogelklou, Sterzel: Consolidating Legal Reform in Central and Eastern Europe says  (page 180)
It is tempting to return your compliment from the edit summary: .--T*U (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The pot calling the kettle black]]