Jump to content

Talk:League of Polish Families

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

and also I was talking to a polish friend. There are much better Polish articles on these subjects, do you think you could help translate them? See

and

Any help is appreciated!

Sam Spade 21:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Your edits are simply incorrect
  1. PiS is not an ally of of LPR, on the contrary it's allied with the liberal Citizens Party. Roman Giertych repeatedly states his dislike for the two parties, attacking them as part of the corrupt establishment which has ruled Poland along with the communists (SLD) for the past 15 years. In fact one of LPR's main slogans was "don't vote for PiS and PO their AWS under a diffrent name". Right now after the Polish parliamentary election, 2005 PO and PiS are working together to form a coalition government, while at the same time competing to have their candidates win in the Polish presidential election, 2005, some politicians from PO have made snide remarks "perhaps you'd rather be doing this with LPR" (PiS did the same accusing PO of wanting to colaborate with the communists) but those weren't serious and have always been riducled by the other partner.
  2. Father Tadeusz Rydzyk isn't an ally of LPR, in fact he activley dislikes and is rumored to have even planned to form a politcal party around his radio specifically to destroy Giertych. They do have similar views on the economy, the EU, moral issues but they just don't like each other.

I also skimmed through the links you provided, the last one is complete BS, (hint: I wouldn't trust a page named class war), for example the sentance "Liga Polskich Rodzin (League of Polish Families) its a main far right party in Poland, with strong representation in government." the LPR has never been a part of any government, from the article it seems to be written between Polish entry to the EU and the EU parliamentry election, during that time Poland was ruled by postcommunists, it seem imposible to mistake the two. Samoobrona also had no represantation in the government (although they did quietly back the postcommunists), never heard about Niklot. No major blunders in the second one except for the ones about father Rydzyk stated above, they do indeed oppose abortion and homosexuality the tone was a bit biased (the described events were in fact skirimishes between to groups of radicalist hooligans rather than attack by evil outlaws against people peacefully protesting their rights). As for the first one, again never heard of Niklot, samoobrona is lots of evil things but this is the first time i hear them being accused of antisemitism, UPR I've heard accusation against Stanislaw Michalkiewicz being an antisemite, perhaps they mixed him up with Janusz Korwin-Mikke (he does speak of communist and masonic conspiracies but not of Jewish ones).

I understand that the quality of my information is very poor, but these are what I could find in english. If you can help translate information from polish sources, that would be great. I will try to compromise regarding the article, but I have to base my edits on what sources I have, until I have something better. I understand these sources are anti-LPR, but I have not found alternatives w similat amounts of info. Sam Spade 16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it seems as there isn't much information about LPR in English, thats not really suprising as the party doesn't play an important role in Polish politics, You might try however to search for news about Lech Kaczynski and his rival Donald Tusk and their respective parties PiS and PO, there should be a lot of info about the coalition and its plans for forming the government.
BTW one more funny thing i just noticed the National Democrats (endecja) existed before WWII and aren't in any way related to LPR. Roman Giertych's grandfather Jedrzej (Andrew) was along with Roman Dmowski one of the leaders of a party called Stronnictwo Narodowe which existed in the years 1928-1947, in [[1989] a new party by that name was created by Roman. Today SN still exists and is led by Leszek Bubel an actuall antisemite (and a complete lunatic, he publish books with titles like "How to recognize a Jew", "Jewish ritual murders" describes himself as the first antisemite in Poland, he run in the presidential elections and got .13% votes thats about 15000 people) but there's absolutly no connection between it and LPR.

Terms like "have been seen to be related" are useless, I explaind the relation with SN and endecja above and there is absolutly nothing to indicate any sort of relation between PiS and LPR.

Please provide a citation, as I have, and both positions can be included. Sam Spade 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's a saying in Polish about having to prove you're not a camel. I don't think either side ever made a statement like: "no we are not in any way related to PiS (LPR)". The citations You have provided aren't really usefull unfortunatly, and with all due respect it's You, as the person making absurd claims, who should provide evidance.
Here are some links to articles from mainstream media about the current political situation in Poland and the coalition talks between PO and PiS http://news.google.pl/news?hs=zGS&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1&hl=en&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&ncl=http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/24/poland.coalition.ap/

I'm sorry but when making wild claims it's up to You to back them up. You obviously either don't know anything about the subject or have some deep insight, unavailable to us mere mortals, which allows You to see things for what they really are. Instead of writing wp:weasel frazes such as regarded by some or have all been seen to be related (which might be true as it's quite likely there might indeed be some one who thinks so, however aren't relevent unless made those people happen to in some way important, in which case they should be directly quoted) please provide references where such view are expressed in mainstream media.

Wild claims

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay I'll try to sum up what we've been disscussing here and go through the diff briefly:

  1. the emboldening of Liga Polskich Rodzin and adding LPR, not really relevent, though it seems the names in national languages are generally writen in italics, also it seems self evident that the abbriviation for Liga Polskich rodzin is LPR
  2. Soon after, again not important though soon is a subjective term
  3. Antioni Macierewicz and Jan Łopuszński are already linked once, RK-N and PP are absolutly fringe parties, not sure if they need to have articles on wikipedia, again a minor issue.
  4. stance on homosexualism, why do You put this under history at not poltical agenda?
  5. the party tries to masquarade as patriotic right but it's far more to the left
  6. it's not only sceptical towards the eu but completly and unconditionally against it.
  7. why rewrite part of the article about Roman Giertych
  8. the really important part, You keep insinuating some sort of unspecified relation between
    1. LPR and PiS the rulling party also conservative but with many diffrences in their program and with a more freemarket economic outlook, it's considerably more socialist then PO, opposes flat tax rates but still can be described as center-right, LPR and PiS don't each other strongly and Giertych has based his parties campaign in the parliamentry elections largely on critisizing PiS as memebers of the government after the Polish parliamentary election, 1997 then in the Solidarity Electoral Action
    2. LPR and SN, that's quite easy to get confused there was a party called SN during 1928-1947, then in 1989 a group of people along with Mr. Giertych created a new party called SN that later formed LPR and dissolved, afterwards a guy named Leszek Bubel formed an association named SN, not related in any way either to LPR or Mr. Giertych
    3. LPR and the national democratic movement, that's a prewar political party Mr. Giertychs grandfather was associated with it, it's written in the very first paragraph of history.

If some of what I have written is unclear or simply incomprehensible please feel free to point it out and ask.

1-4 I have no problem compromising on.

5... masquarade seems POV to me. Left right politics are seen by many (me included) as a false dichotomy.

6. ok.

7. I thought I added new and important info.. (and a photo!)

8.1. OK, but my crazy (I admit it!) citations disagree. We should mention that certain people (radical left foriegners and gay rights activists it seems) lump them together as anti-gay and etc....

8.2. lets explain this in the article! You did a much better job here than I could have, and infinitely better than those articles I cited.

8.3. Yes, I understand, and agree it need not be mentioned a second time unless we have more info to add. I was hoping we would...

Not at all, it was brilliant, you english is far better than my german (I'm living in germany at the moment ;) Thank you again, your helping alot w this.

Sam Spade 23:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the article a bit, if You have any constructive criticism please feel free to express it here.

I'll have a look... Sam Spade 23:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

homosexualism is not an English word

[edit]

I just read this article and noticed the words homosexualism a couple of times. The word does not exist in English, at least not in standard English. I changed it twice to homosexuality but it may be in other parts of article.

Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) (PiS)

[edit]

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)[reply]

And George Bush is seen as reptilian invader by some [4] :) Doesn't mean we should include such fabrications. --Molobo 23:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, check out sherry shriner, the author of that website! I interviewed her by email before writing that wiki article :D

Sam Spade 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people like Ludwik Dorn (minister of internal affairs), Stefan Meller (minister of foreign affairs), Zbigniew Wassermann (coordinator of secret service) would be really surprised to discover what vile antisemites they are.

Out of date

[edit]

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)[reply]

Regarding Accusation

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Into Perspective

[edit]

Evidently MordechaiCH is willing to call a spade a spade. Thank you! Dr. Dan 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National conservative

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) (who falls squarely in the Libertarian Left quadrant, but tries to be fair to the LPR and everybody else as an editor)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's precisely what I said. If you're not free-market, you're not right-wing. JdeJ 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]

Official ideology/political position

[edit]

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 [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV concerning homosexuality

[edit]

"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)[reply]

The lead contains OR

[edit]

The lead misquotes given sources.Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Decline and fall

[edit]

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)[reply]

Far-right?

[edit]

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 [5] [6], [7], [8] (“extreme right”), [9], [10]? Estlandia (dialogue) 19:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Maunus. Volunteer Marek  23:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! What are you waiting for? --RJFF (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black

[edit]

@69.121.10.105: I am not sure if your edit summary there is no mention even linking the world League of Polish Families to the term far-right 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 the far-right League of Polish Families (LPR) ... (page 186)
  • Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Politics says a far-right political party, The League of Polish Families, was formed ... (page 479)
  • Mudde: Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europe says the far-right has its own significant parliamentary representation in the form of the League of Polish Families (LPR) ... (page 146)
  • Auer: Liberal Nationalism in Central Europe says some extreme-right political parties (e.g. the League of Polish Families) ... (page 94)
  • Fogelklou, Sterzel: Consolidating Legal Reform in Central and Eastern Europe says The first party is the League of Polish Families on the far right. (page 180)

It is tempting to return your compliment from the edit summary: It's pretty evident you have not read a single citation.--T*U (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:League_of_Polish_Families&oldid=1208120047"