Talk:Law and Justice/Archives/2021/April

Infobox - ideology/position; March 2021
The ideology section needs to be cleared up definitely. I'm proposing to move the "Factions" section to the lead section, including "State capitalism, Illiberalism, Anti-German and Anti-Russian sentiment" since they aren't ideologies. I would prefer to get this discussed first since, in the past month, ideologies were added/changed without consensus.


 * The political position must also be changed. (Right-wing → Right-wing to far-right)--Storm598 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed before. Vacant0 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for a second discussion. I don't think the discussion was enough then.--Storm598 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no debate what-so-ever about their position, they are a far-right party. No evidence of dispute is present, the far-right is right-wing. Anyone can find an article about a far-right party that claims they are right-wing...and that would be 100% accurate because the far-right is right-wing, it's akin to a tautology, one is a subset of the other - this is not evidence of a dispute. This "X to Y" approach is WP:SYNTH and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH in cases where no actual eviddence of a dispute is present, it is misrepresenting what sources actually say which is that this party is right-wing broadly speaking and specifically it is on the far-right of the right-wing. Bacondrum 02:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus in the discussion above is crystal clear, "far-right" is well-supported, and there are no grounds for re-opening the discussion. It appears to me that Storm598 is being disruptive as the result of a personal POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't talk recklessly without knowing anything. As you can see from the history of the document, I was trying to correct PiS's "Right-wing" as "Right-wing to far-right" and the editing was returned. #, #, # And I totally agree that PiS is "Far-right". I don't think PiS is "Right-wing" at all.--Storm598 (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have consistently argued from the beginning that PiS is a "Far -right" party. However, while others claimed to be "Right-wing," they were embarrassed, they were forced to come up with a compromise. I totally agree with Bacondrum's editing.--Storm598 (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * well, most of the sources above say that PiS is right-wing/national conservative/eurosceptic. Marko8726 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right-wing There are still enough sources which call PiS right-wing: Marko8726 (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's wrong to write "Right-wing" at least. It is right to write "Right-wing to Far-right."--Storm598 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since has pinged me, I will give my opinion. The position of this party is disputed and an academic/scholar source considered Law and Justice as centre-right The Baltic Sea Region : A Comprehensive Guide : History, Politics, Culture and Economy of a European Role Model, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 15 septembre 2017, 364 p. ISBN 978-3-8305-1727-6 that you can see here : https://books.google.fr/books?id=4g1CDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA352&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.
 * Furthermore, there's a significant difference between this party and National Rally or Vox (political party) : these 2 parties are almost universally described as far-right in every newspaper (even conservative ones), while in the case of Law and Justice; sources which call Law and Justice far-right are very few : for examples, in French or Spanish newspapers (France and Spain in this case are more leftist and progressists countries than USA which hates any form of socialism/social-democracy historically), even in left-wing newspapers such as French Libération, Le Monde or Le Monde diplomatique; journalists generally use only "conservative" sometimes "ultraconservative" label but never considered Law and Justice far-right : 1, Le Monde calls Law and Justice ultraconservative and only labels Confederation as the main Polish far-right party with this sentence : "In a country where the far right rarely crosses the threshold allowing it to have elected officials". Right-wing is not systematically a broad term (tautology for Bacondrum) which emcompass both centre-right and far-right, in some cases right-wing is synonym with "moderate right" a bit conservative than centre-right (German's CDU of Angela Merkel is an example of centre-right policies) but strongly attached to (christian) democracy and opposed to racism : e.g. Portuguese CDS – People's Party which is widely called "right-wing" by Portuguese medias (centre-right in Portuguese context is labeled to Social Democratic Party (Portugal) principally), Portuguese CDS - People's Party is an ally of Angela Merkel in the European Parliament. Currently, Law and Justice is an ally of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (and formerly Theresa May), and nobody considered UK Conservatives as far-right extremists.
 * Bacondrum, you have to understand that we are in English Wikipedia and that many users are American : in non-Anglo-Saxons Western Europe (UK excluded so) Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are seen as centrist or centre-right while in the US they will be seen as centre-left (and sometimes left-wing). Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or Paul Gosar are widely racists and hate Arabs, Muslims and Arab/Africans countries, but no one add far-right label in the Republican Party page because there's no consensus and it's factually inaccurate/wrong in an American context (in USA, only Ku Klux Klan and other fringe groups are called far-right). Right-wing populist and nationalist parties shock Western Europe essentially, but for many people in USA they are considered as "normal conservatives". You cannot decide to remove sourced content unilaterally in parties' pages without discuss at least (as you did for some pages like Yellow Vest Australia) and hear arguments of everybody, even people who disagree with you, instead of systematically revert and then tell that they are edit-warring (, in Russian LDPR page the debate about fascism was initiated by CaretakerJohn, a user banned for long-term persistent sockpuppetry and vandalism/disruptive editing, in this matter the policy in WP is clear : all edits made by banned users are reverted, even if they are good). I understand that you dislike these political parties, but Wikipedia doesn't work about what you like or dislike. That's what I'm trying to explain to you for weeks. --Martopa (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right-wing or Right-wing to far-right. There appears to be plenty of sources that support right-wing. There are clearly varying levels and degrees to each end of the political spectrum. To denote everything further right than centre-right as far-right is nonsense. There are political parties such as this one that are further to the right than standard mainstream centre-right conservative parties, but that does not automatically make them a purely far-right entity. To place any party that goes beyond centre-right as far-right just waters down to true extremity of the term far-right and draws a false equivalence between parties like this and fascist and neo-Nazi parties, which are clearly further to the right than parties such as this and actually purely far-right. Helper201 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right-wing, as per agreement with the argument put forward by Helper201.--Autospark (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right-wing to far-right Vacant0 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right-wing is fine, given there are various sources that call it right-wing, far-right and centre-right, and I'm not a fan of the whole "Centre-right to right-wing with far-right factions" approach in infoboxes.--Jay942942 (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right-wing is fine. I don't think it's legitimate to liken Law & Justice to Neo-Fascist/Neo-Nazi parties. Alssa1 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * far-right as per overwhelming majority of sources. I'd be willing to accept "right-wing" as a compromise though the sourcing is clear, they are on the far-right (you don't have to be fascist or Nazi to be far-right). I'm vehemently opposed to misrepresenting sources with Right-wing to far-right, this is akin to a tautology as the far-right is right-wing, it is also merging sources to create a claim based on WP:SYNTH as no source makes such a claim. Bacondrum 22:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources above say that PiS is right-wing/national conservative/eurosceptic, not far-right. Marko8726 (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are sources stating that PiS is a right-wing party, to clarify I'm not talking about right-wing extremism, radical right, not that - if it says right-wing then it should be added if it's a RS obviously. There are sources that say that they're far-right, and alright, let's discuss it first before you start pushing your POV by ignoring sources that state that they're right-wing. I would be willing to change my vote to "Right-wing to far-right" similar to Fidesz's page. Vacant0 (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve given my reasoning. Don’t accuse me of POV pushing. Bacondrum 11:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, overwhelming majority of sources simply labels it as "conservative", sometimes "nationalist" and "ultraconservative". None newspaper in French, Spanish, Portuguese or Italian language labels it as far-right (even pro-communist newspapers such as French L'Humanité), far-right is only used in a minority of English-language's reviews. Even when you do a quick Google search (including Google news) by typing Law and Justice "far-right" you will hardly find any results (on the contrary, far-right is omnipresent for the French National Rally) 7 or 8 sources that say "far-right" are not the overwhelming majority.
 * You have to understand that nowhere in Wikipedia policies and guidelines is it written that right-wing to far right, centre-right to right, centre-left to left-wing, left-wing to far-left is an original research. It is your own interpretation of WP's rules, an interpretation that many users do not share. Right-wing can mean "radical right" "right-wing extremism" but it also can mean "moderate right" like Portuguese Christian democratic party CDS – People's Party, it depends on the context. You cannot transpose a particular case to any political party and generalize it, each party must be studied on a case-by-case basis, depending on the context. You have to hear arguments of editors who disagree with you and research a compromise instead of telling that they are edit-warring (while you systematically revert them in the same time, you also are engaged de facto in an edit-war as your edits are not consensual, for example in the LDPR's page).
 * You do not personally know the other editors that disagree with you to claiming that they are trying to soften/whitewash the image of X/Y political party. This is your personal interpretation and an accusation, exactly what you blame to . Only insist on controversial facts/things also is non-neutral. --Martopa (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Far-right or Right-wing to far-right. PiS is already recognized internationally as a far-right.--Storm598 (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather, I think it would be "Right-wing to far-right" if it did not show reactionary or religious fundamentalism and accepted liberal values in social issues, including sexual minorities, even if it was a fascist party in the past like France's RN. On the other hand, PiS is more far right than RN.--Storm598 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right-wing to far-right --Martopa (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's complicated ;) PiS is definitely not a far-right party, given that by far right Wikipedia understands . As regards economy, PiS is more to the left than, say, the Civic Platform, itself a centre-left, and the party that Kaczynski founded was named "Porozumienie Centrum". At the same time, today PiS also espouses nationalism, conservatism and religious fundamentalism, even as part of it is genuine and part works only on the propaganda level (for instance, even though the party trumpets anti-refugee slogans, no legislative changes have been attempted and in fact more refugees from Islamic countries were quietly granted asylum in Poland than during the Civic Platform rule). I think that it is quite risky to try to encompass today's political phenomena by using a classification created in the realities of early 20th century. But if we have to, then my vote goes to centre-right to far-right. — kashmīrī  TALK  15:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right-wing', as per just short overview, I know this kind of tyring debates, I don't wish to involve more, radical-nationalist far-right parties may be easily distinugished from moderate right-wing parties, even the opposition like to accuse anyone far-right, except themselves in the boring political shoapboxing battles. I would not move to factions those enlisted, only those which are really shared by factions in minority, and per another article's example, we agreed in the end that Illiberalism may be identified where it is, even it is not necessarily an ideology.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC))
 * Comment I agree with that this is a complicated issue, but I would disagree with the statement that far-right refers to the extreme right on Wikipedia. However, this might be a disagreement over definitions. I view "far-right" as a category that can be further subdivided into the radical right and the extreme right. The latter opposes democracy (e.g., Neo-Nazis would be considered extreme right); the former holds somewhat more moderate viewpoints. I think most of us could agree that PiS is associated with the radical right (the more moderate of the two subsets), but we differ on how that should be represented. I know that some people argue that it's whitewashing the radical right to describe it as "right-wing to far-right", but I think it's also possible to make the argument that listing both radical and extreme right as purely "far-right" is whitewashing the extreme right. Although I'm not making a specific choice right now, I will say that I believe "far-right" has to be mentioned, whether in the form "right-wing to far-right", "radical right", or "far-right" (I would only support the latter if there is an explanatory footnote like on Vox's article). Ezhao02 (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment How did a discussion over reducing the number of ideologies listed in the infobox (which I believe most would agree is necessary) turn into another discussion over the political position? This should be a separate section on the talk page, and we need to discuss the ideology section of the infobox. Ezhao02 (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I ask myself too Ezhao, I ask myself too.. I think that most of us would agree with the change for ideologies but I just need confirmation. Vacant0 (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend that you go ahead and boldly make the changes to the ideology section. If people revert it then, I think that would force this issue to actually be discussed. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Did it. Vacant0 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The debate probably turned into the party's position because of this edit by Bacondrum who attempted to label PiS as only far-right (plus other comments by Bacondrum above who believes that the position isn't disputed, tautology, soften/whitewash image of nationalists/populists etc.), but reverted him a bit later. --Martopa (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my earlier comment, conflation of far right with extreme right is there directly in the lead section of the Far right article. Also worth noting that NDSAP has stated as political position in the infobox. I think we all agree that the stances of PiS and NDSAP are not remotely comparable on the majority of political issues. —  kashmīrī  TALK  10:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about the lead sentence. I agree that they are quite different and that a distinction should be made. It's just difficult to come up with a way to distinguish the two that satisfies everybody. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing - obviously - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Far-right or Right-wing to far-right The extremely common ideology they are given by almost all reliable sources, they have extremely common far-right elements, far right topics and fit the technical definition perfectly. Des Vallee (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Right wing per majority of sources and the fact that the far right in Poland is actually the National Movement (Poland). PiS sometimes does get called "far right" by their political opponents but that's more or less standard political mud slinging (just like their supporters tend to accuse their opponents of being "communists" and such) which sometimes does make itself into Western sources. Also, economically, they're to the left of the other major party.  Volunteer Marek   17:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As of this moment, seven editors (one of them is banned) have agreed with "Right-wing" (current state), two editors have agreed with "right-wing to far-right", one editor has agreed for "far-right", one editor has proposed "centre-right to far-right" and two editors have agreed with either "right-wing to far-right" or just "far-right". We can't make a consensus based of this of course, but from what I can say is that the "right-wing" wins for now. This discussion has to be continued. Vacant0 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideology section
Can we discuss it then? I started a discussion for a reason. Vacant0 (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And you're making bold changes without reaching consensus which is not how it works, and removing sources to boot.Pipsally (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. I initially started this discussion about the ideologies list however it went onto the political position. I also stated above I would personally want to do this discussion about ideologies first and then we can move on to another discussion to change "Right-wing" to "Far-right". Please and nobody commented on that. My decision is still the same as stated in the beginning "The ideology section needs to be cleared up definitely. I'm proposing to move the "Factions" section to the lead section, including "State capitalism, Illiberalism, Anti-German and Anti-Russian sentiment" since they aren't ideologies." I'd like to hear your opinion. Thanks Vacant0 (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Going back to the issue of ideologies, I do not think that "Protectionism" should be in the Infobox (protectionism is a policy, not an ideology – by all means use the references to describe PiS's protectionist stances in the article body). Also, national conservatism and social conservatism do not both need to be in the Infobox. I would keep the former only in the Infobox, as national conservatism inherently contains socially conservative positions (again, social conservatism should be described in the article body). My preference is to reduce the Infobox ideology section down to "National conservatism", "Christian Right" and "right-wing populism".--Autospark (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would actually agree with this, but what about Euroscepticism, I know that it isn't an ideology but in my opinion, it has to be mentioned. Vacant0 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As a compromise Eurosceptism should be listed (and it is essentially a core part of the party's beliefs). Four ideologies should be the absolute maximum, however (a position I support for all political party articles, FWIW).--Autospark (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you! Vacant0 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with here ("National conservatism", "Christian right", "Right-wing populism", "Euroscepticism"). Ezhao02 (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Economically they are pro-welfare state, pro high-taxes, state interventionist, almost like the far-left except it is fuelled by nationalist/conservative rhetoric instead. Socially they are right-wing populist, religious fundamentalist, conservative, exclusionist and illiberal and believe that they should shape the country though propaganda and eliminate any opposition, be it internally or externally, regardless of who they are. In governance they are autocratic in cronyist in nature. However what they say and what they do is very different. If you take it at face value, they are extreme, but when push comes to shove theie actions are nearly always much less extreme than their words. Once the link with actual unashamedly far-right groups is made they are quite quick to distance themselves and cut ties. And best to compare them to other parties. Certainly Confederation is much more extreme than them in nearly every aspect, and have quite public links with the far-right. Even Solidary Poland, who are "softer", and have no such affiliations, is much more extreme then Law and Justice. So far-right is pushing it. Civic Platform, liberal right-wing, to the left of Polish Peasants' Party, moderate conservative right-wing, certainly much more restrained, but there is overlap as much with them as with the ones to the right of them. Right wing populist for sure, but not far-right. I prefer infoboxes to be comprehensive. So that you can give a look at it and see what their main stances are. I think the discussion what is and isn't an ideology will be a) difficult to define and b) needless anyway. If you put in the body of text it will get lost. Call it "political positions or "stances" if you must but I believe it should be in the infobox. Whoever said Civic Platform are left-wing; absolutely not in the slightest they are firmly undeniably liberal centre-right Abcmaxx (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fundamentally against the point of the infobox, though. The infobox is intended to be a concise summary of the information discussed in the article, not an all-encompassing list of all the information possible. Ezhao02 (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ezhao02 what I'm promising is still concise. If we reduce the infobox too much you risk oversimplifying, which is already an issue given how difficult it is already to place them within a few labels Abcmaxx (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I must've misinterpreted what you said before. Sorry about that. Ezhao02 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a list of the ideologies you would want to see listed? Ezhao02 (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't really tell if we made a consensus here. I'd want more opinions about this about the ideology section. Ideologies are listed above in the infobox. Vacant0 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree on "national conservatism". I am dubious on "right-wing populism" and "Euroscepticism"—the latter is not really an ideology, but a policy, thus I would never include it. I am even more dubious on "Christian right": quite an exaggeration. I would prefer having just "national conservatism" and "Christian democracy". I would add "Christian right" only if also "Christian democracy" is mentioned. I could also live with "Euroscepticism". --Checco (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Christian right/Christian nationalism is barely sourced on the article but I will try to find sources for "Christian democracy" if possible. Thank you! Vacant0 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Even though this discussion has been ongoing for more than a month now, I will wait for a couple more days so that more editors can comment so that we can reach a consensus, 4 editors have agreed on this change so far but at least 5 would be enough. Vacant0 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not really know what is even being dicussed here anymore? I do not see really what the issue is in the first place? It seems both sourced and accurate. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Ideology section is being discussed, there are too many ideologies and non-ideologies listed in the infobox, it's a mess and it can be fixed by shrinking its size. The current proposal is "National conservatism, Right-wing populism, Christian right and Euroscepticism"
 * National conservatism – already sourced, nationalism is also mentioned in the infobox but it can be removed since National conservatism mixes the elements of cultural identity, nationalism and conservatism.
 * Right-wing populism – this is sourced too, statism and protectionism are mentioned in the infobox but they can be removed since they are aspects of right-wing populism
 * Christian right – there are various sources about religious/christian right and catholicism, social conservatism can be thus removed
 * Euroscepticism – already sourced
 * Sources for state capitalism, anti-ukrainian, german and Russian sentiment can be moved to the platform section since they aren't ideologies. Agrarianism can be removed but this should be discussed too, sources for "paternalistic conservatism" should be checked first before being added into the Social policies section.
 * 2) Various stuff has been added into the infobox for the past couple of months, and because of it we need a consensus on the ideology section too. There are currently 15 "ideologies" listed there, consensus is the only option for that.
 * 3) It is sourced, however, as I have said this can be shrunk down to just a couple of ideologies. So far, four editors have agreed to this change but before implementing it we will need more than just four notable editors agreeing. Hope this helps, Vacant0 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I continue to have doubts and reservations on "right-wing populism", "Christian right" and "Euroscepticism" for a variety of reasons (see above). However, I agree that all those redundant policy positions mentioned right above are to be deleted from the infobox. Generally speaking, infoboxes should not contain a long list of ideologies, especially when they are not even ideologies! --Checco (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * PiS is generally considered a populist, or to be more precise, right-wing populist party – This well-written article describes their policies really well. They are undeniably populist, however, I would consider them a more moderate right-wing populist version of parties that we know across Europe. There are many more detailed sources for right-wing populism, and its components (nativism, anti-globalism, protectionism, euroscepticism, etc.)
 * Christian right is just a broad term for those who have strong support for social conservatism, the article describes it well. However, we can also use Christian democracy, since its sourced too.
 * They are eurosceptic and I think that it should be included even though it's not an ideology since (most of the) parties with pro-EU or anti-EU stance have it in their infobox already. This is just my opinion but I think that it should be included. Vacant0 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sceptical both on "right-wing populism" as an ideology per se and especially when applied not to insurgent parties but to established parties of government. I also think that "Euroscepticism" and "pro-Europeanism" should be eliminated in each and every infobox about political parties because they are policy positions, not ideologies, similarly to "Atlantism", "anti-globalization" and many other items too often included.
 * It might be that most Christian-democratic parties and "Christian democracy" itself have shifted toward liberal conservatism or liberalism over the years, however several parties which are now classified as "Christian right" or "national-conservative" are basically traditional Christian-democratic parties. PiS is quintessentially a Christian-democratic party, as well as a national-conservative one.
 * Our role as editors is to evaluate and choose among sources. Not every sourced content needs to be mentioned.
 * This said, while expressing my preference for "national conservatism" and "Christian-democracy", I would live with "Christian right" and "right-wing populism", provided the former two are mentioned first, and the whole issue is not a big deal to me. --Checco (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that PiS really fits nicely into either category ("Christian democracy" or "Christian right"). I certainly think many Christian-democratic parties have shifted towards liberal conservatism (such as the CDU and Fine Gael. I think that PiS does take some populist positions, especially some left-leaning economic policies, that don't fit either the Christian right or Christian democracy. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also left-leaning economic positions have been typical of CD parties in the past! --Checco (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're totally right about that! However, I think the populist bent to PiS's policies specifically makes it somewhat different from that. I'd rather leave out both "Christian democracy" and "Christian right", honestly. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright so, we are keeping National conservatism. Right-wing populism/populism and Christian right/Christian democracy and Euroscepticism are still being debated. Vacant0 (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Both "right-wing populism" and "populism" are sourced, including "Christian right", "Social conservatism" and "Christian democracy". Before choosing which ideologies should be included in the infobox, we have to look at their definitions. Vacant0 (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone here is informed about ideologies and their definitions, I guess.
 * PiS has a clear Christian identity and, only secondly, a nationalist one. I think that "Christian democracy" must be included (let's not forget that the party comes out of the broad Solidarity movement and its immediate predecessors were fully Christian-democratic parties), however also "Christian right" can be included. This said, while "Christian democracy" is clearly an ideology, "Christian right" is better defined as a political faction/movement. --Checco (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the above – it's a sensible solution. Christian democracy at least should be in the Infobox.--Autospark (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Checco's statement is clear and I agree with it. We can include Christian democracy and Christian right. Vacant0 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright so to confirm, "National conservatism", "right-wing populism", "Christian democracy", "Christian right" and "Euroscepticism" is staying? I have added the refs here (in the infobox above) and also I wasn't able to find sources for Christian democracy.Also besides this, my proposal is also to move those references out of infobox and into the lead (per WP:INFOBOXREF) and to move the reference about Illiberalism to the lead, statism and agrarianism into the Platform section. The "Anti-Ukrainian", "anti-german" and "anti-russian" can be moved into "Diplomacy and defence" section. Vacant0 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'd agree to that. Christian democracy used to be sourced in this article a while back with the following sources.  (Please note that I have checked neither whether the sources are reliable nor whether "Christian democracy" is mentioned, so we should check that before using them.) Also, I agree with your proposals about moving the references. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have found this source which mentions PiS as Christian democratic. We can use that one instead of those three. Vacant0 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Autospark thanked me for my two edits above a couple of days ago so I assume that they agree with it. Just so that I can confirm, do you agree with the changes above? And if you do, then I will implement the changes once you confirm. Vacant0 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Are they as democratic as the Christian democratic label suggest they are? I mean they are a mainstream registered political party, and they do contest elections, but that is as far as it goes, they have a pretty poor record of being particularly pro-democratic. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Also request to save any content that is about to be axed; what I mean by that rather than just deleting it either expanding it to prose or moving it to a correct section rather than losing sourced material, even if they are just labels, someone went to the effort of adding them. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have stated this above already, move the reference about Illiberalism to the lead, statism and agrarianism into the Platform section. The "Anti-Ukrainian", "anti-german" and "anti-russian" can be moved into "Diplomacy and defence" section. Citations will stay, but not in the infobox, they will be moved and paragraphs will be added. Vacant0 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! I am back.
 * Once again: "national conservatism" and "Christian democracy" are necessary features of PiS' ideology; I could accept with reservations "Christian right" (a little bit redundant, but reinforces the Christian character of the party), "right-wing populism" (in my view, it is an abscure term and is largely encompassed by other right-wing ideologies), "social conservatism" (quite redundant) and "Euroscepticism" (policy, not an ideology); everything else should be definitely moved out of the infobox.
 * Two or three ideologies would be perfect. Five or six would be acceptable. More than that would be hilarious.
 * Cheers, --Checco (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, that seems fine, "National conservatism", "Christian democracy" and "Christian right" will be left there, however, my opinion is that "right-wing populism" should be included on which other editors agreed too, but we can continue this discussion to talk about the potential inclusion of "right-wing populism" in the infobox too. I will implement these changes later Vacant0 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your recent edits. I still think it would be better to include "right-wing populism", though, as you mentioned. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add it now, if Checco wants we can continue a discussion on why right-wing populism shouldn't be included in the infobox. Vacant0 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)