Talk:Law and Justice/Archives/2021/May

Recent dispute to lede
Before adding content to the lede, you must know that in the case of Law and Justice, the far-right label is disputed, this was discussed a couple of times already and simply adding it to the lede without prior consensus is something that you can't do, you can look at previous discussions we had, it's disputed. There's already a sentence that covers PiS' authoritarian and illiberal positions, your addition of authoritarianism can be merged into that one. I'd suggest you merge that part in the sentence before yours, while other stances can be added to the Ideology section. If you want that sentence to stay, it will have to get discussed first. Also something to add, your sentence includes "has largely been described" is, in this case, a weasel word, I believe there are more sources for those stances so if you mind changing up the sentence or adding more sources to it. Thanks, --Vacant0 (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair, I never changed the right-wing position I added a section based off what sources state. More-over, can you really find an issue with the sourcing? Because I did my home-work so to speak on the citations. The vast majority of citations I find from Scholarly to News cites Law and Justice as fairly right wing, with homophobic, anti-immigration patriarchal view. so that's what I found. However it's not an issue that it hasn't had discussion, if it's well sourced (I made extra sure it is) if you have an issue we can bring it up on talk and then BRD applies. However if there are no objections and it's well sourced it can remain. So the question is not has this not been discussed but do you object to it? Which is fine but it is usually declared with extremely good evidence as having connections with far right groups. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's not an issue with the sources you added, they do describe what you've added—authoritarianism, for example, is well-sourced and it's already in the lede, instead of adding another sentence that mentions authoritarianism you can merge it into that one. Their social conservative stances are also well-sourced and it's already mentioned in the lead too. Connection with other far-right groups is also sourced but the infobox won't be consistent then since it only shows "right-wing" and not "far-right". There are many sources describing the party as far-right and I think that it deserves to be included in the article, but not in the lead since as I've said, that label is disputed. "Right-wing", "homophobic", "anti-immigration", the terms that you've mentioned are well-sourced, it's true, some of it as I've previously said is already mentioned in the lead, another sentence mentioning the same stuff will be confusing for the readers. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You will need more than theorists' divagations. For instance, in order to brand a government, "anti-immigration" you will need to present evidence that that government has made attempts to restrict or limit immigration. Publicly available statistics contradict this: the net immigration to Poland has reached an all-time high under the PiS-majority government – including immigration from Black and Muslim-majority countries; is still growing and there have been no curbs placed on it. Similarly, there has been not a single law change – nor even an initiative – that would adversely affect people based on their race or gender.
 * We need to talk about actual parties, their electoral manifests, their programmes and their real-world performance; not about fears of some theorists in London. — kashmīrī  TALK  15:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand how sources work. What you are doing is patent original research and a case of I don't like it. Your opinion is not more valid then scholarly sources and what you state is not a policy, nor a widely or even partially held stance in the community. That's not how Wikipedia works sources do not pass the "I don't like them test" or "show me more evidence test" to be verifiable. Wikipedia doesn't have any original research, if reliable sources state something or in your words "theorists in London" we mirror it. Also you didn't even read the citations as they show statistics about in political violence in Poland and political rhetoric. Your position of what counts as verifiable does not outweigh sources. so unless you have any citations for this, or even your argument is held as a community standard, this is disregarded. Des Vallee (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)