Talk:National Democracy (Poland)

Party?
It would appear in Poland there was never a political party called National Democratic Party (Partia Narodowo-Demokratyczna), instead, there was a political movement National Democrats (Narodowa Demokracja, endecja), which spawned various political parties. Thus endecja is an equivalent of sanacja, but not Bezpartyjny Blok Współpracy z Rządem. Considering this article was created as a vandalism with meaningless content, I think there should be no objections if I move it to endecja. It should go nice with sanacja.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

POV
The original polish article is currently being disputed so should be this straight on translation. The artcle tends to present the National Democrat movement in most favourable way and omitting several importand facts from its history. Here are few examples of facts or ideas not mentioned in the article: nationalism, antisemitsm, loyality policies toward imperial Russia prior to 1917, murder of the president Narutowicz etc, etc. --213.200.154.74 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing article name
I believe "National Democracy" is too broad a term for this article. The title ought to be either "National Democracy Movement" or "National Democratic Movement". --A.Molnar (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this more popular in the literature?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a party by the same name in Italy as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democracy_(Italy).

It's just too broad a term. It should either be National Democratic Movement or National Democratic Party, and the same should be done for the Italy article. Just like you have Liberal Democracy and Liberal Democratic Parties or Movements, but they're not all just called Liberal Democracy. --A.Molnar (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Polish name of this political entity was "Narodowa Demokracja" ("National Democracy"). What will be gained by altering its name in English? Nihil novi (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If it can be demonstrated that the Italian context is as popular, this article may be moved to National Democracy (Poland).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "National Democracy (Italy)" existed only 1977–79. Nihil novi (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In English the title is not informative enough. National Democratic Movement would tell you that we're talking about a political movement, a line of thought, etc. National Democracy itself doesn't tell you much, and I personally didn't know what it was referring to. Is it a party? A movement? An ideology? The most accurate title would be "National Democratic Movement (Poland)". --A.Molnar (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we need the movement (and at the very least it would be lowercase - National Democracy movement or National Democratic movement? The article on US Christian right is at "Christian right", not Christian right movement. There is communism, but no communist movement, and so on. Per Naming conventions (common names), and search for common names (650 for Poland "National Democracy" -movement vs 26 for Poland "National Democracy movement", I think current name is the best (most popular and accurate).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. We have no justification to expand the original name.  Nihil novi (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. Poland "National Democratic movement" does give 313 hits, so it is not unpopular, but doesn't seem more popular than "National Democracy", so I see no grounds for change (but enough grounds for some redirects/disambigs, which I created).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

quote"Imperial Germany's policy of Germanizing its Polish territorial holdings."
clarification please (i also tend to doubt NPOV status) 09:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)09:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)85.216.89.205 (talk)

Estlandia's edits
Estlandia's edits to the article are highly selective and grossly POV. National Democracy was a political camp with various currents and political views among its members. No respected, reliable scholars researching Poland ever called ND as far-right. Such label is a total nonsense and can be applied only for 1930s parties, loosely associated with ND, such as ONR-ABC and ONR-Falanga. I am reporting those changes to the WPP:Poland's noticeboard. - Darwinek (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources I used are reliable. You should refer this matter to reliable sources noticeboard, if you disagree, not to the venue of your associates of the Polish camp.--Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 12:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You should refer to WP:CIVIL in the first place. The source you are pushing, mentions the 1930s, therefore precisely the National Party and both ONR groups. The source you are using should be moved to the respective articles. It shouldn't be present in the article about the National Democracy, as this was not a party but a movement active for decades in Polish politics. If you'd be genuinely interested in the Polish political history, you'd find out many interesting facts. You would find out that the National Party was a completely different entity that the ZLN, though both came from the National Demoracy womb. Calling ZLN, or 19th century National Democratic Party as "extreme right" is a complete nonsense, and even your source doesn't mention that. Moreover, you would get to know that both ONR groups are not considered being a part of the National Democracy, as they distanced themselves from the movement, and the movement elites distanced themselves from them. - Darwinek (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The very article mentions Dmowski as the principal leader of the ND movement. Quote from the source: The National Democratic Party of Dmowski, the party of the traditional extreme right and one of the first parties in Europe to advocate anti-Jewish measures and dictatorship [...]. So as far as Dmowski was concerned, he and his associates are considered as extreme right by the author. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 13:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * While there were definitely some nasty elements within the party - like any other conservative party in interwar Europe - Darwinek's correct in that this is simple POV pushing via selective cherry picking of sources. Volunteer Marek 15:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And just to note, Miacek usually edits "the other way" - i.e. he tries to make extreme-right parties into ye ol' regular "right wing" parties, , . But because this was a Polish party (and one with an element of anti-Germanism in it) he flips his world view to accommodate his bias. He's also got a personal grudge here - at one point he "threatened" to add "far-right" or "national clericalism" to the article on League of Polish Families because he thought that would upset me (here's one linke , there were others). It didn't. So he's been going through Polish parties trying to find something that would be sufficiently controversial. Volunteer Marek 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you at least once drop your personal insinuations and focus on the real issue? The first diff you provided is very nasty, in that I've been keeping an eye on the article of this Nazi party for months, 'cause anonymous supporters of it frequently try to manipulate the article. The edit you linked merely imnproved the language, without 'whitewashing' this party in any way whatsoever. If your lingustic sense tells you the expression 'far right-wing extremist group' (as opposed to 'right-wing extremist group' I used) is correct, I can't help. As far as Wilders is concerned, the very article on him lists sources that explicitly deny that he's 'far-right', so I can't see a problem here apart from the fact that he shouldn't be labelled as such in the opening para, given the dispute. As no arguments or alternative sources that would in any way undermine my scholarly sources here, I will reinstate my version. If you disagree, please bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard, instead of reverting totally verifiable content. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 15:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Selective use of external sources and the lack of proper historical background are a major problem in this article. There's no mention that Polish language was banned before 1905 in Tsarist administrative matters across occupied Poland and reintroduced thanks to Endecja. Dmowski himself helped reinstate sovereign Poland by petitioning at Versailles. Anti-Semitism became a problem several decades later, in the interwar period, due to influx of radicalized youth. There's a serious disconnect between the content of this article, and its Polish Wiki equivalent. Poeticbent talk 15:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, just today did I read about pre-WWI antisemitism in connection with the endecja movement.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "funny" about anything around here. There were internal tensions within the Polish society at the cusp of Poland’s return to independence. As a result of forced Russification of the Tsarist Poland – for hundreds of thousands of Jews the Polish language became as unfamiliar as Turkish" wrote Yiddish author and Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer (Forverts, New York, 1944). Please, keep adversity in perspective. Poeticbent talk 16:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the edits here. I cannot verify the ref for the first page (Google Books tells me my limit of viewing pages has been reached, sigh), but at the very least it is WP:REDFLAG claim and requires multiple references. Ditto for the other claims. I think it should be possible to find claims for those, but even through I dislike endecja, I sincerely doubt there is a reliable consensus it was far right. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's sort of odd for someone who hasn't even accessed the source concerned to start wholesale erasures of unpleasant material. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I accessed the source concerned, and it is highly dubious to say at least. The author lacks precise scholarly writing and doesn't cite any other sources for his controversial claims. As mentioned before, cherry-picking of sources is the main concern of Wikipedians here, the other one being to label the whole movement with derogatory labels, that could be used only for the 1930s groups, if any. - Darwinek (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Iván Berend is a respected scholar. He passes WP:RS easily. Onus is on you guys to prove he is, in fact, not reliable. So far you have just been reverting ad nauseam as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The time seems to be ripe for another arbitration enforcement.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is trying to say that Berend is not a notable scholar. What I am, personally, saying is, he's not citing any third-party sources and just throwing controversial claims, not to mention that claims about "dictatorship" are ridiculous and have nothing to do with professional political science. National Democracy advocated democracy for the most of its existence. Bunch of neutral decriptions of National Democracy movement can be found online and in libraries. You are the one, who's igniting the fire here, cherry-picking and misinterpreting sources (the quote is about 1930s), including selective quotations according to your own views and going against WP:UNDUE and our other policies. Threating other Wikipedians will not help you force your argument. - Darwinek (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing but OR theories to oppose the author. Btw, what was wrong with the other source? Am I again 'misrepresenting' sth when I summarize information on p. 173 of Murray Baumgarten, Peter Kenez, Bruce Allan Thompson Varieties of Antisemitism: History, Ideology, Discourse University of Delaware Press as The party regarded Hitler's anti-semitic policies in Germany as beneficial for Poland Just didn't fit with the picture of your interwar heroes either, right?Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 18:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mind the WP:CIVIL again, would you? I am not even going to comment on your rant about "interwar heroes". Regarding your quote cited above, National Democracy was not a political party. - Darwinek (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer academic knowledge rather than one Google finding. One can find almost anything, the know-how is - what to look for and which findings are important.
 * Western sources frequently quote Soviet or nationalistic German texts.
 * I'm not a fan of Endecja, but the movement didn't have freedom to develop since 1926 and lack of freedom causes always radicalism.Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Darwinek above. Some of the info could go in to the body of the text but it's too POV and simplistic for the lede. It would also help matters if Estlandia engaged in discussion of content rather than throwing random and inaccurate attacks at people that disagree with him - and that's pretty much everyone on this talk page. Volunteer Marek 16:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with the sources I've provided, only WP:WEDONTLIKEIT. If you disagree with the qualifications in the sources, you need to prove they are wrong or not reputable in fact. You have failed to do so, instead choosing to blindly revert me whenever I add something critical of this tendency.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Miacek, since December 2012, you've made 10 or 11 reverts of the same material. You've reverted at least three different users, and additinal others have expressed disagreements with your edits. No editor here has indicated any support for your edits.
 * You're engaged in a slow moving (sometimes faster moving) edit war against consensus and engaging in a lot of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT - basically dismissing any disagreement as "invalid" (according to you of course). At this point you really need to stop with the reverts and bring this up at dispute resolution board or something. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. The fact that you have been aided in your whitewashing campaign by other Polish nationalists (and Polish nationalists only) does not mean you have the consensus to remove unpleasant facts concerning your interbellum heroes.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Miacek, you've been told numerous times before to stop it with the personal attacks. I am NOT a "Polish nationalists" and neither are the other people here who disagree with you. The subject of this article is not about my "interbellum heroes" (in fact, I don't particularly like them). The fact that you are simply incapable in engaging in a normal discussion without attacking editors who disagree with you by calling them names from your imagination just illustrates your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude which is the whole problem here.
 * This is the last warning I'm going to give you with respect to these kinds of slurs. Stop it. Volunteer Marek 18:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The ″whole problem here″ is in fact the unwillingness of you and your pals to accept some (just some!) unpleasant facts when they relate to Poland. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is your POV pushing, edit warring against consensus and repeatedly grossly insulting other editors. Volunteer Marek 19:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My two cents. Nobody disputes endencja was a right-wing party. Now, the question about was it "far right" and "extreme" is more interesting. There are a number of sources that make this association, through not a staggering amount. Some Gbooks search results:
 * "Narodowa Demokracja" Poland: 15,800
 * "National Democracy" Poland: 6,430
 * "endecja" Poland: 6,130


 * "Narodowa Demokracja" "right-wing" Poland: 110
 * "National Democracy" "right-wing" Poland: 408
 * "endecja" "right-wing" Poland: 639


 * "Narodowa Demokracja" "far right" Poland: 3
 * "National Democracy" "far right" Poland: 39
 * "endecja" "far right" Poland: 27


 * "Narodowa Demokracja" "extreme right" Poland: 10
 * "National Democracy" "extreme right" Poland: 66
 * "endecja" "extreme right" Poland: 94

A search for "endecja"/"Narodowa Demokracja" and "skrajnie prawicowa" suggests this association is not made much in Polish sources, and when it is, it is done mostly in communist-era ones.

Interestingly, extreme seems to be more often used than far. I think the correct way would be to call endecja far-right, and then note in a separate setence some authors describe it as far right, and extreme right, and cite a few of the most reliable sources. And yes, I think there are reliable sources, such as for extreme, (by Mieczysław B. Biskupski) and  (by Anita Prażmowska). Not seeing any refs I like that much for far right, at least, to cite particular scholars I respect; I actually expected it would be the other way around. Still, I guess far right and extreme right are roughly the same ideas. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From the point of view of political science, National Democracy couldn't be possibly labelled as far/extreme right for several reasons. First being the mere fact, that it was NOT a political party. I am saying this over and over again here. National Democracy was an ideological political camp spanning the period of several dozens of years, shielding political parties with various political goals and programs. Until 1926, when authoritarian naczelnik Piłsudski overthrew the democratically elected government, the parties included in the ND camp ALWAYS supported democratic form of pursuing political goals. Labelling 19th century ND parties or II Republic ZLN as far/extreme right is a nonsensical statement. I highly recommend books by Roman Wapiński, Andrzej Friszke or Krzysztof Kawalec, the foremost ND historians. - Darwinek (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this kind of consideration certainly belong in the text of the article. However because the situation is complicated, it does not belong in the infobox or the first line of the lede. Consider that the interwar Democratic Party in the US had many of its members in the KKK, the KKK had governors and US Supreme Court Justices as its members. To a lesser extent same was true for the Republican Party. But we're not gonna go into the articles on these parties - even the historical ones and put in "White supremacy" in the infobox as their ideology. It is the case that white supremacists were part of the interwar Democratic Party and influenced its political platform. But the party as a whole was much more than that, a collection of various political, economic and social ideals, some good, some bad. It is also the case that National Democracy had many anti-semites and far-right folks as its members, but again, there were many members of the NDs that were neither anti-semitic nor far-right. They joined for economic reasons, or anti-corruption reasons or whatever. So in text, yes. In lede (at least first line) and infobox, no. Volunteer Marek 15:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reasonable, through I think the claim is important enough to be discussed later in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Timing
The described conflict was around 1920 but is described after 1935 facts. It's innacceptable.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

restarting a slow moving edit war
Re:. Miacek, the issue is discussed above. There is rough consensus that some of this info should go into the article text but not the lede. You'have been reverting several editors for weeks and after it was clear that your additions did not have consensus you stopped for awhile. Then you resumed the edit war recently, apparently in the hope that no one would notice.

Please stop adding POV material without consensus. Volunteer Marek 16:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism
It's listed as an ideology in the top infobox and the article also says "Simultaneously the ND emphasized its anti-Semitic stance, intending to exclude Jews from Polish social and economic life and ultimately to push them to emigration out of Poland." Shouldn't this party be put in the Antisemitism in Poland category? Suomi13 (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it could but so could be any other Polish politicial parties in the Second Polish Republic. After all, it was all Polish parties that voted in 1939 in Sejm to strip Jewish MPs of their mandates and called for emigration of Jews from the country. The category fits more to some political parties of ND ideological stream, e.g. National Radical Camp. The ND as a movement was diverse in many ideological stances.--Darwinek (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Are we sure it was ALL political parties? Including the Socialists and the various Jewish and ethnic minority parties?

And while I'm sure the party had non-antisemites, remember that some of the Righteous Among Nations were Nazi Party members too. How many non-antisemites must a group have before it no longer fits the antisemitism label? I'm sorry, I'm a bit new to Wiki, but it seems like there are more than enough sources to put antisemitism in the info box. Is there a different standard for the category section?Suomi13 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential disambiguation page
I note that there are a whole lot of pages the hatnote links to, all of which are named "National Democracy". Considering that they are all named the same thing, and how many there are, I think a disambiguation page should be made for them. Runaway4444 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've moved some of the links from the hatnote into a new dab page . – Uanfala (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)