Talk:Polish Socialist Party

Nationalist?
with the PPS being more nationalist and oriented towards Polish independence, and the SDKPiL being more revolutionary and communist. I'm pretty sure that this label is wrong. It tries to explain important difference between Polish XiXth century left-wing parties, but desire to create an independent state is NOT nationalism, period. Please find another shorthand for the fact that PPS wanted to introduce socialism in the independent Poland which did not exist at that time, whereas SDKPiL wanted to introduce socialism/communism and independent Poland was not their goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.180.201.99 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well. I think trying secession is a good characteristic of nationalism.--Chamarasca (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. The United States of America seceeded even though "the people of America" did not fulfill the definition of a nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.180.201.99 (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Beside that the source is in Polish and as a native speaker I can assure You that the meanings of terms such as "patriotic", "national", "nationalistic" do not overlap with their English equivalents. In Polish "nationalistic" strongly suggests "right-wing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.180.201.99 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation
There was a very large amount of unwikified text added in a single edit and the poster added paragraph breaks in his or her second edit (there were no paragraphs at all in the added material, just a block of text), which makes me suspect that the material was copied from another source. However, I was unable to find any copyright violations through Google. Still, it is too suspicious to ignore and I am going to revert. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert my revert. :-) Kjkolb 11:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

it merged with the communist Polish Workers' Party
Not true. The PPS was purged and subordinated by the PPR. Xx236 10:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The phrase Wolność, Równość, Niepodległość
An archival document written by Polish underground operatives in Warsaw, dated April 27, 1944, makes reference to "support for the Wolność, Równość, Niepodległość" - about which I have several questions: Thanks for your help! -- Deborahjay 11:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Was this phrase (according to a notation accompanying the document) an alias for the PPS?
 * The page Polish resistance movement in World War II has a redlink for Milicja Robotnicza Polskiej Partii Robotniczej - Wolność, Równość, Niepodległość. Was this militia [?] associated with the PPS at that time as well as the PPR, or ??
 * The translation (canonical, if available) of the phrase into English.

Lublin PPS
There are different opinions if the Lublin PPS was PPS. Like an electric chair and a chair.Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Split request 30 March 2023
The First PPS and the Second PPS are two different parties with weak political connection (Pomchi-Inu87 (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC))


 * Could you elaborate more? I'm not opposed, but I need more info for a yes. Carlp941 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are different. However, the PPS strongly refers to the tradition of the pre-war PPS and it must be admitted that the current PPS is a hereditary party. Just as the Polish People's Party (PSL) is the hereditary party of the Wilanów PSL and the United People's Party (ZSL), and the ZSL is the hereditary party of the People's Party (later: Polish People's Party) and PSL "Nowe Wyzwolenie", which are still further hereditary from the PSL party before war, etc... Although the PSL has a few pages on Wikipedia due to the complex history of each party and faction, the PPS (except for the split during World War II) was a split after the war into the PPS from the government-in-exile and the PPS that merged with the PPR in order to form the PZPR. In a sense, the continuity and legacy of the party has remained, and the history of the party can be contained in a single Wikipedia page with less complication. However, personally, it would be good to make pages for PPS splits like PPS-Lewica has, which was at one point in coalition with the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, one of the most left-wing parties of that period, which led to the merger of PPS-Lewica with Social Democracy to form the Communist Party of Poland, which today's Communist Party is also a kind of party heritage of the PPS and Social Democracy because of the Communist Party of Poland. On the one hand, I am against creating a new page for the pre-war PPS, on the other hand, I am for creating pages for the splits that emerged from the PPS. DerekTDR (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems as if the party has existed since 1897, and reorganized itself in 1987, meaning it didn't disband or dissolve, just wen't underground for example. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose; there is of course big time split between both entities, but I don't agree that the connection is weak. Jan Józef Lipski or Kunicki-Goldfinger are clear connection, they also united with the emigre PPS. Marcelus (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think that the current way the PPS is being presented in wikipedia and the way it presents itself has little to nothing to do with what the PPS stood for in the years 1892-1918. Ideas such as patriotism, even left-wing nationalism should be included when speaking of the PPS. The main goal was always independence, and the leaders were often quite socially conservative. Right now the PPS is being presented as a liberal, progressivist party with words such as "democratic socialism." The PPS of Piłsudski was clearly a civic nationalist party and I think one should either add historical ideology, or add it to the current one. We can read on the page of the PPS that strong Polish patriotism and tradition is an important aspect of their world view, which partially caused their split with the new left. Żubr Kresowy (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The change or ideological evolution of a political party or organisation should not be the basis for separating a party's history into two separate entities. It is normal for a party that has existed for more than 100 years to change its ideological face during that time, just look at the history of the Republican party in the USA or the SPD in Germany. Besides, I will not agree that the PPS leaders were socially conservative, this is some myth that is not borne out by the facts. They were all idealistic leftists with socially progressive views. Marcelus (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This article describes the present day party as a new party founded on the tradition of the old. If this were a party which maintained organizational continuity in exile, then resumed operation after political liberalization (akin to the PSOE or the SPD) then a single article would make sense. But, at least from the picture painted by this article, that doesn't appear to be the case here, even if some individuals were members of both. Right now this article combines two rather different topics from different periods of history, and also serves almost as a kind of marketing for the modern party by identifying them with a rather more prestigious one. However, in contrast to the banner's suggestion, I would suggest that the article for the historic party be named "Polish Socialist Party," with that of the modern party titled Polish Socialist Party (1987). If a historian mentions the PPS, there's a 99% chance they're talking about the original one. Nicknimh (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The XXIX PPS congress of 1991 unified the national and émigré PPS, emphasising the continuity of tradition. This is no usurpation, as your comment would suggest. Marcelus (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the party maintained structures in exile during communist period and the modern party included these structures, then that seems like a strong claim to continuity. It's also worth noting that:
 * 1. The Polish Wikipedia also has a single article for the party.
 * 2. Articles aren't necessarily based on registered parties in the formal sense. For example, the Kukiz'15 article is about both the party and the movement that preceded it.
 * CrimsonCube (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, the old PPS was a significantly different party than the modern PPS, and the main thing that connects them seems to be the name. Additionally, I feel like it would be better for the old PPS article to be titled Polish Socialist Party and the new PPS article to be titled Polish Socialist Party (modern) or so. Much like what was debated around moving the PiS name to Law and Justice (Poland), it's very clear that the old PPS was much more important and in my opinion should have the main name. Polish kurd (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Despite the name, the connection between the old and modern PPS is weak. The time frage is huge, and so is the ideology. These are two different parties and have their separate political profiles and histories. We can, and I am willing to heavily contribute, write two comprehensive and separate articles on both. Brat Forelli🦊  15:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)