Talk:United Poland/Archive 1

Name in English
As a translator, I must say that the English version United Poland is worthwhile. It loses the intended association with 'Solidarity' (including the trade union), but there simply is no adjective in English corresponding to the word 'solidarity'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.186.189 (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What about "Solidary Poland"? According to Collins dictionary "solidary" means "marked by unity of interests, responsibilities, etc" which seems to be a reasonable translation of the original "solidarna". Tsf (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

United Poland as a "Right-wing" party
The POV reverts on this article do not take into account that it is a splinter group from PiS (Law and Justice) in Poland. At most it is a "Right-Wing" vs "Center-Right to Right-Wing" party that PiS is listed as in it's article. Owen Jones is a opinion columnist at the Independent, not a news source. Considering he has recently said; ''[http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nick-cleggs-scapegoating-of-immigrants-is-his-most-unforgiveable-tory-collaboration-yet-8967617.html What a miserable charlatan Nick Clegg is. ... But I know that, years after the event, a breed of contrarian, revisionist historian will emerge, challenging the narrative that the Lib Dems were anything other than voting fodder for an increasingly hard-right Tory party that failed to win the general election.] or Why do private-sector zealots choose to ignore the countless ways public money underpins daily life? or The Grangemouth dispute makes it clear who really runs the country: The crisis has become an opportunity for the rich to acquire more wealth and power'' hardly makes him an NPOV source. Find an NPOV source. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A news source already referenced on the article reports (behind a paywall but accessible via Google cache); ''Zbigniew Ziobro, Tadeusz Cymański, Jacek Kurski and Jacek Wlosowicz said they were increasingly uncomfortable with the ECR's liberal position on gay marriage, support for the EU's climate-change policies and limiting EU spending on agriculture. The MEPs want to make sure Poland gets more money from the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP).''. So how does that translate into homophobia ? European Voice was Established by The Economist Group in 1995, European Voice provides essential, independent insight into the Brussels beltway for insiders and outsiders, both in print and online. That's pretty NPOV in my book. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Coming in here to review this dispute. Disclaimer: I know nothing about Polish politics. The Independent Op Ed piece isn't a reliable source for matters such as this, as it's just the one writer's opinion. If it were kept in context, such as "Owen Jones, a left-wing writer for The Independent has referred to the party as being far-right.", that is fine; taking his opinion and presenting it as a unilateral assessment of the party is just disingenuous sourcing. Secondly, 'far right' and all 'political spectrum' labels for that matter are subjective matters opinion. Remember: The Nazis were socialists ;) Not everything in this world is black/white and cleanly cut, especially politics, and what is 'far right in one country may be 'right' in another because it's all a matter of perspective. --Львівське (говорити) 17:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ajh1492's/Volunteer Marek's edits: simply removing numerous sources without offering anything that would dispute these facts in return is simple POV whitewashing. Now, Ajh1492 has tried to offer his insight here. But it's all his own OR! The claim for example that a splinter from the PiS can't be far-right does not hold for numerous reasons. First, LAOS can also be seen as a split from ND, a party with doubtless centre-right credentials. Yet many see LAOS as far-right, at least till the emergence of avowedly Nazi XA it was seen as representing the far-right in the Greek spectrum. Second, PiS is not really a moderate right-wing party in the European sense. In German spectrum, which is way to the left of the Polish one both on authoritarian-libertarian and socialist-free market axes, PiS would be situated at the far-right. Even in the Polish context it is a right-wing populist party, as opposed to moderate centre-right PO. So it's nothing unthinkable that a group of the most diehard right-wingers of the PiS form an avowedly far-right party. Which - according to the scarce international information we have - the United Poland is.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "removing numerous sources" is a bit of a stretch, it's 2 articles by the same beat writer. You can't say "they are considered hardline homophobes" without providing context, as it implies they are considered by most or many, but in reality they are only considered such by 1 writer. The presentation is WP:UNDUE weight, IMO.--Львівське (говорити) 18:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources are opinion pieces.

And I *really* do NOT appreciate being accused of "white-washing the far right". I don't like this (insignificant, marginal) party and I despise what they stand for. But they're about as "far-right" as... well, the US GOP (less so in economic terms). Which may be somewhat accurate these days, but I'd love to see Miacek go and try to put "far right" in the article on the Republican Party (United States). And hey! There are literally millions of sources - of the sort Miacek's trying to use here - which describe the GOP as "far-right" out there. So why not go there? Well, because that's not in line with Miacek's little agenda. And he wouldn't get away with insulting editors in edit summaries or leaving obnoxious messages on their talk page.

Bottom line: either find quality sources or drop the crap.  Volunteer Marek  19:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You seriously believe there are 'millions (!) of sources' that describe the whole Republican Party as 'far-right'? I mean sources at the level of The Guardian and The Independent  that I offered for this marginal yet dangerous in its unpleasantness grouping?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. As I have no venue left to express this view, I'd respond to claims like this (″stop harassing me on my talk pag″) or this (″to quit stalking my edits″) that it's patently clear here who's really been stalking whose edits and harassing whom. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 19:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At the level of the Guardian? Huffington Post, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN (op-ed),The Guardian, and The Guardian!--Львівське (говорити) 18:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * None of your sources qualify the party as far-right, they merely mention members described as far-right. I have presented sources that describe the whole SP as far-right. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. This NYT headline says they shifted to the right; and Obama said their economic plan was far to the right. I think this lines up with what I've previously said, that it's not easy to just label an entire party far right because you can have a far right economic policy and a centrist social policy, and a hard right religious policy, etc. There is no perfect storm. (well, usually there isnt) --Львівське (говорити) 19:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Progressive Conservatism
While still supportive of capitalist society, Progressive Conservatism stresses the importance of government regulation in the interests of all citizens. By advocating for fat-cat taxes they are taking a Progressive Conservative line in the macroeconomic arena. I'm just simply summarizing the following sentences in the paragraph? Please refrain from seeking retribution against proper, NPOV statements. No edit wars. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop making nonsensical edits. Your WP:OR and WP:SYNTH reveals as much a scandalous lack of education in political science as a will to promote a certain organization on Wikipedia. First, you would need a RELIABLE SOURCE expressly labelling SP as 'progressive conservative', something that you won't do for the simple reason that there are NO such sources. Second, this party really is as much PROGRESSIVE conservative as the Nazis were social democratic. It is clearly an example of the most reactionary wing of a national-conservative party forming a new, ultraconservative organization as e.g. clearly evident from its stance on sexual minorities. Nothing 'progressive' at all. Remember, Nazis were also state interventionist on economic matters, that did not render them 'progressive' in any way. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you're mixing their prog-con stance in economics with their hard-right stance on social matters. You can be both. (Communism is "far left" but homosexuality was/is illegal in all communist countries, for example). I agree that he needs a source backing up the prog-con label, though.--Львівське (говорити) 20:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it's you who'se mixing up things. 'Progressive conservatism' is (admittedly not well-established - see how short the article is) label that is mostly used to describe a trend of conservatism that accepts some 'progressive' values. That's why David Cameron is sometimes labelled as a progressive conservative. This is the exact opposite of reactionary conservatism a la LPR or (more mildly) SP. State interventionism that is so characteristic of hardright parties like LPD, SP, yes, even PiS, has no bearing as to this so-called 'progressive conservatism'. That's why he has ZERO sources for his inventions (read: POV PUSHING). Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. Just for the sake of clarity. Homosexuality was criminalized in the USSR from somewhere in the 1930s, but no, communist countries DID tend to decriminalize it. E.g. both the actual persecution and legal criminalization were ended in the GDR earlier than in the FRG. But this is beside the point. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ProgCon was the best EN:WP article I could find that fit the fact SP is economically interventionist. I ref'd the ProgCon with a general ref on the term. Their own page Gospodarka (which is a ref in the article) says this and it backs up the rest of the para that another editor wrote (and placed a ref too). I'm just trying to put a lead-in econ sentence that mirrors the para that discussed their social stand. I don't have any axes to grind for or against SP, I'm just trying to provide a NPOV economic description. Someone else seems to have some axes that need sharpening. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not mixing up anything, you're saying they "can't" be progressive conservative because their social policy isn't progressive enough. You're falling for your own WP:SYNTH trap. It's not the most established label, but it's how we do things here in Canada.I'm saying social and economic policy don't necessarily need to be in lockstep; as you know, policy is always a milieu. Are they PC outright? Probably not. He needs a citation for the label, let's leave it at that.--Львівське (говорити) 20:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The ref was already on the label. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't even have to verify the contents to know that a book on British politics from 2000 didn't provide prophetic commentary on a Polish political party formed in 2012.--Львівське (говорити) 22:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it's risen to a level of an ANI. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The name is Solidarity for Poland, isn't it?
I'm moving the page.Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is Solidary Poland. ï¿½ (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no such entry on wiktionary. The word is not in common usage and should be explained in the intro. I would, but I have never heard the word before and am not sure what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.159.148 (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Solidarity of Poland → United Poland – This is—to my understanding—both the most accurate and the most common English translation of the Polish name. See the references in the article. Solidarna is an adjective, so "Solidarity of..." is not a fitting translation at all, neither is it used in English-language texts about this party. RJFF (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. The disliked adjective "Solidary" is not widely used in English and is still too close to the name of the trade union. However, since the Polish name for the party, "Solidarna Polska", does not shy away from the similarity, that would also present an argument for the use of "Solidary" in the main header, if such a title were to be proposed. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits
Before you revert me again, I recommend you read WP:REF, WP:HIJACK and WP:BRD. You added sources that were already in the page, instead of making ref duplicates you can just copy the refs wherever you want. The "Religion and the Struggle for European Union: Confessional Culture and the Limits of Integration" source mentions Poland a few times but not the party, if you're not sure about this you can see it yourself here. The other source is WP:PRIMARY which isn't allowed in this case. Those sources also do not mention the party as economically left-wing. In the future, I advise you to read sources first before adding them to an article. I wasn't able to find sources regarding SP's economic position. Regarding the addition of Integralism, you should read WP:HIJACK because those sources describe the party as directly Catholic-nationalist. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:PRIMARY and you'll see that you will have to undo your most recent edit, third party sources are only allowed in this case. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it impossible to edit? Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No, read what I've said and I guarantee you that you will be less confused, I will undo your edit. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There are no third-party sources in the article that claim the party as "economic nationalist", "economic interventionist" or even "protectionist". You are constantly adding their program which isn't a third-party source since in the program they can claim themselves as whatever they want to be, although it can remain in the article if it's stated that they claim themself as economic nationalists. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Look here, since it's an old source from 2013 and it isn't visible on their website anymore it has to be reinstated like that. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I can’t find anything on then being economically nationalist Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think they are Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are you resisting adding economic interventionism as an ideology when that is stated later in ar?
Shouldn’t you u either remove the part lower in article about intervention in economy or did it as an ideology Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)