Talk:Lech Kaczyński

• may be so Skvodo (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The above sources the fact that the plane he was on has crashed. That should certainly be added. 82.13.161.114 (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Old talk

• Someone added "He's an idiot" to the page, but I cannot locate this in the source. Please remove this.

• What the hell does: In his first public speech as president-elect, Kaczyński said his presidency would have two fundamental tasks: firstly, to reduce what he called "the pathological phenomena that are admittedly common around Europe and the world, but in Poland they're at dangerous levels"; and secondly, to reach national agreement and "bridging gaps that we've seen growing in the past 15 years." mean?
  • No idea. In particular, what are the "phenomena" and the "gaps"? Needs to be clarified or removed. dtremenak 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess he means homosexuality. He must be afraid of getting Aids if he calls things by their name. That guy is a complete Catholic nutcase.

Please let's leave the anti-Catholic bigotry out of it. As for the question of what it means, I could speculate on several things he might mean, in addition to acceptance of homosexuality. But since this is, apparently, a direct quote, it's really not the place of Wikipedia to declare what he means. 140.147.241.133 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

• Also, the order of the categories should be that of a biographical entry, not a news entry. Ergo, after the introductory paragraph should be a more or less chronological telling of the subject's life - as it stands now, the president election results and his goals as president top the rest of his biography. Not being a news entry, this seem wrong. --Benn M. 07:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think here's mistake 'cause he didint found PiS party. This did his brother Jaroslaw. Fromally he hasnt had any function in the party--83.27.207.159 16:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I think he did found PiS (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc); but you're quite right - there is a mistake 'cause he had nothing much to do with founding PC (Porozumienie Centrum)...

• he assumed the office on December 23 --193.19.104.178 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • proof: http://www.president.pl/x.node?id=437

• great, with a president like him, a deputy president like Lepper and coalition partners that are even more right-winged like his PISS party, Poland`s international reputation will be ruined within a couple of month - just let him and his partners keep on distributing their mental bullship in the public (poor Poland)
  • I agree completely. I am also from Poland, but I don't think nationality matters much in this case. He is a devout Catholic, and I come from a Catholic family. So what? Catholicism and politics are mutually exclusive in the modern world, and so are idiocy and politics.
• Dont be an idiot- he is a great man unlike his predessessor who was an ex communist. he will save Poland. I dont know if you are Polish, but I am from a proud Polish family, and Poles are very Catholic and conservative - so is he. He is perfect for Poland. And who cares what other countries think of Poland?
  • I am from a Catholic Polish family as well, but I don't understand your reasoning. Simply because he is conservative and Catholic does not give him the right to destroy our reputation as a strong and proud nation. In the modern world, Catholicism and politics do not mix anyway. From what I've seen, he's not being very Catholic either, especially with his ideas about educational reform. Who in their right mind would build special schools to isolate 'difficult teenagers'? Instead of strengthening his relationship with the European Union (and I pray we don't get kicked out soon), he's trying to improve relations with the Americans and Georgians... What in the world can the Americans bring us except their military technology and capitalist propaganda, which we don't want anyway. We are losing our integrity and pride because of this guy, and it's truly saddening.
  • He is neither a grat man nor even a tall one. He has no respect for other people's dignity. He is notorius to reffer to other people (both openly and in private) as jerks (org. spieprzaj dziadu) and monkeys (org. małpa w czerwonym). And as for your question - I do care.

• I too am a Pole, but in my opinion, Poland needs drastic social reforms. Poland needs to embrace laissez-faire capitalism, and its individual citizens need to abandon religion and acknowledge the fact that reason is man's only means of perceiving reality and acquiring reliable knowledge. I believe that Poland has the potential to become a very rich country, but unfortunately its stubborn reliance on the mysticism of the dark ages and on the socialism that is destroying the world will be its ultimate downfall.

• Is it correct that a Wikipedia page - supposed to give a substantial info about a president - discusses current content of journals? I mean 'potato war'; is it really so relevant as a president's action? Compare this to Chancellor's Schroeder Wiki page. The latter, for example, does not make any reference to his famous victory against freedom of the press: "A German court (...)banned the news media from even suggesting that he colors his hair."(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A36035-2002May17&notFound=true) Definitely, I think Schroeder's page editors were quite right! Otherwise, shall we discuss such parallels in details? Let us wait a bit, let us write with more reserve... or the Wiki quality will degenerate. I suggest to delete this 'potato war' section!

• I concur with the opinion stated above. Wikipedia should not discuss tabloids' articles while publishing an article about heads of state (current or past, for that matter). On the other hand, we shall all understood that passing judgement and opinion on the head of state or any other prominent politician (prominent does not mean outstanding, mind you) is extremely risky from the factographical point of view. I am encouraging all the contributors to this article and to all other similar to continue update and to conclude the finish of the work only after somebody's term - or life is expired. [FrankyFurbo, Polish, political sympathies not relevant, just plain and simple user of Wiki].

"Potato War"

• (text by Goethe copied from Beaumont talk) I have extracted this passage of yours: The twins were also criticized by Lech Wałęsa who qualified them as humans without the necessary format[1].Suddeutsche Zeitung's analysis claims, however, that President's indignation made visible a well-known mental asymetry phenomenon in Polish-German relations; the asymetry meaning there a relatively low level of knowledge about Poles and some historical German prejudices against the neighbor nation [2]. I found those clauses unsuitable. The first is just a deprecative opinion and there are always a deluge of those. The second is not "Suddeutsche Zeitung's analysis". They published several articles to it and this article or let's say editorial is more about jokes. Their apt analysis came weeks before. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,polm1/ausland/artikel/985/79906/ What'S the "however" doing in there? Is the editorial trying to say that the taz article was showing a low level of knowledge about Poles and it was a historical German prejudice? Or that all of a sudden the taz article made visible those things as if by magic. The edtorial's headline made it loud and clear. The next Pole-joke is sure to come, that would make an editorial about Pole-jokes newsworthy. But it hadn't by then and before the editorial deadline would be missed some other connections to current events had to be made in its place. These would be so foolish, however, that it was better not to specify them. --Goethe 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There are more deep reasons to add the entire passage than it looks at the very first glance. Here they are.

1. Walesa's opinion is not just one more. This is

• the only one Polish non-Kaczynski-himself source in the article
• this represents an important POV on the Polish side; one of leading newspapers talked about too nervous President (loose translation of slabe nerwy prezydenta of Rzeczpospolita), a second one (Wyborcza) was even more critical, wasn't it.

And did you know that Walesa'a opinion on Kaczynski brothers presented in foreign press was quite vividly commented in Poland? For the sake of NPOV, if we show some private opinions on the west side, let us show the Polish part too.

2. The second part is (IMHO) maybe even more important. Evidently, the SZ editorial was not a general article about Pole-jokes; it was a quite neutral reflection on this affair in the context of Pole-jokes in Germany and on limits of admissible satire. And as such the article is definitely worth referencing here.

• Moreover, this editorial – whatever it is about - represents a significant POV and the only one that proposes a wide context analysis of the subject of this growig section of Wiki page.
• Moreover, this is here the only POV that tries to explain or even partially support the President's reaction. Well, yes, the editorial does suggest quite clearly what you mentioned (the taz article was showing etc..). By the way, I've just tried to translate/summarize last but one concluding paragraph, pardon my English.

So the editorial reflects also a possible diversity in opinions at non-Polish side; a German significant newspaper gives a proof of a high press standards and a strong reason to balance POV's here in Wiki: without the passage in question, by our selection of facts and opinions the Wiki article was quite one-sided and NPOV policy strongly encourages to eliminate such a situacion. This is basicly what however did in the passage (not so necessary if you wish). But after a while I guess I could choose a different part of the editorial to cite. I admit that with German prejudices cited we will not achieve a consensus. Let us use the editorial's headline extended. By these reasons, I'm reverting (second part modified). Beaumont 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Beaumont (talk · contribs) comment to his edit on 25/07/2006 The article consultable after a free login (similar as nytimes link above in the biography section). SZ reference for the sake of NPOV: this fragment gives POVs and this reference is the only one somehow supporting the controversial reaction. German press is highly involved in this issue. It seem to suit well just before the Merkel-Kaczynski declaration (just added). --Beaumont 11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. The article requires subscription, the free login isn't enough. Do you mean to say NPOV requires a balance of views? It does not - it requires we report notable facts without bias. I don't understand what is important about this editorial (and I don't even really understand the sentence about it due to the mediocre English it uses). It's one journalist's opinion. There are very many journalists. Statements of senior politicians are notable, but not those of just any journalist. Sandstein 19:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

d'ac. Self-reverting. BTW, the other contribution of mine (Walesa citation) now seems to me western biased. I mean that in western countries Walesa is often perceived as the ultimate Polish source; for Poles, however, this seems to be discutable. Citing him, one should realize that Walesa is involved in a long lasting conflict with the Kaczynski brothers. I think I should mention this conflict here. --Beaumont 14:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As to Walesa, isn't what you say already clear because he is listed as their political opponent? We should see to it that this section doesn't get too long. Or we could mention somewhere else in the article that the brothers are in a feud with Walesa. Sandstein 19:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As the conflict started a long ago, I think it could be mentioned in the bio instead of a recent attack. I'll try to do it. Moreover, there in bio we have a bunch of citations of Walesa and this could be reduced. I found that the conspiracy theories citation is not so representative for him. Normally he says it the other way. The corresponding nytimes link is subscription only, isn't it (have you ever visited nytimes many times?)? Unfortunately, it is the only English source there. --Beaumont 18:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I found the preferred version in the same source (nytimes; published the day after). So I correct the text (translation improved). --Beaumont 19:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Being able to identify one twin from another is not trivia; the two politicians are identical twins who appear together frequently at public events, and Lech's mole is often the only clue as to which is which. It's an unusual situation, and as such this is not simply a cutesy factoid (it was mentioned in The Economist, among other media, if we really want to source it). I have restored this to the introduction.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 12:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be sourced.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily; we already have a picture of him, clearly showing the mole in question. It certainly wouldn't hurt to add a link to an article mentioning it, but in this case the picture is worth the proverbial thousand words.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is our goal to become the most reliable encyclopedia in the world, and to achieve this we should reference each and every fact. So if you have a reference for the mole, by all means, please add it :) It's a small mole for this article, but a great one for Wikipedia :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

White space

Please fix it, or I will delete some boxes. Adam 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

sounds fearsome. But I'm too fresh to understand. Could you point out the white spaces? Could you be more specific about the boxes that you wish to delete? --Beaumont 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after a while I got it... There is a general problem with Template:Infobox_President. I guess we will not solve it by deleting the infobox --Beaumont (@) 23:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Et hop, white space disappears. --Beaumont (@) 17:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Opposition

we should knew that Lech was in polish opposition—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umedard (talk • contribs) .

Potato

The headline Diplomatic row with Germany of the article is POV. There was no row with Germany regarding potato remark. I would understand if remark was delivered by German official, but it was delivered by press and press do not correspond classification as state, row between states (as current headline implies). I suggesting to rename it simple, something like - Potato, Row over potato remark or just Potato remark. Probably article should state what potato means in Polish folklore also. M.K. 18:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is hard to see it as a diplomatic row between states. On the other hand, the title should be neutral and summarizing somehow the situation. IMHO, a simple potato is not. AFAIK, in the past, potato war was judged not neutral either (term coined by press) and reverted to the present version. But Row over potato remark looks better. Could we be more specific and call it Row over Tageszeitung article? --Beaumont (@) 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Row over potato remark probably the best of presented possibilities and it also presenting the main idea of all the Row. BTW, what about folklore? M.K. 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what about folkrore? Potato is, well, a vegetable...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Great news! I do not know if you aware but reference of animals, vegetables to person can have a bit different meaning. For instance to some saying runkelis applied to person will have a meaning of villager, different goes with pig etc. While potato (applied to person) could have hick meaning, but it depends on particular folklore. This why I ma interesting in it. M.K. 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While potato remark looks better than others, it is still misleading. Actually, while present in the title, potato was yet another joke as many in the taz article; the article and the following row is much more than this. The main idea is the overreaction to a press article, as explained in the text and sources. So I think my proposal is fair and I object reducing it to potato remark.

As for the potato in the Polish folklore, there is nothing so specyfic to be mentioned. Again, while initially it was just another joke, potato became popular as potato war, which has nothing to do with the Polish folklore either. Moreover, any remarks on folklore (Polish or German) would be OR and misleading - as not really present in the debate. --Beaumont (@) 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that including potato in headline is more useful, but at least the new edition is not POV. M.K. 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In Poland potato is nothing more than a veggie with the exception of Wielkopolska where citizens of Poznan refer to themselves as pyry - local name for potato - and are proud of it. It got a negative meaning for about two weeks during the "potato war". Poles would use a beetroot instead. ~~Nirrod~~ 11 sept. 2007

Double standards

I consider the discussion about political satire in Germany and Poland two-faced: German publishers make satire about Polish politicians and many Poles get upset about it. Polish publishers make satire about German politicians and there is no outrage in Germany. Poles denounce German satires but they don't denounce Polish satires (at least not in the public). Better they should look at the pot calling the kettle black. Wikiferdi 12:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Information about survey regarding homosexuality in schools

Umedard insists on keeping in the article information on how many Poles don't want homosexuality in schools. In my opinion this information is quite redundant in this article. Fresh opinion will be appreciated. Jacek Kendysz 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed this doesn't seem relevant here: homosexuality in Poland is better place for such information.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

On the photo of Lech Kachinski in fact you see his brother Jaroslav Kachinski. Please change it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.12.80.162 (talk • contribs).

Dear anon, how can you tell? Please provide a proof of your claim.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Jogers (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, we still lack a free photo :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Convention photo

"Kaczyński speaking at the PiS convention" < In this picture is Jarosław Kaczyński, not Lech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.237.120 (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem. Happyme22 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Taz article controversy

This section has been augmented beyond its significance. The whole controversy was used by Polish mass-media which dislike Kaczynski, such as TVN or Gazeta Wyborcza, and one might have an impression that an article in a German newspaper was one of the most important events of Kaczynski's presidency. IMO it should be trimmed. Tymek (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia! Writing about foreign affairs or political changes is boring. Potato article and homosexuality are the winners at wikipedia. Wonder why this can't be used as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.114.255 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger Perejro and Artur Borubar

Should this hilarious comment of the president be added to the article? (or quotations) ;P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.131.103 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Website at the time of elections

On his official website during the elections was stated that his wife is younger by 1 year (actually being 6 years older than Lech). Also there was stated that the President knows the "english and german languages on an intermediate level", while on many ocassions he demonstrated a lack of understanding of the english language. I have found such information on a Polish blog that treats about our politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.191.123 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Duck is his last name

His name has been changed on Duck by some "funny" guy, but his name is Kaczyński. Duck is joke, because his name is simlary to Kaczka(pol. Duck), in free translation Duckiński(Duckson or something). Please remember. Duck is joke, not his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.60.217 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edits

A few editors are reverting my edits to this article. I try to write about famous Palikot's statements about Kaczyński's alcoholism. I'm not deciding whether Kaczyński is an alcoholic or not, but those statements gained national attention. Just check [1] or [2]. I hope we'll reach consensus here. Slijk (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Palikot asked a question about the consumption of alcohol in the Presidential Palace, Kaczyński et al were outraged and critiqued the question, a media ethics group decided the question was not inappropriate, but in any case Palikot apologized. You say above that these are "Palikot's famous statements". If this is true, and if, as you say, the incident says nothing about Kaczyński and whether he is alcoholic or not, the story is not appropriate in this article. It's just rumour and innuendo to tar the man, and not allowed here per WP:BLP. I'm also refactoring the section heading, which is inappropriate even on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Point me out the section of BLP that you're talking. And don't change my statements. Slijk (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." and praise "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association" and "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors". And there are other relevant sections that I will leave to you find for yourself. And yes, I have reverted the section heading per BLP, since BLP applies to talkpages too. Do not revert this again unless you would like to be blocked from editing.--Slp1 (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

But those sources are reliable! Do you think that Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat is unreliable source? Slijk (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is not the primary issue here. There is more than reliability mentioned in the sections you have been shown. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't source that Lech Kaczyński is alcoholic. I want to write about that situation, which was a national news for a few weeks. Slijk (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you write about on some kind of internet forum? Wikipedia is not a place for political games and what you want to write about here.--Jacurek (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Which internet forum are you talking about? And political games? Slijk (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, in my opinion these silly comments about Kaczynski's alleged alcohol problems by the opposition polititian (Palikot) have no place in Kaczynki's Bio.--Jacurek (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Another time I need to repeat: I don't know if he is alcoholic. Do you live in Poland, Jacurek? Slijk (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Silly rumors made by rival politicians do not belong in an encyclopedia. We can't just add anything anyone else says into an encyclopedia article. And LOL, you kept adding it to "Domestic Policy". Ostap 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ostap. If somebody wants to write about gossip, they should start their own blog, or better start cooperating with www.pudelek.pl This is a better place for them. Tymek (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

death?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8612825.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.233.16 (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC is reporting 87 people dead. No word on the President.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gabiteodoru, 10 April 2010

Correct BBC news link from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8612825.stm} to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8612825.stm

Gabiteodoru (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)