Talk:Jarosław Kaczyński

Pink news as a source?

I am uncomfortable with the use of this "Pink news" article as a source on the accusations about Kaczyński. Unlike the Times Online article that was removed recently, it is vulnerable to the charge that it comes from something that may not be a reliable source. The article also seems clearly biased against Kaczyński, and is written in a somewhat sensational way. I think Wikipedia can and should do better than this. UserVOBO (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Consider the source". The Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), an official body of the Republic of Poland, established to research, document, and prosecute communist crimes committed by the Soviet and Polish communist regimes in Poland, succinctly defined who the "officers" were, what kind of "service" they rendered, and to whom. I'll spare you my commentary: "If it is possible at all, that an image of evil can be reflected in a human face, than perhaps, the faces of the 'bezpieka' functionaries [that would be the "officers"] are its best example. For 45-years, the work in the Urzad Bezpieczenstwa [UB] and Sluzba Bezpieczenstwa [SB], was the most shameful profession in the entire apparatus of the communist regime. This work was undertaken not only by those who were weak enough to succumb to the temptation of inflicting violence with impunity, but also by those insufficiently equipped to reject it, and those who without any scruples could partake in the murderous enterprise of crime. They were surrounded with preponderant fear, and also with a prevailing contempt - even from within the ranks of their protectors, and willing collaborators. For there aren't any more insulting words in the Polish language than those [used to refer to them] like 'ubek', 'bezpieka', or 'esbek'" Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Erm, there was a 1992 investigation into his sexuality as well. That was surely less sinister, no?Malick78 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think anyone here is trying to establish what JK`s sexuality is, nor is anyone taken in by the UB. The Wikipedia project records what is said by verifiable sources, without taking any position on the truth. So, in support of Malik78, the Times Online cite should go back in. The only way of keeping it out of this article is to get hold of that Rzepa piece and to run it through Gtranslator. If it proves that Times Online got the wrong end of the stick, then we`ll cite Rzepa instead. Besides, if it is verifiable that JK was smeared as gay by the UB, that is an important fact to include. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, JK`s heterosexual relationship with the BBC cite is equally just a rumour. There is no rationale why the BBC cite with the heterosexual rumours should stay, while the Times Online with the homosexual rumours cite gets removed. Keep both in, and add the Tgraph. Pink news is a dubious sources as discussed above. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no necessary objection to including this information if the most reliable sources are used, and if it is reasonably clear that the sources in question aren't distorting what was originally reported. Otherwise, there is an ethical problem involved with including it. I wouldn't trust an automatic translation, and would suggest getting in touch with someone who reads Polish instead. Maybe Wikiproject Poland could help? UserVOBO (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• As long as sources are reliable, we should include info about the discussion surrounding Kaczynski's sexuality. The discussion exists and is important to cover in a non-POV way. I.e. the accusations and rebuttal of it should be mentioned equally. I feel we may need outside help to get this sorted once and for all, since there will always be new editors who come along wanting to delete/add info unless a consensus is clearly reached. As I see, there are 3 major points to decide whether they should be covered:

• The secret service investigated his sexuality - under communism and in 1992 (!).
• Ex-Prime Minister Lech Walesa teased Kaczynski about being gay and there was a feud between Walesa and the Kaczynski brothers for the last decade.
• Janusz Palikot has openly 'outed' Jaroslaw, even saying that foreign intelligence agencies are aware of his 'homosexuality'.

Reliable example sources for these three might be, in my opinion:

1 - Krakow Post - which mentions the 1992 investigation into his sexuality (when Poland was free, I stress).

2 - Telegraph.

3 - Dziennik - (in Polish) a reliable paper twinned with Britain's Times.

Any thoughts? Should we get outside help to create a stable consensus?Malick78 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if there's significant coverage in reliable sources, the investigation of Kaczyński's private life by the Polish secret service should probably be mentioned. That doesn't excuse us from looking at the original source in Rzeczpospolita, to see whether the Sunday Times was reporting things properly. If it wasn't, then it would seem to violate NPOV to include only its version of events. Robert Warren has alleged that the Times was misreporting things; it would help if he could say how. UserVOBO (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we have consensus here. We should do a paragraph based on Times, Tgraph, BBC and Krakow Post; we use all the reliable sources above until someone brings contradictory information to the table. By the way I think "Polska", not "Dziennik" is twinned with The Times, and like VOBO I am reluctant to rely too heavily on Polish language sources. User Doomed Soldiers has every opportunity to persuade us not to use The Times, but to do that he needs to show us the evidence and also refrain from uncivil edit summaries. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I think you're right about Polska being twinned with the Times. Still, Dziennik is quite respected I think. As for Polish sources - I'm happy to use them. People can quote them on this page with the appropriate ref - and then give a translation (which can be commented on by other Polish speakers if it's inaccurate). As for a consensus developing - I think it seems to be too. Malick78 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus developing? I assume, that would be an imaginary consensus you have reached with yourself? You are turning this article into a tabloid. Don't have the time to get to it today, but its certainly time to start pruning idiocies out of this article. BTW, would you have any idea why the relations between Walesa and Kaczynskis were "strained"? Do you really want to go there? A clue? Little bit of a clue? Any clue? K, I'll sit back and listen. I am all yours. Go ahead, enlighten us all. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is any 'idiocy' here, it's the idea that Wikipedia shouldn't report on an issue that many sections of the media have vigorously discussed. I presume you're aware of the phrase about an elephant in a room? In the future though, a little less sarcasm and more constructive criticism would be appreciated. Malick78 (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I remain in suspense. Why would Walesa dislike Kaczynskis? Why would Walesa make disparaging remarks about them? How would Walesa benefit from discrediting Kaczynski, and why? Why, and how, would SB benefit directly and indirectly by fabricating false information about prominent member of the opposition? Thus far, you had continued on citing things out of context. I know it's Wikipedia, but even Wikipedia can get it right from time to time. Facts please! I'm on a standby. Sorry, the elephant in the room fell to sleep. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would Walesa dislike Kaczynskis? It's not our task to find that out. I am sure you are familiar with WP:TRUTH. So, let's stop guessing the motives of Walesa and SB and simply reflect what reliable sources report about the case. I agree with talk below, that a better source than Pink News would be preferrable. If this was reported in Rzeczpospolita in 2006 it should be possible to find that ref. Can any Polish-speaker help out? Thanks... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have consensus here yet. I'm leaning toward including the information - so long as it's properly sourced, it shouldn't really be a problem. But let's emphasize the "properly sourced" part. Nothing about this can be sourced to something that isn't clearly reliable (and "Pink News" would fall into that category) and it can't be there without a source, either. We have a policy called WP:BLP. UserVOBO (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a closer look at what we've got here: "In 2006 Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita released secret service files which document a discussion on his sexuality. In the files, a former communist SB officer speculated on Kaczyński's sexual orientation.[19] Relations between Lech Walesa and Kaczyński have for many years been strained since Walesa told a joke about 'two brothers who arrive at a party - one with his wife and one with his "husband"'. He was alluding to Kaczyński.[20][19]"

* "In 2006 Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita released secret service files" - we are quoting it here as if it was Holy Gospel, because some other magazine quoted something that as of yet no one here had read.  Great! 

• "[...] which document a discussion on his sexuality" -Wild guess again ... Whm, let me think... No one had seen either the article or the files ... Great!
• "Walesa told a joke about 'two brothers" - Incredible. A new pinnacle of Wiki's scholastic achievement. Walesa told a joke. Once again: it is "scholastic", "reliable", "entertaining". "Thank you National Enquirer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Warren (talk • contribs) 12:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What's your point, RW? Why do we need to see the files? If the source says Rzeczpospolita saw them, then that's all we need to know. If you know Poland (and I get the feeling you do), then you must know full well that this was covered a lot there. It would therefore be highly disingenuous to claim that this isn't an accurate description of the debate surrounding the files (NOTE, I do not mean the veracity of them. Just the debate that they caused :) ). Malick78 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::: User Malick78 you are: 1) Engaging in an edit war, 2) Now you are suggesting that this is about a debate rather than the content (your story just changed), 3) You are insinuating that there is some sort of "imaginary" consensus here. We have nothing of the sorts here, 4) You are furthering inclusion of unverified, potentially illegal / slanderous content about a living people in this article. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::: Erm, what's illegal? Mentioning what others talk about? You seem to completely misunderstand what slander is.Malick78 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's all refresh ourselves with these...

WP:Civility

WP:Consensus

WP:Verifiability

WP:POV

WP:NPOV

WP:REDFLAG

WP:OR

WP:3O

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

WP:PRIDE

Wikipedia:Etiquette

Wikipedia:Wikilove

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought we do have a consensus here. It seemed all editors (except the Doomed Soldiers) agree that this information is relevant enough to go into the article if properly sourced. As for the changing story, nobody here suggested to add information about Kaczyńsk's orientation (of which Walese apperently has an opinion and SB at least a suspicion if they decided to investigate). Of course we can only report about the widespread debate that it caused. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This page needs to be locked against IPs, I'm in support of Malick78's edit. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Feel free to get it locked if you know how. I've never done it and am not familiar with the procedure :( Malick78 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"In 2006 Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita released secret service files which document a discussion on his sexuality. In the files, a former communist SB officer speculated on Kaczyński's sexual orientation.[19] Relations between Lech Walesa and Kaczyński have for many years been strained since Walesa told a joke about 'two brothers who arrive at a party - one with his wife and one with his "husband"'. He was alluding to Kaczyński.[20][19]"

Rzeczpospolita didn't ---> release <--- any files. Where did you get this from? As to the jokes being quoted here - get yourself a blog. This is not a tabloid. As far as the imaginary consensus is concerned? Go ahead and re-read the comments starting at the top. Doomed Soldiers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

Robert Warren, you don't appear to have read the guidance links I have posted above. Firstly, let's all try to remain courteous. Secondly, there appear to be 3 to 1 editors here, who want the information included. That is a form consensus, according WP policy. All of us are trying to explain to you that we are not asserting that Jaroslaw is gay, but because of WP guidance we must include that it has been alleged that he is gay, by Walesa (and Palikot?), and that Jaroslaw appears never to have denied it. Also that he was investigated and/or smeared by the communist secret service. You've got every opportunity to persuade us not to include this material by referring to WP policies and guidelines, but you are not going to persuade us by repeating what you personally are certain is right and editing accordingly. I would suggest you take up your issue not here, but with an RFC or a 3O, where you might get what you want. Now, I'm not an administrator nor do I want to be one, but I should give you a friendly heads up that if you continue editing along the these lines here, you may be putting yourself at risk of WP:DIGWUREN sanctions. The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Sanctions include full block on a user from Wikipedia, a revert limitation for a user, or an article ban for a user. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. If you haven't had time to read my guidance links above, please try to. It may help with a solution here. I would suggest you take up your issue with an RFC or a 3O, where you might get what you want. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm also getting a bit fed up with your unhelpful edits, DoomedSoldiers. I don't mind constructive criticism, but you repeatedly assert things without referencing WP policies. I'd wholeheartedly support a ban of you editing this page. Malick78 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See, Malick, I believe you fail to understand that neither Wikipedia, nor this article specifically, belongs to you personally. This article is a collective effort of other editors as well. If you took the time to read through all the comments starting at the top (and I have a feeling you don't like to read comments other than your own), you would notice that throughout this discussion, many other editors voiced similar, if not identical objections as I have. One or two even called this article a "joke". Guess what, by including rumors and "jokes" in this article, you are in fact, turning it into a joke itself. What I find particularly puzzling is that you persist in trivializing, sensationalizing, an article about a living person without providing real and verifiable information. I don't know what your agenda is, but I believe Wiki can offer far more than a tabloid-like, and sub-standard quality content. Is your persistence in furthering slanderous, and libelous content here potentially illegal? Well, we might find out soon. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And another unhelpful edit. Seriously, try to be a little more constructive, please, and comment on content not editors. Thanks. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, my comments were nothing but unhelpful. Please revisit Wiki's own definition of character assassination. I am quoting it here for your benefit. Most prudent individuals would most certainly agree that spins, innuendos, half-truths, sensationalism, tabloid-like, and unscholarly content in this article are at a minimum troubling!

Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument. For living individuals targeted by character assassination attempts, this may result in being rejected by his community, family, or members of his or her living or work environment. Such acts are often difficult to reverse or rectify, and the process is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can last a lifetime or, for historical figures, for many centuries after their death. In practice, character assassination may involve doublespeak, spreading of rumors, innuendo or deliberate misinformation on topics relating to the subject's morals, integrity, and reputation. It may involve spinning information that is technically true, but that is presented in a misleading manner or is presented without the necessary context.[...] In politics, perhaps the most common form of character assassination is the spread of allegations that a candidate is a liar. Other common themes may include allegations that the candidate is a bad or unpopular member of his family, has a bad relationship with his spouse or children, is disrespected by his former co-workers, or routinely engages in disturbing, socially unacceptable behavior, such as sexual deviancy. Charging an opponent with character assassination may have political benefits. In the hearings for Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, supporters claimed that both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were victims of character assassination. Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget about 3O or RFC, the next step is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and also to file a WP:ANI, because this discussion has turned into a squabble. I'm not going to spend the time launching those procedures, but am pretty sure they are the only way forward. As I've said, those procedures may take the article either way; they will also scrutinize editors' record of behaviour. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chumchum7, this needs to be mediated. For the time being, the contentious content should be removed - pending resolution of this dispute. I believe that would be a fair course of action. Any objections? Doomed Soldiers (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong objection. If you want mediation, keep the page as it is until there's a decision. You're allegations of 'slander' and 'libel' show a singular misunderstanding of the concepts involved and aren't serious objections. There's nothing illegal on this page, just the reporting of what other significant parties have said. Btw, why did Chumchum delete lots of previous sections in an edit? Was it intended? Was it archived somewhere? Malick78 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong objection to the material being removed from the article, for the reason there appear to be 3-1 editors who want to keep it in, and that their reasons are in keeping with WP policy and guidelines. Note that BBC-reported speculation about Jaroslaw's heterosexual activity, which has never been edited out, is not superior to the Telegraph and Times reported speculation about Jaroslaw's homosexual activity, which keeps getting edited out. The removal is biased. Also note that there is a whole paragraph at Lech Walesa, on his alleged collaboration with the communists (including his denials and legal procedures), which hasn't been removed for the same reason that the material shouldn't be removed here. And Malick, I don't recall removing any sections, nor would I have wanted to, are you sure your observation is accurate? Please show me the 'diff' you are talking about. And finally, my position remains that this needs mediation, while the material remains. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Malick, if you are wondering about this edit [1], I have no idea how that happened. Could it have been a software glitch? Please restore the material unless WP software moved it to the archive. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire section pertaining the previous discussion disappeared.

RE: Your Objections - Ok, I respect that. Let it stay for the time being. Perhaps, there is a way to avoid the pissing match that this unfortunately turned into. But, it would require that the extreme bias with which it is written at the present be removed, and that clear and unequivocal motifs for the release of such information be given. I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that the "lustration" process continues to this day? These are certainly complicated issues, that don't benefit from "absolutes". So, I am willing to compromise, but this section has to be very, very carefully reworded, so that the reader has a clear and unequivocal understanding of why such information would be released by (as Malick calls them) the "officers" who in my personal view are "professional spinners", and much more than that. I also believe that the "jokes" need to go, or this article will remain, shall we say, "anecdotal" in nature. If we can compromise here, perhaps we don't have to resort to mediation. Otherwise, let's pull the trigger on the mediation and move on. Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not what editors think is the truth. WP says we need to use WP:secondary sources to back up all content. That is the way to find a compromise on content - by finding more secondary sources. That means even if Walesa's repeated and unchallenged allegations about JK's homosexuality are mere jokes, we need to find a source that describes them as mere jokes. I think it was Palikot who is on the record saying Walesa's allegations have never been denied by JK - and that should also be included. Secondly, to repeat WP:V, our opinion about why intelligence officers (or rather, Poland's Institute of National Remembrance and Poland's leading conservative daily) would release information is irrelevant: we need to use a source which has an opinion on it. So Robert Warren / Doomed Soldiers, you need to go and find that source. I suggest you start with the original Rzeczpospolita piece that broke the story, and see what it says about why the files were released or whether the initial, primary source document was a smear or not. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DoomedSoldiers, please do not describe other editors' motivations/behaviour as being part of a "pissing match", it's offensive and assumes they are not trying to improve the article - which is, at least for me, the prime goal here.

That said, the article currently says that a joke was made by an ex-President - which caused/increased a feud. That's factual and concise. No bias, and backed by sources. There's nothing wrong with it. The rest of the article lists the subject's acheivements, so this small section hardly outweighs that and is not the threat you think it is. Malick78 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Romance?

Alleged affair discussed by tabloids: I think source is not reliable enough. A.J. (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Leader of the opposition ?

In Poland we don't have somethning like "official opossition", that's a mistake.

Leader of the opposition ?

In Poland we don't have somethning like "official opossition", that's a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.63.155 (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

b-class review

Missing some inline cites - quick fail for B-class. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Kaczynski

I am disappointed that there is not a SINGLE ENTY of criticism about Kaczynski. Is he without flaws now, according to wikipedia? No objective criticism anywhere to be found? 84.113.183.242 (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)