Talk:History policy of the Law and Justice party

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Amkgp (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the historical policy of the Polish ruling party has been described as "a pumped-up martyr complex focused on conspiracy theories"? Source: "Poland has always been invested in the idea that its role and suffering in world history has been underestimated, and PiS’s version of that history — a pumped-up martyr complex focused on conspiracy theories — has found an audience." https://www.calvertjournal.com/articles/show/8066/curating-a-nation-controversy-gdansk-ww2-museum
  • ALT1:... that the 1941 Jedwabne pogrom, in which hundreds of Jews were murdered by Poles, is viewed by the Polish ruling party as an attack on Polishness and Polish identity? Source: "According to the politicians, historians, and journalists representing PiS’s ideological position, Jedwabne and other events that cast a negative light on Polish national identity must be revisited and retold for both Poles and the West. In their eyes, Jedwabne is a key sign of ‘all the lies voiced against the Polish nation,’ and is understood as the ‘central attack’ on Polishness, Polish values and traditions, and Polish identity (understood in an ethnic sense)" 10.1080/23256249.2017.1376793

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ground Swell (painting)

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 00:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC).

• Not yet. Needs work. At the moment it looks like WP:SYNTH. From the article it is unclear that the "historical policy" does officially exist (it does), rather than a collection of factoids that demonstrate a biased presentation of country's history, not uncommon in many countries. For example I would love to see an article about revisionism, often really idiotic, of the History of Ukraine since 2010s. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• It could use improvement but it is a valid topic and meets DYK requirements. Żuk's, Hackmann's, and Michlic's articles, published in academic journals, unambiguously state that the historical policy exists. Please feel free to expand or improve the article; I don't own it. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Żuk's unambiguously state that the historical policy exists --The article also says "Polish Law and Justice party has developed a "historical policy". -- If it exists, the article must show how it is stated by the Party as a party policy, otherwise this is dismissible as an opinionated cherry-picked bullshit by the liberals and enemies of the Polish state. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Zuk quotes from the PiS party programs, for instance:

      The lack of any coherent “textbook” policy prevents the formation of a common consciousness of students and, at the same time, leads to the transmission of scandalous content, for example, communist crimes and the scale of German crimes in World War II are relativized. These measures use education to deconstruct our identity. […] The attack on tradition and the associated national consciousness is ostentatious in the cultural sphere. The preference for creativity that is detrimental to Polish values is clear. Leftist periodicals are supported; various types of state-funded cultural transmission attack patriotism and national values.

      Hackmann states:

      Since 2015, the right-wing Polish government has attempted to closely control those institutions that are regarded as crucial for shaping the national remembrance in order to implement a mnemonic policy with the aim of promoting patriotism and defending a positive image of the ethno-linguistically defined Polish nation abroad.

      (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

My review: date, size, refs, are good. Notability and neutrality - likely ok, but this is a touchy topic and I am not sure if the ALT1 about Jedwabne is neutral. Anyway, a techical issue - this needs to have lead cut to size (I don't suggest removing content, just moving it to the article's main body). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Jedwabne Pogrom... is viewed as an attack on Polishness" -- the author really has problems with logic. I hate editing political articles, but I have to note that the colleague seems to raise his struggle with Polish neoconservatism in Wikipedia to nonencyclopedic levels. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The author is stating that the conclusion that Poles were responsible for Jedwabne is an attack on Polishness, at least according to PiS. These historical facts are inconvenient, hence the claim (not supported by the available evidence) that Poles were not responsible... (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I know well what was and is with Jedwabne. I am saying that logic in your writing sucks, and you still do not see this. Please somebody else explain them or somebody explain me how a pogrom may be seen as an attack on Polishness. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I am afraid the article is not stable. Both me and Staszek raised neutrality concerns, that Buidhe has promptly reverted: [1], [2]. There is ongoing discussion on talk. Setting aside a quickly decline AfD by a user blocked as sock, I am increasingly convinced this likely fails the stability and neutrality criteria for the main page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• The neutrality concerns were all about one sentence, which I supported with a quote on talk page. I am always ready to consider if another wording may be best, but it is not appropriate to tag an entire article for neutrality based on one sentence. Also, Piotrus used failed verification tags without actually trying to verify the content in the cited source. Since the article was just created it has undergone edits in the last few days but not beyond what is expected for a dyk article. (t · c) buidhe 16:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The article seems to be based on politically engaged polemics that are blatantly false in certain parts. For example the statement: According to this narrative, Poles were exclusively victims and heroes during World War II and the Communist era is absurd as PiS is waging at least two campaigns to shame and deprive of memory any Pole who in their view "collaborated with Communism" [3]Kiszczak i Jaruzelski to byli zdrajcy narodu:Kiszczack and Jaruzelski were traitors to the nation or wszyscy komunistyczni kolaboranci, którzy uczestniczyli w prześladowaniach Polaków i sprawowali władzę w imieniu Moskwy, powinni być przeniesieni z cmentarzy, które dzisiaj są narodowymi nekropoliami all communist collaborators who took part in repressions against Poles and waged power in the name of Moscow should be removed from cemeteries that are today national necropolises. So yeah, the claim that PiS sees Poles only as heroes is easily verified as false.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think this is an accurate representation. As the statement you quote indicates, any Poles who do not behave the way they are supposed to are not "real Poles". This division has been noticed in research:

Epithets which divided Poles in two groups and indicated on bad intentions of political opponents became a part of newspeak of Polish rightist spectrum. Here it is possible to identify a division into “real Poles” with reference to followers of “right”and “false” Poles with reference to the rest as well as [insults such as] “lemmings” with reference to voters of PO and left wing,“communists”, “thieves” etc. [and suggesting that not only Donald Tusk but entire population groups such as Kashubians or Silesians are German]

— Modrzejewsk, Arkadiusz (2017). "Catholic and Nationalist Populism in the Current Poland". Perspective politice. Scoala Nationala de Studii Politice si Administrative. ISSN 1841-6098.

• Hence why, as Sadurski put it, "the [2018] law clearly resonates with a nationalistic government rhetoric, under which Polish history is comprised exclusively of heroic acts and undeserved victimhood, and never of criminal deeds." If they're responsible for "criminal deeds" one can conclude that they are not really a Pole but a communist puppet, etc. Hackmann notes that in the Ulma museum, "the policeman who presumably gave the hint to the hidden Jews, is questioned to be a Pole, because he was Greek Catholic".
• You state that these peer reviewed papers are all "politically engaged polemics" but they are actually research papers published in respected journals such as Journal of Genocide Research and Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust. I think that the editorial boards of these journals should count for more than one wikieditor's opinion. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If they're responsible for "criminal deeds" one can conclude that they are not really a Pole but a communist puppet Please read on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are wandering of to creating your own personal theories. Wikipedia is not the place for this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The sentence you are complaining about has been rewritten. Are there any further complaints based on concrete issues, or is this a case of IDONTLIKEIT? (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is fine. All I see is people who ignore reliable sources, and want to push content from PiS's website onto Wikipedia. I opened a RfC to settle it: Talk:Historical policy of the Law and Justice party#Request for comment: PiS program from its website as first section. Kasha lover (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

An obvious sockpuppet. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• There has been no meaningful progress since October, and Buidhe has been unable to respond to concerns in spite of activity elsewhere, as well as talk page notifications. Given the remaining article issues, this nomination is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Title

I suggest moving this to Historical policy of the Law and Justice party as it isn't clear what is is about until you click through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a technocality, but PiS (Law and Justice) is not a monolith, and the Polish government has been a coalition of PiS and some smaller offshots. See Second Cabinet of Mateusz Morawiecki for example. So are we really takking about "Historical policy of the Law and Justice party" or "Historical policy of the Law and Justice party and its allies", said allies being United Poland and Agreement (political party), for example? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point but all the sources refer to PiS specifically, not any of the other parties. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead rewrite needed

Per WP:LEAD, lead should not contain new content not present in the body, and should be of adequate size. This lead contains a lot of unique claims, and forms a third of the current article size. Simple solution is to expand the article by moving parts of the lead into the body, some of it can be duplicated per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

The article is sourced exclusively to critics of the current conservative govt and the overall tone is deeply negative. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

According to this narrative, Poles were exclusively victims and heroes during World War II and the Communist era, -- This kind of wild exaggerrations are good for polemic articles, but not for encyclopedia. I am not touching the touchy WWII subject, but come on... only heroes during Communist Era? That's bullsitting. Open the freaking textbooks. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I am not returning to this article (because I am not going to play "devil's advocate", because I disagree with recent polish politics myself), so don't ping me. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Staszek on all counts. I am not very interested in defending the current Polish government, but the article is hardly neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• The statement is supported by sources, for example Sadurski writes, "the [2018] law clearly resonates with a nationalistic government rhetoric, under which Polish history is comprised exclusively of heroic acts and undeserved victimhood, and never of criminal deeds." If it is just one sentence that is objected to, then applying neutrality tag to the entire article is inappropriate; I've removed it. (t · c) buidhe 15:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  No one doubts that many Poles were victims and/or heroes, but what differentiates this from a more balanced view of history is that the party rejects any more nuanced views (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  But this is just one side of the story, that of its critics. We should make sure to present views of both sides. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• What reliable sources discuss this historical policy from a pro- perspective? (I could not find any in English). And how much weight do they have? Davies usually fits into the conservative camp but he is against this. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's try this. Which reliable sources discuss this policy from any perspective? In-depth, not just mentioning it in passing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It is the major topic in Michlic's, Zuk's, and Hackmann's peer-reviewed papers. The plwiki has an article on this at pl:pedagogika wstydu. But, I do not think that is a great article title because it is a propaganda term. (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree the Polish term, while related, is not about the same topic. But hmmm. What is historical policy? That generic phrase needs a redirect or a stub, to start with. This suggests that in addition so some neutrality issues, we may be dealing with OR-ish definition of the topic scope. And since you mentioned Zuk: [4]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

        Thanks for the link. I have added some info to the article based on it. I think that the scope is pretty clear, and the article title could be considered a descriptive title (WP:NDESC). What is unclear about it to you? (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I removed two sections because to connection is provided with "histotical policy" nor with the L&J party. In particular the Holocaust stuff started well before L&J, heck, before even Polish re-independence. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, please do not revert without discussion. This is a sensitive subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There is plenty of research in Poland of what you call "disgrace", especially which is related to Communist era. The narrative of this article is based on ample overgeneralizations. Yes, there are several topics which are being shut, but there are plenty of villains in Polsih history nobody attempts to cover up. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Staszek Lem here, the article seems like a mix of completely unrelated texts attacking PiS completely unrelated to any actual historical policy the party might or might not pursue.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The only article I could find on ""Historical policy of the Law and Justice party" is on a Russian propaganda portal

[5]

There's virtually zero other sources. Is this in any way relevant to Wikipedia? The article seems to be mix of statements and unrelated events thrown into one WP:SYNTH. I really think this has no merit, and probably should be deleted. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, Please open AfD if you believe it is not notable. I have already quoted ample sources on the article and in various other places which show that scholars analyze it as a coherent overall topic. (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed falsification of a source!

"The Law and Justice party rejects researchers' conclusion that Poles were responsible for the 1941 Jedwabne pogrom in which hundreds of Jews were murdered, attributing it exclusively to Germans.[1]" This is sourced to At the Crossroads’: Jedwabne and Polish Historiography of the Holocaust

It says absolutely nothing like what the Wikipedia article claims. It does not say that Law and Justice "attributes Jedwabne pogrom exclusively to Germans"

According to Michilic the "two historical narratives" of PiS are 1) emphasizing the suffering of Poles and 2) emphasizing the rescue of Jews by Poles. One can disagree with these narratives, one can disagree with Michilic's characterization of these policies etc., but there is nothing in here at all that says that Law and Justice "attributes the pogrom exclusively to Germans"

That is pure fabrication by the Wikipedia editor who inserted that text.

And I WILL report this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually Michlic states:

According to the politicians, historians, and journalists representing PiS’s ideological position, Jedwabne and other events that cast a negative light on Polish national identity must be revisited and retold for both Poles and the West. In their eyes, Jedwabne is a key sign of ‘all the lies voiced against the Polish nation,’ and is understood as the ‘central attack’ on Polishness, Polish values and traditions, and Polish identity (understood in an ethnic sense)... According to PiS’s historical policy, two major historical narratives defined as ‘true and patriotic’ are utilized to oppose Gross and Anna Bikont’s accounts of the Jedwabne pogrom and its long aftermath, as well as other dark aspects of Polish–Jewish relations during and after the Holocaust.

(t · c) buidhe 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It states nothing of the sort of the claim that was inserted, mainly that:The Law and Justice party rejects researchers' conclusion that Poles were responsible for the 1941 Jedwabne pogrom in which hundreds of Jews were murdered, attributing it exclusively to Germans.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how else it could be interpreted to call Jedwabne a "lie", or an "opinion",[6] (since the fact that Jews were killed is not usually denied). Other Polish historians call this a form of historical denial which has now become mainstream[7]. Nevertheless, I have revised the caption to more closely follow sources. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Tags

Please do not remove tags until issues are resolved. Please do not revert withjout discussion in talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the piece which does not show connection to "historical policy" Please do not restore without providing this connection in the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. in your edity summary you wrote "Add analysis if you like, but don't remove content". No, I am not going to add any analysis. It is your claim of relevance, you have to prove it, not me. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

:Relevance" tags

Every paragraph must explicitly provide information that this is part of "historical policy" not just a collection of conservative factoids. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean? All aspects covered in this article (including those that you removed) are part of the topic according to reliable sources. Therefore, they are relevant and belong in the article. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If sourcfes say they are part of the policy, then you have to say this in our article too. I am releating countless times: without such explicit statements the article looks like a random collection of events in Poland , i.e., WP:SYNTH / WP:COATRACK. YOu are deep in the subject and do not see it. An indepentent observer like me sees this right away.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Here I am giving you an example how to introduce the relevance into the article. The rest is yours. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Spurious, obviously relevant. Kasha lover (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Actual historical policy of PiS, from its program

POLITYKA HISTORYCZNA [8]

Prawo i Sprawiedliwość od końca 2015 realizuje świadomą politykę historyczną obejmującą wiele konkretnych zadań i programów. Polityka ta wymaga w dalszych latach systemowej kontynuacji i rozwoju. Jej podstawowe założenia obejmują: obowiązek realnego mecenatu państwa nad kulturą i dziedzictwem narodowym; dbałość o instytucjonalizację pamięci; ochronę zabytków i polskie dziedzictwo zagranicą oraz dziedzictwo utracone; właściwe upamiętnianie ważnych dla Polski rocznic i postaci; aktywną politykę audiowizualną i medialną oraz aktywną politykę edukacyjną w zakresie tożsamości kulturowo-historycznej.

This must be the first section of this article. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Since the end of 2015, Law and Justice has been implementing a conscious historical policy that encompasses many concrete tasks and programs. The policy must be systematically continued and developed in the following years. Its basic cornerstones include: the duty of real patronage of the state over culture and national heritage; care for the institutionalization of memory; protection of historical monuments and Polish heritage abroad, as well as the lost heritage; proper commemoration of anniversaries and persons important to Poland; an active audiovisual and media policy and an active educational policy in the field of cultural and historical identity.

Staszek Lem (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

By "first section", I assume you mean the lead. I don't think a long quote would be WP:DUE weight in the lead, since it would give undue prominence to what the party says about itself. If you would like to add a body section "Party platform", please go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No, first section means first section. and I am not talking about quote. I could have copied the quote myself. There must be discussion of it someehere. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I will open a RFC to resolve this. Kasha lover (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

Several cleanup tags have been applied to the article. But I have yet to see:

• Any source that you say is unreliable
• Any content, for which reliable sources do not support a connection to the overall topic (keeping in mind that this is a descriptive title for an overall phenomenon that reliable sources support the existence of, per WP:NDESC)
• Any concrete statement in the article that is claimed to be POV, or reliable sources that have a different opinion of the article topic
• Actual deletion discussion where notability concerns could be decided

As stated in the relevant guideline, "Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it". (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is in progress. Colleague, you are too quick on removing tags. Slow down. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the notability tag, because I found (and added) the ref which directly indicated at "historical policy" in the program of PiS. I see no tags about source reliability. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutralityu tag stays because the lede contains directly false statement, namely about "Communist times". This blatantly contradicts the widely publicized decommunization policy in Poland. What is more important, it does not describe the "histgorical policy" from the point of view of supporters, only from the point of view and from the (unfriendly) mouth of opponents. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to provide an alternative wording that is, like this one, supported by reliable sources. Then we could discuss which is best. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I am feeling free to point at the inadequacies of the article. I am not at all going to be the mouthpiece of PiS. But it is as clear as a glass of Wyborowa, that this side is absent from article, hence the tag. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Reliable sources may be sadly mistaken, you know, especially when they have an ax to grind. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability, not "truth" (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are reliable. The tags just express dislike of reliable sources and are spurious. Kasha lover (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: PiS program from its website as first section

Should the following text, copied from the website of PiS, be inserted to the article as the first section? Text: "Since the end of 2015, Law and Justice has been implementing a conscious historical policy that encompasses many concrete tasks and programs. The policy must be systematically continued and developed in the following years. Its basic cornerstones include: the duty of real patronage of the state over culture and national heritage; care for the institutionalization of memory; protection of historical monuments and Polish heritage abroad, as well as the lost heritage; proper commemoration of anniversaries and persons important to Poland; an active audiovisual and media policy and an active educational policy in the field of cultural and historical identity." Kasha lover (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC) <--- — Kasha lover (talk • contribs) see below wikipedia:Single-purpose_account - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia is the mirror website of the far-right PiS party. Discussion of PiS's policy needs to be based on reliable third party sources. Kasha lover (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC) <--- — Kasha lover (talk • contribs) has made 23 edits in total, already familiar with RFC and few or no edits outside this topic area. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)