Talk:Palikot's Movement

Untitled

Currently, the official name of the party is "Movement of Support" - Ruch Poparcia, abbreviated to RP

Populism

The sentence just says: "has been described as... populist" This is obviously true. It has been described as populist. It does not judge whether any of these descriptions is apt or true. (Btw I personally doubt the "left-wing", but some sources have used it...) We just have to put aside our personal perceptions and stick to what the sources say. Moreover, New York Times and AP are not just random sources and they are not exactly known for being conservative-biased or polemic.

Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Verifiability is key. However, if a reliable source questioning the populist status was found we could reassess/add it. Hekerui (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with an IP that wanted to remove "populism" (although, obviously, I don't agree with a method -- he/she should calmly discuss the issue here instead of edit warring). The reasons:

• this term is quite loaded and often pejorative, so it should be well sourced
• problem with sources: the first source doesn't directly support claim from the article. The only part where I see "populis" string is that paragraph:
  

  “He is exactly the right man at exactly the right time,” said Piotr Tymochowicz, a political consultant specializing in communication who previously worked with the late populist politician Andrzej Lepper, and now works with Mr. Palikot. “Their aims are not the same,” he said of the two men, “but they both wanted to destroy the cemented political scene.”

  So what that Tymochowicz worked for Lepper? It doesn't automatically mean that Palikot's Movement is populist!
• the second source calls directly Palikot's Movement "populist". However, considering my first point above, I think that this one source alone is not enough justification to put "populist" in the article. This note from AP is not even signed. It is just some anonymous opinion. Is it really enough to call Palikot's Movement "populist"? BartłomiejB (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As I have already written above: By now, the article only collects labels for the party from the media ("has been described as...") None of them is actually as profound as academic studies would be. But the party is just too young to have scholarly works about it published. So all of the labels (especially "left-wing" and "populist") should be treated with caution. Still, it is as justified to keep the "populist" and "left-wing" labels (even if there's some reason to doubt it) as it is to keep "liberal", "libertarian" or "anti-clerical". The verifiability for all of them is the same.

I personally believe that the label "populist" refers more to Palikot's political style than to the party's objectives. But ideology categories such as "populism" can refer to both the aims of a party and the way to achieve them. And Palikot's way can be (reasonably) described as populist. Even if the program (anti-clericalism and economic liberalism) can not exactly be seen as populist in a predominantly statist and Catholic conservative country. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've just semi-protected the article for two weeks, as it seems a sudden influx of new users are bent on changing the article via brute force; I'm hoping that the protection will encourage those users to instead discuss their proposed changes on this talk page. Aside from learning about talk pages, reading up on Wikipedia's consensus and dispute resolution mechanisms is probably a good idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Title

The party would be called "The Palikot Movement" in English and has clearly been translated by an amateur non-native speaker of English into "Palikot's Movement" - which just looks like a lousy mistake, derived from the problem that there is no 'the' in Polish (like Latin). If you google search the news, several English language papers refer to it as 'The Palikot Movement'. I suggest we use this title for basic linguistic reasons. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it was written by someone that has read Wikipedia's naming conventions. We do not include the definite article except where it is integral to the name - eg 'The Times'. See, for example, Conservative Party (UK), Democratic Party (United States), Australian Labor Party. On the secondary point, the New York Times, BBC, Polskie Radio, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, and so on call it "Palikot's Movement".

Further, as you'll appreciate, only a non-native speaker of English could possibly call it 'Palikot Movement', which is clunky as hell. The possessive in English has to be denoted, which is why those outlets use that name. Bastin 16:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The parties you accurately cited are all from English-speaking countries, and the issue I have is one with clunky translation into English. To meet you half way I don't mind cutting "the", for simply "Palikot Movement" per New York Times [1], Time [2], Polskie Radio [3], AFP [4], The Economist [5], etc etc. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the title should stay "Palikot Movement", that is the direct translation from polish and including 'the' does not add anything to the article.MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But the title of this article is "Palikot's Movement", not "Palikot Movement". I agree with you that it should be "Palikot Movement". Do you want to change it or shall I? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you should not change it: some English-language sources use "Palikot's Movement" (as named by Bastin), some use just "Palikot Movement" (as provided by Chumchum7). The Polish original "Ruch Palikota" is a genitive form. So "Palikot's Movement" is closer to the original and should be preferred. Regards --RJFF (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case it needs an 'also known as' clause, to reflect verifiable media coverage.-Chumchum7 (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Who keeps you from adding it? Just go ahead. --RJFF (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Laicism or Secularism

Don´t you think any of that 2 adjectives would be much better than "anti-clerical"¿? It is called sometimes "anti-clerical" in Poland but because it is Poland, in Nehterlans, France or Germany it would be just "laicist" or "secularist". In Poland the Church has much more social and political power, and laicism is not so developed as in other countries of europe. That´s why i think it is much more correct the other names and not "anit-clerical". Separation Church-State or ethically liberal is not anti-clerical --79.109.127.46 (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability and needs reliable sources. Currently, "anti-clerical" is verified by sources, "laicist" and "secularist" is not. If you find reliable sources for the latter terms, you are free to add them. If it is just your perception or analysis, it is considered original research and cannot be included here. Regards --RJFF (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a neo-liberal fantasy, not a populist, laicist or left-wing liberal party

The little I've read about its positions here and elsewhere suggests a party aimed at absolute individualism and the total rupture of all traitions. Such things as handing out condoms and legalizing cannabis are usually a single-issue lobby groups/party sections intentions but having them as main political goals mixed in with other tradition breaking elements such as the lowering of the voting age, "anti-clericalism" (thus going further than laicism) and a flat tax policy suggest an orgy of neo-liberal individualism. Branding this as a populist movement is directly missinforming. I would also love to see the finances of this party and who is backing them. 37.123.149.65 (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)