Jump to content

Talk:Lech Kaczyński/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Meaning of his comments

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 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)...
  • 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 not 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)

Alcohol

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)

Vandalism

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

Edit request from Gabiteodoru, 10 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

This was fixed about 10 minutes ago.  Chzz  ►  07:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Edit request from 82.13.161.114, 10 April 2010

{{editprotected}}

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)
Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Semi-protection also expires tomorrow. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

this page should go into lockdown mode asap --67.70.2.172 (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In office

SHOULD IT READ "IN OFFICE" AFTER THE CATASTROFY? SORRY BOUT THIS BUT I AM NOT USED TO WIKIPEDIA AND WANTED TO MAKE NOTICE OF THIS ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.160.133 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It says In office, then gives the time spans during which he was in each political post he held during his life. That is standard for politician infoboxes. It doesn't say he is currently in office. Jim Michael (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2010 (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)
Basically we have now in the article an unsourced announcement of Death. This IS BAD. Hektor (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Really, I heard 97 people died on msn, and somewhere else I heard 130 people??, and also why is there information about his death in the introduction?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadygorgy (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The current figure is that 97 people died in the crash. Initial reports of the number of people on the plane were confused, with 87 and 132 being quoted in media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The article reports the plane crash. Per WP:BLP, no announcement of his death will be made unless it is reliably confirmed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
AFP is saying no survivors, so it looks like the President may have died. However, still a need for confirmation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
NO media is currently reporting the death of the president .... just that at least 80 people have been killed on the plane on which he was flying. It is premature and wrong to announce his death (adding his date of death etc) on wikipedia before it is officially announced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.195.120 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The Smolensk governor says there were no survivors. However, confirmation will be needed before adding the death.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Death of Kaczyński and his wife has been confirmed, in addition to 130 others. — ξxplicit 08:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It is reasonably certain that he has died, although the Yahoo cite repeats the information about no survivors. No official announcement from the Polish government has occurred yet.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Polish President Lech Kaczynski and his wife died Saturday along with 130 others when their plane crashed while coming in for a landing in western Russia, officials said. Surely that's confirmation enough? — ξxplicit 09:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
What Yahoo! has done is to take the Smolensk governor's report and turn it into an official announcement of the death. It is not quite the same thing, but it looks like only a matter of time before the Polish government makes a formal announcement.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Not to be too by-the-book, but what Yahoo! has done is report that the President has died. Yahoo! is a more than reliable source and if they've misreported this story, that's theirs to deal with. I don't like how we (Wikipedians) jump at the opportunity to edit things like this, but it has been confirmed by a reliable source now. -- Chickenmonkey X  sign?  09:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Polish press are reporting a foreign ministry spokesman saying "Prezydent z małżonką zginęli." That is, "The President and his wife died." Physchim62 (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo! has the same news wire information as everyone else. The current BBC News website wording is "Officials say a plane carrying Polish President Lech Kaczynski has crashed in Russia, reportedly killing everyone on board." Anyway, we're dancing on the head of a pin over this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Headline in Gazeta Wyborcza: "Nobody survived." Headline in Rzeczpospolita: "President Lech Kaczynski is dead." Physchim62 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence

Currently reads "96 people were killed in the crash, including, along with Kaczynski, others among the country's highest military and civilian leaders." Suggest "96 people were killed in the crash, including many of Poland's highest military and civilian leaders." Removes unnecessary mention of Kaczynski, and clarifies the country. Any objections? --Haruth (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparent successor?

who would succeed him as acting president of poland / head of state if it turns out he indeed became incapacitated in the plane crash? 92.116.104.6 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sura about that, but in Poland the president doesn't have real power, it's mostly a ceremonial title, nothing like the situation in the US, something like in Germany. So the country is run by the same people it was - the prime minister & the goverment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.97.191 (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Marshal of the Sejm shall, until the time of election of a new President of the Republic, temporarily discharge the duties of the President of the Republic in the following instances:
- the death of the President of the Republic
(From the Polish Constitution)
--Marjaliisa (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The Marshal of the Sejm holds the duties of President (until new President is elected), Sir Lothar (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You should not comment when you are "not quite sure". President of Poland holds real, although limited power, including rights to veto parliamentary bill, control the military and, under certain circumstances, dissolving the parliament. Nothing close to "ceremonial title". 89.161.19.226 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Read polish Constitution (you have it there: http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm) - president is mainly "ceremonial" (with except of "veto" and appointing the cabinet (but first could be "broken" and second is on proposal - so not stricte his)) - control over military is through Minister of Defense (who is under Prime Minister) and rest of his privileges are "through various ministers"- for ruling are Council of Ministers and Prime Minister. In Poland is'nt president system but Parliamentary Cabinet system.

In Poland there is a mixed System - designed in a way that neither the Prime Minister nor the President has all the power. In this system the Cabinet ( -> the prime minister) has a leading role, though. Anyway, having a right for veto he has a real influence on the legislation, as for breaking the presidental veto there is a need for the majority that is hardly achievable in polish parliament. The President has also a real influence on the military aspects (as generals' nominations), foreign afairs, and other things. So its closer to German system than to the American one, but finally it is sth in the middle Lamignat (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The marshall of the Sejm gets Presidential Powers for sixty days.71.234.36.194 (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unabomber

Was Lech Kaczynski related to Ted Kaczynski? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaczyński is a common Polish surname, like Smith, Jones or Brown in English. So it is unlikely that they are closely related.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaczyński's daughter

I would like to ask user Jim Michael to please stop adding Kaczyński's daughter's date of birth. You may consider this detail important, but there is no evidence I am aware of that it affected his life in any way that makes it necessary for us to state it. Please either show that it does have some real importance to his biography (as this is reported in reliable sources) or stop adding it. UserVOBO (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I never added her full date of birth, nor was I the first to add the year; I merely reinstated the year after it was removed. Are you seriously claiming that his daughter's birth had no relevance to his life? Adding info such as her address or phone number would be an invasion of privacy, but stating her birth year on her famous father's article is not. Why would you remove from the infobox the fact he has a daughter? If such details should not be included, then there would not be a place for them in the infobox. Children are routinely included in Politician infoboxes, usually by name. Examples include: Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Kevin Rudd. You're going to remove their children's details from their articles, I take it? Jim Michael (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I never claimed that his daughter's birth had no relevance to his life - by all means, mention that he has a daughter. I claimed that the exact year of her birth has no importance for Wikipedia purposes unless there are reliable sources showing that her being born in that specific year affected Kaczyński's life in some significant way. Otherwise, it's a minor detail that need not be included - and yes, it invades her privacy, not in the grotesque and blatant way that including her telephone number would, but it invades it nonetheless. I won't discuss other articles here, except to say that such questions need to be judged on a case by case basis - it may depend on whether the children are notable in their own right. UserVOBO (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Years of birth of politicians' children, whether notable or not, are routinely included on their Wikipedia biographies - I proved that by giving high profile examples. Of course the year of her birth is relevant - him becoming a father was a major event in his life, so when it happened is relevant. How can it possibly invade her privacy? When he was alive, it was relevant to him how old she was. For example, the birthday presents a father would give his twentysomething daughter would be very different from what he would given her when she was five. No decent father would think it irrelevant how old his child is; it is relevant to his life and therefore to his bio. A biography is about its subject's life, not merely their career or public life. Jim Michael (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, they sure as heck shouldn't be. I'm sorry, but I don't accept your claim that "of course" the year of her birth is relevant. If you have to use examples about what kind of birthday presents Kaczyński might have been giving her, that just proves my point. Kaczyński might have thought the year of her birth important, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to anything that this article need cover. Kaczyński's life is notable because of his public career; there should be a minimum of information about things that aren't strictly relevant to it. UserVOBO (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If you're correct, then you and many other editors would be removing birth years of non-notable sons and daughters from many other politicians' articles. You would also state which policy says not to include birth years of children. A biography is about a person's whole life, not merely their public life. That's why personal info is included; it is relevant to the subject's life. Jim Michael (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me what I or other editors would be doing if we believed what we say we believe (please see WP:AGF). I don't know about policy - I'm trying to apply common sense here. And again, I'm sorry, but it's not good enough to simply say that "A biography is about a person's whole life" - we only include facts if there is some good reason why they should be included. Just declaring it "relevant", without saying why it is important enough to include, won't do. UserVOBO (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Article content needs to follow policy, my edits do that. Common sense says that his daughter was obviously relevant to his life; hence what year she came into existence is. Kaczynski would never have said: "Is my daughter 9 or 29? Oh, what does it matter, it's not relevant to my life." A subject's children are of substantial relevance to their life - that is reason enough. A subject's children do not have to be notable to be mentioned in a subject's biography. They need to be notable to have their own articles, but no-one is proposing she have her own article. I'm not talking about adding personal details of her life such as where she lives or works - merely the fact she was born in 1980 and possibly her name and the fact she has two daughters. Jim Michael (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
See WP:DUE. We don't include details unless reliable sources show they're significant. What Kaczyński himself might have thought is irrelevant. UserVOBO (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That link does not say to not mention the subject's children's names or birth years. It is not undue weight, as reliable sources state her name and birth year, and do think it is relevant. It is only you who has claimed it is irrelevant and insignificant. This one Profile of Lech Kaczynski, from child star to president says: '... daughter, Marta, born in 1980.' When people read a biography, they expect to read the basic facts about the subject's family. No special case needs to be proved to add such basic info; it is relevant by definition. She is his daughter, not his third cousin twice removed. Why are you singling out this article to have its family info minimised? Jim Michael (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it did say that. It states that, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources. An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic." So you've misunderstood the purpose of the policy: the fact that some source simply happens to mention something does not automatically mean that we include it. If a source stated his shoe size, or the kind of birthday presents he gave his daughter, we wouldn't include that. Please cut out the accusations of bad faith on my part ("Why are you singling out this article"), because they violate WP:AGF. UserVOBO UserVOBO (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, please see WP:BLPNAME. It covers issues like this. UserVOBO (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Major section for funeral?

The funeral is shaping up to be a big event. World leaders from everywhere are showing up, and it has huge historic significance. As I understand, the last person to be buried there was the leader of the 1918 reconstitution of Poland, Józef Piłsudski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.90.229.8 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic volcanic eruption

The news is reporting that the Polish memorial for the aircrash may be poorly attended by international VIPs because of the Icelandic eruption's dust disruption for air travel... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This article says "It was unclear whether the ash cloud would affect the arrival of President Barack Obama and other world leaders planning to attend the state funeral Sunday of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who died in a plane crash. Polish authorities banned flights over part of northwestern Poland late Thursday, the country's PAP news agency reported. The funeral is to be held in Krakow, in southeastern Poland." Something to watch, things may have changed by Sunday.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I kinda heard that the funeral won't be held on Sunday because expected guests can't arrive until that. --Föld-lét (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Text of planned Katyn speech

http://euobserver.com/7/29868 and http://www.masterpage.com.pl/outlook/201004/kaczynski-katyn-speech.html --Espoo (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the entire speech should be included in this article. This is the last official document known to be issued by the late president of Poland. Its content is devoted to the purpose of his visit, and the subsequent plane crash, which presently remains under investigation. As such, I believe it should be permanently featured on this page in its entirety. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the content of the speech was deleted. I suspect accidentally. Let's try it again.Doomed Soldiers (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire speech should most definitely not be included. Doing so would be completely ridiculous and unencyclopedic - Wikipedia tries to summarize things, not include every detail of what someone said about something. See WP:DUE and WP:QUOTE. UserVOBO (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Gettysburg Address article features the entire text of President Lincoln's address. Apparently you are applying two different standards here. What am I missing here? Is President Lincoln's address also "ridiculous" and "un-encyclopedic"? I would suspect that quiet a few people would take an exception to such suggestion. And if we were to proceed with your suggestion we would be editorializing, and if I am certain of anything, I am certain that President Kaczynski's speech can be spared your commentary. I have certainly neither editorialized, nor have I commented on this text.Doomed Soldiers (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gettysburg Address article isn't about Abraham Lincoln specifically - it's about his speech. If Kaczyński's speech ever becomes notable enough to have its own article, then you could include it there, maybe. It certainly does not go here, just as the whole Gettysburg Address doesn't go in the Abraham Lincoln article. UserVOBO (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
President Kaczynski's speech already became notable. It is an important part of his political legacy. I am surprised you would take such adversarial position on this.Doomed Soldiers (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
If it were notable, that would mean that it could have its own article. In that case, the entire quoted speech would belong there - and emphatically not here. It isn't "adversarial" to fail to automatically agree with another editor - are you being "adversarial" by not agreeing with me? UserVOBO (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. This speech will be repeated on Sunday, and it will be picked up and discussed by all media outfits. Rest assured, it will be notable in no time at all. Let's see what other editors suggest so we can move forward amicably. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability on Wikipedia doesn't mean "important" - it means that a subject qualifies for its own article. If this speech did qualify for its own article, we could include it there, meaning that it wouldn't be included here, in accord with summary style. UserVOBO (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, the term "notable" denotes: "worthy of note", "remarkable", distinguished", "prominent". Even if you were to question "remarkable" as I am certain you WILL, it certainly is worthy of note, distinguished, and prominent. I am sure you will correct me. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTE for the relevant policy. Your tone of sarcasm is not helpful. UserVOBO (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please revisit my comment above where I have unequivocally stated that I would like to seek other editors opinions, "so we can move forward amicably". "Amicably" denotes "goodwill and an absence of antagonism". All the best Doomed Soldiers (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The speech that never was

For the benefit of all, I am herewith providing editors with the content of the speech prepared by President of the Republic of Poland, Lech Kaczynski. I had noted elsewhere, that I have suggested inclusion of this speech in this article. To the best of my knowledge, it is the last official document written by the late President of the Republic of Poland. Doomed Soldiers (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

“Dear Representatives of the Katyn Families. Ladies and Gentlemen.

In April 1940 over twenty-one thousand Polish prisoners from the NKVD camps and prisons were killed. The genocide was committed at Stalin’s will and at the Soviet Union’s highest authority’s command.

The alliance between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the Soviet attack on Poland on 17 September 1939 reached a terrifying climax in the Katyn massacre. Not only in the Katyn forest, but also in Tver, Kcharkiv and other known, and unknown, execution sites citizens of the Second Republic of Poland, people who formed the foundation of our statehood, who adamantly served the motherland, were killed.

At the same time families of the murdered and thousands of citizens of the eastern territory of the pre-war Poland were sent into exile deep into the Soviet Union, where their indescribable suffering marked the path of the Polish Golgotha of the East.

The most tragic station on that path was Katyn. Polish officers, priests, officials, police officers, border and prison guards were killed without a trial or sentence. They fell victims to an unspeakable war. Their murder was a violation of the rights and conventions of the civilized world. Their dignity as soldiers, Poles and people, was insulted. Pits of death were supposed to hide the bodies of the murdered and the truth about the crime forever.

The world was supposed to never find out. The families of the victims were deprived of the right to mourn publicly, to proudly commemorate their relatives. Ground covered the traces of crime and the lie was supposed to erase it from people’s memory.

An attempt to hide the truth about Katyn – a result of a decision taken by those who masterminded the crime – became one of the foundations of the communists’ policy in an after-war Poland: a founding lie of the People’s Republic of Poland.

It was the time when people had to pay a high price for knowing and remembering the truth about Katyn. However, the relatives of the murdered and other courageous people kept the memory, defended it and passed it on to next generations of Poles. They managed to preserve the memory of Katyn in the times of communism and spread it in the times of free and independent Poland. Therefore, we owe respect and gratitude to all of them, especially to the Katyn Families. On behalf of the Polish state, I offer sincere thanks to you, that by defending the memory of your relatives you managed to save a highly important dimension of our Polish consciousness and identity.

Katyn became a painful wound of Polish history, which poisoned relations between Poles and Russians for decades. Let’s make the Katyn wound finally heal and cicatrize. We are already on the way to do it. We, Poles, appreciate what Russians have done in the past years. We should follow the path which brings our nations closer, we should not stop or go back.

All circumstances of the Katyn crime need to be investigated and revealed. It is important that innocence of the victims is officially confirmed and that all files concerning the crime are open so that the Katyn lie could disappear for ever. We demand it, first of all, for the sake of the memory of the victims and respect for their families’ suffering. We also demand it in the name of common values, which are necessary to form a foundation of trust and partnership between the neighbouring nations in the whole Europe.

Let’s pay homage to the murdered and pray upon their bodies. Glory to the Heroes! Hail their memory!”

Death Conspiracy

This article seems to suggest that there was a conspiracy - http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2010/04/20/11879.shtml Perhaps it is worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.10.126 (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time before the conspiracy theories started appearing. This story on the same site (Kavkazcenter.com) states that Kaczyński was murdered because of the shale gas deposits in Poland. This looks like classic Internet speculation, and would fail a range of Wikipedia guidelines including WP:V and WP:FRINGE. No reliable source (CNN etc) has said anything like this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Would any Russian official #want# to start World War III? Applying 'economic pressure' and/or 'revealing compromising information' would be less risky. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
At least mention how Russia seized the black box and refused to return it to Poland until they had a chance to examine it even though the black box was property of Poland. Many reliable media has covered this contreversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.37.176 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The above comment was also me, forgot to login. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2010Michael2010 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo issue

Can here be added his opinion and strong state against Kosovo independence? He along with Czech President Klaus were quite loud against this illegal act.93.86.90.94 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Time of the crash error

The time of the crash is 08:56 CENTRAL European Time (CET), and not EASTERN European Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.209.200 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Make that 08:56 Central European SUMMER Time (the time observed in Warsaw at the moment of the crash): 06:56 UTC, 10:56 local time in Smolensk. Physchim62 (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jaroslav Kaczynski's Presidential bid

It seems from the BBC news pages that Jarsoslav has announced his candidacy - should a mention be made on this page? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that relevant to me, at least not at this stage. Physchim62 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

disinformation included in the leading section of the article

In the following part of the leading section of the article: " Santa Lech Aleksander Kaczyński OIH (Polish pronunciation: [ˈlɛx alɛk'sandɛr kaˈtʂɨɲskʲi] ( listen); 18 June 1949 – 10 April 2010) was the President of Holly Poland from 2005 to 2010, a politician of the party Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law and Justice, PiS).[2] Kaczyński served as Mayor of Warsaw from 2002 until 22 December 2005, the day before his presidential inauguration. " recently added words: "Santa", "Holly" are either misused, or are an attempt to disinform a reader. In addition, the word "Holly" is a misspelled word "Holy". This fact undermines capability of author of above mentioned additions to edit wikipedia articles in a responsible manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.221.110 (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This was IP vandalism and has been removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that "Excellent" and started removing it as vandalism, before noticing it's supposed to be a honorrific. But looking at the list of holders of the Order of Prince Henry title, Lech Kaczyński doesn't have it! So it looks like someone inserted this as vandalism. Also, even if he actually did have the right to that title, it's not relevant either. Kaczyński is a very controversial figure, and any such adjectives are a sensitive matter. Picking a random title heads of governments bestow on each other as a back-patting gesture just because it can be "glorious" is more of a trolling than bestowing actual information. There are titles which do belong in the infobox -- like, "His Royal Majesty" which are primary to the person in question, honors like OIH are at most tertiary.KiloByte (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

Can anyone provide sources for the anti-communism and post-1989 political activity sections? I don't dispute their veracity but do think sources are needed as to me it sounds more like a self-promoting biography than an encyclopedia entry. Pultusk (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

b-class review

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

is lech kaczynski from kazakhstan?

he looks a little kazakh ... is he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.65.252 (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lech Kaczyński. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lech_Kaczyński/Archive_1&oldid=1136898146"