Fort Towson

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Poland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force.

How is PO a "liberal conservative" party? In my mind, liberal conservatism is the result of either 1) a conservative party that adopts some liberal policies to appeal more to voters in the centre (like the Moderate Party in Sweden; their new leader talks a lot about "exclusion" and wants tax cuts to favour low- and middle-income earners) or 2) a liberal party that adopts some conservative policies to appeal more to voters on the right (like the Liberal Party in Australia; I refer especially to their immigration policy). In my mind, PO is a liberal party (or free market liberal if you want to be more precise). Their policies and general ideology seems to me to be thoroughly liberal, with the emphasis on freedom for the individual that goes with it. Tamino 12:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just been on their website. They say they represent a "synthesis of liberal, conservative and Christian democracy" so I'll change it back to saying that the party is "liberal conservative". But I would recommend changing the name of the article to "Civic Platform", as this is their translation. In my view, the party's translation should be used - consider the confusion if the Danish party name Det Radikale Venstre (the Danish Social Liberal Party) was translated literally to "The Radical Left"! Tamino 13:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the namechange - "Citizens platform" has been a permanent eyesore imho. In fact, since they translate their own name as "Civic", I think I'll do a redirect right away. Deuar 13:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I won't - the name is already taken by a redirect, it appears. I'll try to implement the procedure... Deuar 13:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to incorporate into the article their own description. They definedthemselves as "synthesis of liberal, conservative and Christian democracy". Which I believe is a very accurate description. Polish everyday politics brings less and less proofs on their alleged liberalism.Adamfularz (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Platforma Obywatelska" definate or indefinate in Polish? I have always heard PO referred to as "Civic Platform" (indefinate), rather than "The Civic Platform". Tamino 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and PO refers to itself as "Civic Platform" (indefinate) on its website. Tamino 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a hard question, actually. In Polish definate or indefinate are not so strictly defined as in english -- there's no counterparts for "the" and "a". Instead variable word endings are used. When a noun is used in a sentence, you can tell from the surrounding endings and/or the context whether it is being used as a definate or indefinate form, but when the noun is just by itself it's not clear. I'm trying to think what the convention is in articles about parties in english speaking countries, and I think it varies. Also, somehow I have a gut feeling that putting "the" in front of "Civic platform" is not right. Just "Civic platform" in the article title seems to better convey the feeling of the name, if you like. The name in polish doesn't particularly convey the notion that it's the only platform for civic expression. But that's just a vague impression I have. Deuar 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that just "Civic Platform" does sound better, and avoids implying that PO has a monopoly of representing citizens. Tamino 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that 'civic' relates to a city or town, 'civil' is much more general and is identified with the whole country. The name 'Platforma Obywatelska' means 'Platform of Civilians' more than 'Platform of Citizens' so I am convinced that 'Civil Platform' is the best option. Secondly platform is definite, you should use 'The Civil Platform' as far as you would use 'The Labour Party' in the same context. rabjan

I dunno - I don't think 'civic' refers particularly to a city or town, although it sometimes can. For example "civic duties", "civic expression" are not at all related to towns, but to being a `good citizen'. "Civil" on the other hand seems too vague, like "Publiczny" (public), "Urzedowy" (public/official), "Cywilny" (civillian) or "Cywilizowany" (civilized) in Polish. Deuar 20:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Also, I don't understand why "platform" is necessarily definate - there is such a thing as "a platform", after all. Tamino 14:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of classifying PO has been discussed above. Although their policy platform is strongly influenced by free-market liberalism, they describe themselves on their website as "a synthesis of Liberal, Conservative and Christian-Democratic beliefs". Thus "liberal conservative" is more appropriate than liberal. They are certainly similar to other liberal conservative parties, for example the Moderate Party of Sweden. Tamino 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current article only states their economically liberal policies - it has no mention of their Christian conservative views. It should mention why they are termed liberal conservative. Joffeloff 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Democrat International no longer exists, because it was renamed in 2001 to Centrist Democrat International. There are no informations about Civic Platform affiliation to any of these organizations on the Internet, at least I haven't found any. If anyone can confirm that they are member party of CDI (or any other political international) and provide some reference, do it. Otherwise, information about their international affiliation will be deleted. Ammon86 14:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information deleted. Ammon86 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Platform is a member of the European People's Party, the main Christian Democratic and conservative grouping in the European Parliament.84.26.1.92 07:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is already written in the article!!! --Checco 11:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking about Centrist Democrats International, not the European People's Party. Perhaps I have wrong sources, but on the CDI website [1] Civic Platform is not mentioned. Ammon86 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right and we should also correct the article on Centrist Democrat International right now. --Checco 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plaese, don't paste the information about the trade unions. It's not true. I am sorry for my English. Encepence 13:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please find a source: that informations has been there for months and I think that it is a qualifying ponit for a liberal-conservative party as PO is. --Checco 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

program_wyborczy_po7-ebook.pdf,

program_po_1216116511.pdf,

suplemnt___rozdzia__xi___wolni_obywatele_w_bezpiecznym_panstwie.pdf,

program.pdf,

panstwo_dla_obywateli.pdf,

powrot_do_domu.pdf Encepence 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as I can't speak Polish, for now I give up with this discussion, but I'm sorry that your move could undermine the profile of the party, if that information was correct. --Checco 12:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From program_wyborczy_po7-ebook.pdf, page 8-9 (exactly the same in program_po_1216116511.pdf, Page 11):

„Polskę ogarnia fala stagnacji i niewiary w przyszłość. Główną przyczyną jest paraliżowanie rozwijającej się przedsiębiorczości i obywatelskiej inicjatywy przez biurokrację, złe prawo i grupowe interesy związków zawodowych. Nie ma innej skutecznej polityki gospodarczej – jak polityka konkurencji, ochrony własności prywatnej i twardego rozprawienia się przez państwo z przyczynami paraliżu przedsiębiorczości.”

(„Poland is engulfed by wave of stagnation and lack of faith in the future. The main reason is parylysing of developing entrepreneurship and civic initiative by beaurocracy, bad law and group interest of labour unions. There is no other effective economic policy – like policy of competition, protection of private property and tough crackdown by state on reasons of entrepreneurship paralyse.“)

From program.pdf, page 6:

„Wolność gospodarcza nie może być skrępowana nadmiarem barier związanych z prawem pracy, systemem podatkowym czy obciążeniami związanymi z ubezpieczeniami społecznymi, gdyż w efekcie hamuje to procesy inwestycyjne takie jak rozbudowa infrastruktury i komunikacji. Restrykcyjna regulacja życia gospodarczego przez państwo skutecznie odstrasza, zwłaszcza młodych ludzi, od podejmowania własnej działalności gospodarczej. Zmiana tego stanu rzeczy jest podstawowym zadaniem Platformy Obywatelskiej.”

(„Economic freedom cannot be hindered by an excess of barriers connected with labour law, tax system or burdens binded with social insurance, because in effect it hampers investition processes such like expansion of infrastructure and communication. Restrictive regulations of economic life by state efficiently drives away, especially young people, from undertaking own economic activity. Change of this state of affairs is the basic objective of Civic Platform.”)

From panstwo_dla_obywateli, page 81:

„Potrzebna jest również liberalizacja prawa pracy. Wiele regulacji polskiego prawa pracy jest bardziej restrykcyjnych niż wymagania Unii Europejskiej. Regulacje te przeszkadzają firmom w dostosowaniu do zmieniających się warunków konkurencji (m.in. utrudniają bardziej elastyczne regulowanie godzin pracy oraz zatrudnianie pracowników tymczasowych), tym samym podnoszą koszty oraz ryzyko pracodawców związane z zatrudnianiem pracowników.”

(„Liberalization of labour law is also needed. Many regulations of polish labour law are more restrictive than requirements of European Union. These regulations are disturbing companies in adapting to changing conditions of competition (among other things they are hindering more flexible regulations of work hours and engaging temporary emploees), so they are raising costs and risk of employers connected with engaging employees.”)

Ammon86 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, then. Thank you! --Checco (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source about the "reducing of the power of trade unions", only about the "labour law reform". 83.9.243.24 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PO's dominance is also a reflection of right-wing weakness and divisions, with PiS suffering a splinter in Autumn 2010.

As far as PO is rather center party than right-wing right now - is that sentence suggesting that PiS is more right wing than PO? Which way? This is nonsense. W.J.M. (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the information about the party and the last two sentences of ideology strike me as biased against them and not really neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.38.194 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed (probably all) possibly biased - and certainly unsourced - statements, along with your neutrality tag. //Halibutt 22:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Civic Platform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220053333/http://www.wbj.pl/blog/The_business_of_politics/post-254-civic-platform-almighty.htm to http://www.wbj.pl/blog/The_business_of_politics/post-254-civic-platform-almighty.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604060617/http://www.salon.eu.sk/article.php?article=1005-a-leading-force to http://www.salon.eu.sk/article.php?article=1005-a-leading-force

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civic Platform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140824100453/http://pe2014.pkw.gov.pl/pl/ to http://pe2014.pkw.gov.pl/pl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to add this info - ok?

• Reuters: Poland's euroskeptic government falling further behind with urban voters OCTOBER 22, 2018

--0e7s (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regional assemblies 2018 News: TVP: PiS triumphs in Polish local elections 21.10.2018

• An exit poll indicates that Poland’s conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party gained the most votes in Sunday’s local government elections, public broadcaster TVP reported.
  • In Poland’s most important electoral test since Law and Justice came to power in the parliamentary elections of late 2015, the party on Sunday gained 32.3 percent of the vote in elections to regional assemblies, according to an exit poll.
  • The Civic Coalition, an alliance between the Civic Platform (PO) and Nowoczesna (Modern) parties, came second with 24.7 percent of the regional assemblies vote, the poll found.
  • The Polish People's Party (PSL), which is strong in rural areas, came third on 16.6 percent, according to the survey by pollster Ipsos.
  • Turnout at 5pm on Sunday stood at 41.65 percent, officials said.

I would like to add this info to the section Regional assemblies 2018 - ok? --0e7s (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Civic Platform combines ordoliberal stances on the economy with social conservative stances on social and ethical issues, including opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, soft drug decriminalisation, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, removal of crosses and other religious symbols in schools and public places, and partially to wide availability of in vitro fertilisation. The party also wants to criminalise gambling and supports religious education in schools and civil unions. Other socially conservative stances of the party include voting to ban designer drugs and amending the penal code to introduce mandatory chemical castration of paedophiles. However, it is somewhat less strident on social issues than Law and Justice. "

How might this possibly be described as social liberalism? Oddeivind (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is absurd to describe it as socially liberal and I removed that. I'm even inclined to believe it was vandalism.2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:4118 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the mentioning of social liberalism may be related to Civic Platform's big-tent center to center-right nature. There's probably a socially liberal faction within the party. Perhaps "social liberalism" should be removed from the infobox, as was already done, but I think it still should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article that not all of the party is socially conservative -Ezhao02 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The party is no longer opposed to any of that, and is in fact for every single thing mentioned. It is a socially liberal party LordParsifal (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox lists "Liberal conservatism" and "Liberalism". Not sure how accurate that is. The "Ideology" section is a complete mess; it reads "[...] Civic Platform has been described as liberal-conservative,[14][15][16][17][18][19] conservative-liberal,[20][21][22][23][24] liberal,[25][26][27] Christian-democratic,[28] conservative,[29] neoliberal,[29] social-liberal[30] and pro-European.[31]" The article is in such a state, that it's very difficult for readers to understand what kind of a party this is, and what it actually stands for. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:494A (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​​​Hi, there's been some recent disagreement over what ideologies should be listed in the infobox. I believe that the broad terms of "conservatism" and "liberalism" should be listed, even though other ideologies (e.g., Christian democracy, liberal conservatism, conservative liberalism, social liberalism) are accurate for describing all of PO or factions within it. My argument in favor of the terms "conservatism" and "liberalism" is that since the infobox is intended to be a concise summary of the article content, the broader terms should be used, since they include the other accurate ideologies. For example, Christian democracy falls under the umbrella of conservatism, and social liberalism falls under the umbrella of liberalism. Therefore, I think that although other accurate ideologies should be included in the article body (as they are under #Ideology), the infobox should only retain "liberalism" and "conservatism" (and possibly "pro-Europeanism", but that one would warrant a separate discussion). Could some other editors provide their opinions on this? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Infobox should include liberal conservatism – it is the most well-referenced ideology in the article body, and the second most referenced, conservative liberalism, is essentially redundant in the Infoxbox due to the overlapping nature of both ideologies. I would say just list liberal conservatism, or conservative liberalism, either or. I'm not keen on listing pro-Europeanism in the Infobox for any political party article, but if that's to be listed, that should be the second entry in the ideology field. None more is needed. the rest can be listed (with references) in the body of the article text.--Autospark (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Autospark: Thanks for your comments. I'd be willing to accept that. If we take that route, I'd prefer "liberal conservatism" over "conservative liberalism", since it's better cited. However, the reason I wanted to include "liberalism" was because of some more social-liberal elements within PO, like the 2020 presidential candidate Rafał Trzaskowski. -Ezhao02 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I approve.--Autospark (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Autospark: Sorry, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Do you approve of what's currently on the page (conservatism and liberalism), putting both "liberal conservatism" and "liberalism", or something else? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezhao02: in favour of putting both "liberal conservatism" and "liberalism". Sorry for the ambiguity!—Autospark (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(responding from my other account) @Autospark: No worries! I'll change it now to list both "liberal conservatism" and "liberalism". Ezhao02 test (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Autospark: I've restored a couple more sources and ideologies that I assume you actually didn't want to remove. Should the infobox get changed to just "liberal conservatism" and "liberalism", or should it stay how it is? Looking at the discussion above, Ezhao and you have agreed to the change. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0 thanks for those source restorations. I would still prefer the infobox to list just “Liberal conservatism” and “Liberalism”.—Autospark (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I am restoring that in the infobox. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add, "Pro-Europeanism" into the ideology section. 84.149.67.232 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an ideology. Vacant0 (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the political position in infobox should be changed to simple "centre" rather than "centre to centre-right". Because the PO is described as a centre-left party.

Ideology and political position should be applied differently from country to country. The Polish political environment is closer to South Korea than to Germany or France. In South Korea or United States. Poland, South Korea, and the United States have something in common that there are no social democratic parties among the two major parties, only conservative and liberal parties. South Korea's DPK is left-liberal by South Korean standards, but policy will be more socially conservative than PO. In Germany, where the political environment is liberal, green politics is more of a centrist. In Poland, where the political environment is conservative, liberal-conservatism is more of a centrist. Poles usually recognize PiS as political centre-right, but do not recognize PO as political centre-right. (Of course I don't think PiS is a centre-right.) Mureungdowon (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In infobox, "Liberal conservatism" should still be maintained. However, the political position should be changed to "Centre". Mureungdowon (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "centre-left" without doubt do exist, though what matters whether it is due enough for it to amend the political position to only state "centre" instead of "centre to centre-right". If you have reliable third-party sources that confirm this shift to the centre, provide them here. Also, please abstain from original research and comparing parties to South Korea or whatever other country as this discussion is about a political party in Poland. Again, if you have sources that backs your claims, present them here. Vacant0 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources have described PO as having shifted from the centre-right to the centre.^[1] This means that they were centre-right in the past, but are now centre (not centre-right). Mureungdowon (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is appropriate for due to refer to the PO's political position as "centre-right". Because POs are overwhelmingly referred to as centrist rather than center-right or center-left. I just googled: "center-right Civic Platform"(172); "centrist Civic Platform"(784) Of course, I value other policies more than Wikipedia's due policy, but because Vacant0 mentioned this policy, I argued back with the due policy. Mureungdowon (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any description of the PO as "centre-left"; it is primarily a centre-right, economically liberal party. Of course it has cooperated in recent years with parties to its left, e.g. the European Coalition and Civic Coalition, but there are plenty of examples of other centre-right parties doing so. Any other claims are WP:OR and/or certain editors' own unsupported opinions.--Autospark (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that in Poland there is currently no large centre-left political party and that the main opposition party to the governing right-wing PiS party is PO may suggest that the latter is centre-left. It is clearly not the case. PO is a quite standard centre-right political party and, among EPP members, it is quite conservative. The nature of a political party is not changed by its allies and it is very important not to adapt political positions to the different contexts, but to keep international standards: some countries may have more parties with a similar political position than others. Please excuse me for my contorted English. --Checco (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Autospark and Checco. There is, in fact, a little amount of sources that describe PO as "centre-left" as compared to "centre" and "centre-right". Mureungdowon did prove that there is one source (from 2016) that says that PO shifted from the centre-right to the centre, though this view does seem to be in the minority. I gave a quick look at Google Scholar and it seems like both centre and centre-right are still used up till this day, so keeping the current status quo would be correct. Vacant0 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for 'international standards' are unclear. I think we should consider both 'international standards' and 'national standards'. Mureungdowon (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I have few doubts on the centre-right positionment of PO, I see the point. It would be better to remove the "political position" parameter from political party infoboxes. Obviously, it is not something we can decide here, but it would really be the smartest thing to do. --Checco (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the PiS government passed the controversial "Lex Tusk" law, Civic platform may field a different candidate in this year's election. 2A02:3030:805:B498:1:0:4120:CB3D (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The party is definitely centre-right, similar to Fine Gael or Venstre. 2A02:3030:805:EAA8:1:0:6DD0:D98E (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And centre-right is already in the article and the infobox. Please create an account and stop removing the centrism claim that is strongly backed up by reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In no way this party is anything else than Centre-right moderate conservative. 2A02:3030:806:7530:1:0:FB18:33B5 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have no clue about Polish politics. This party NOW is clearly social liberal and centre-left, no way conservative nor centre-right!

It used to be centre-right several years ago, but now it has no common with its past ideology.

This party is much more to the left both socially and economically than PSL and Poland 2050, so it CANNOT be described centre-right! Get some research before stating anything here. PikselowyPrezes (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The party's leader has recently shifted the party's image to the right because of his recent statements about taxes and immigration from muslim-majority countries. 2A02:8108:1640:5282:DCE2:1E82:B3F3:AD13 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The party did not shift to the right in no way. The party maintains its social liberal course on multicultural issues. The statement of party's leader was only a "confrontation" with government's politics on immigration. PikselowyPrezes (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I believe that this does represent a shift to the right. The criticism involved utilizes right-wing talking points and has clear anti-immigration implications, not to mention other issues such as aforementioned taxes. This was largely seen and criticised as a shift by the party, sparking protest from a left-wing party,[2] being considered a shift by the media,[3] and also as a pivot.[4]

As someone who contributed to this article a fair bit and researched this party, I do think that this needs to be treated seriously. This isn't consistent with the public image and stances of this party so far. Brat Forelli (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PO was always slightly nationalist, it was them who introduced a holiday for the Cursed soldiers. 2A02:3030:80E:7785:1:0:28FD:EDB (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point honestly. Thank you! Brat Forelli (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also ten years ago the PO-PSL government passed a resolution condemning the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia as Genocide and also during Tusk leadership the polish IPN got more funding than ever since. 2A02:3030:817:D1C3:1:0:29DF:7FF9 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put them back in! 2A02:3030:81D:7A47:1:0:2D13:78EC (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations weren't removed but they were moved to ideology section (Pomchi-Inu87 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, thank God, also lock this article since it's vandalized pretty often. 2A02:3030:81D:7A47:1:0:2D13:78EC (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I appreciate your efforts but I believe that you should move my citations back to the wikibox.

Why? Basically the wikibox tends to be edited often, there are crowds of people coming in and changing the party's political alignment to centre, to centre-left, or whatever else that they're convinced of. Same goes to the ideology labels that are constantly challenged.

As such, I added these sources, complete with citations, to prevent this from happening. It's hard to question the alignment when there are 4 quotes calling the party centre-right right next to it. If you move them to the ideology section, then we're just as exposed to these edit wars as we were before. Thank you. Brat Forelli (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having citations for party's ideology in the Wikibox is also a common practice, especially for parties whose alignment tends to spark disagreements, such as the German National People's Party and Democratic Party. So I added these sources with intention for them to be in the wikibox and I would want them there. Brat Forelli (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations should be added back in, then this article should be locked. 2A02:3030:801:4ADE:1:0:2E10:7978 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations should be in the Ideology section. Also, it is against consensus to cram the Infobox with so many ideologies – we just need one or two. Liberal conservatism and a second reasonable ideology is all we need.— Autospark (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that, putting citations in the Wikibox is ultimately a reasonable and a common practice. There are hundreds of articles that utilise that, and the examples of that include Dutch CDA, JA21, SGP and Maltese ABBA. Indeed, JA21 has a grand total of 10 citations for the party's political position.

Regarding the amount of ideologies, five of them is a perfectly fine number. Danish New Right has four, aforementioned JA21 has five, SGP also has five, and Spanish Sumar has six.

The additional reason for doing that is because we constantly face edits of the wikibox ideologies and political position - and so the political position is changed to "centre" or "centre-left" etc. without any consultation. Brat Forelli (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking outlier examples? Not good practice. Two ideologies at most in the Infobox, and keep the references in the Ideology section of the article.— Autospark (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a surprisingly pugnacious response. Once we take a look at the major Polish political parties and see that none of them meet the "two ideologies" rule, we have to ask ourselves just how much of it is really cherry-picking and how much is simply speaking for the majority of Wikipedia articles on political parties. Same situation takes place when we look at Spanish parties, Danish ones, Dutch and so on. It is a valid point against you if you believe that there must be no citations in the Wikibox and only two ideologies, and yet I can find a plethora of articles that go against it.

If your opinion is that the wikibox should be that limited, I see. But if you claim that this is the consensus, then please show me. I cannot really consider it cherry-picking when I am speaking for the majority of contemporary European parties - or rather, articles thereof. Brat Forelli (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Autospark on both counts: 1) ideologies in the infobox should be very few (it should be a short summary of what readers can find in the "ideology" section); 2) references on ideologies should be included in the article's text, preferably in the "ideology" section, not in the infobox. Additionally, the only ideologies that should be mentioned in the infobox are "liberal conservatism" and, potentially, "Christian democracy"; "civic nationalism", "neoliberalism" and "populism" are either redundant or a joke. --Checco (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why? They are sourced. 2A02:3030:811:67C:1:0:31AA:8023 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still strongly disagree with that, and it doesn't help prevent the wikibox from constantly being challenged. If we need to vote whether the party should have 1 ideology listed or 4, or whether the "centre-right" alignment should have sources attached for it, then I'd be willing to do that. Brat Forelli (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, PO is clearly centre-right by European standards. --Checco (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Platform is now de facto a social-liberal party. The party turns every year futher to centre-left politics and has no more connections with centre-right as most of conservative and Christian democratic politicians left the party to join centre-right coaltions (like Polish People's Party, Poland 2050 and their "Third Way").

Civic Platform isn't absolutely anti-immigration, it supported taking in refugees (both in 2015 and 2021). The leader of the party didn't make any anti-immigrant stances - moreover, he supported taking refugees in past.

Stop making false statements, in Poland nobody would call this party centre-right, even their own politicians. PikselowyPrezes (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok PiS troll, any sources? 2A02:3030:811:67C:1:0:31AA:8023 (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This shows your "neutrality". No arguments, only insulting. Please ban 2A02:3030:811:67C:1:0:31AA:8023 from editing this site as this user showed connection to political parties and broke rules on not standing on any viewpoint. This site is not for political battles. PikselowyPrezes (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately all literary sources that I was able to find call PO centre-right, and I provided these sources with quotes from them. If you have sources that the party has shifted towards centre-left, can you show them to us? My latest source calling the party centre-right is from 2022.^[1] Brat Forelli (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any stance myself regarding PO since after all they're a big-tent party which means they encompass numerous tendencies. However, if most political journals call the party centre-right, then we need to reflect that. Brat Forelli (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It’s a pretty far stretch to say that the PO, a typical EPP member party for Central Europe, is a centre-left party. They would require solid supporting evidence rather than placing WP:UNDUE weight on outlier sources, or putting together WP:SYNTH from quotes and so on.— Autospark (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources that describe Civic Platform as centre-left (those sources are from sources that are not politically alliated with any party):

https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art1127321-marek-borowski-platforma-obywatelska-nie-jest-juz-partia-prawicowo-konserwatywna

https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art18956341-sondaz-po-prawica-lewica-czy-centrum-co-piaty-polak-nie-potrafi-powiedziec

https://www.polsatnews.pl/wiadomosc/2019-07-04/posel-po-ko-ma-przejsc-do-psl-ued-nie-bede-startowal-tam-gdzie-jest-sld

PO might be centre-left in the Polish context, but it is definitely centre-right by European standards. --Checco (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bankier.pl/amp/wiadomosc/Boguslaw-Sonik-opuszcza-Platforme-Obywatelska-8536430

https://www.rmf24.pl/tylko-w-rmf24/siedem-pytan-o-7-07/newsamp-lapinski-donald-tusk-skradl-serca-lewicowe,nId,6857459

Those include statements by people, former politicians and actual politicians from the party, so the party is now mostly associated with centre-left or centrist-liberal (in social understanding) politics. PikselowyPrezes (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco how PO is centre-right by european standards? To consider party as a centre-right it needs to have a conservative or strongly liberal economic positions. Most centre-right parties in EU like german CDU, spanish PP or Italian FI, wants to ban abortion, preserve bond between church and state, lower taxes, cut welfare, wants to form coalition with far-right parties like Vox or FdI and are hesitent about LGBT rights. PO don't have plans about cutting welfare and lowering taxes, in fact they want to increase it, they openly support legal abortion, civil unions for LGBT couples, Tusk said that gender change in ID needs to be easier, whole party voted for marijuana legalisation and they want to abolish church fund and funding religion lessons in school. One of their MPs even said he wants to abolish concordate. PO is a typical centre-liberal party this days. skout3 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, they are hardly against coalitions with far-right parties like PiS or Konfederacja or even with center-right ones, considering Tusk said he won't allow anti-abortion MPs on PO list. skout3 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are to the right of the German CDU 46.114.37.145 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@46.114.37.145 This CDU which was against same sex marriage or even civil unions when they were succesfully passed, made abortion nearly impossible to get in regions in which they have power, even contacted constitutional court to prohibit it, voted in PE against preservation of both, when PO voted for or abstained, is a vocal defender of sunday shopping, concordate and religion at schools, has MPs throwing transphobic jokes and pro-life sentiments at public, leader who supports flat tax, building a wall on polish border and said that for christians abortion is always evil and they should fight it? Yeah, sounds like a liberal alternative to PO. skout3 (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

only since two years, Merkel is to the left of Tusk. 46.114.171.2 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@46.114.171.2 This is page about PO, not Tusk. Also, most of things I listed, happened or stayed the same during Merkel leadership, so I wouldn't be so sure about that. skout3 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://polskieradio24.pl/5/3/artykul/867160,premier-na-kongresie-kobiet-przeciw-radykalnym-rozwiazaniom 2A02:3030:814:9F00:1:0:5F85:9837 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article from a decade ago. He changed his stance after return to Poland, whole party decided on it in 2021

Tusk promises abortion up to 12 weeks and same-sex partnerships in “march towards modernity” | Notes From Poland

Only supporters of abortion on demand can stand as election candidates, say opposition leader Tusk | Notes From Poland

Aborcja w Polsce. Pakiet Praw Kobiet - propozycja Platformy Obywatelskiej - TVN24 46.205.213.5 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek ND does too, but just like PO they are slightly nationalist and support the free market. 2A02:3030:815:366A:1:0:664A:231A (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PO is similar to the greek ND, as it ranges from light social conservatism to progressivism, is slightly nationalist, favors the free market, wants to limit immigration, is in the EPP group, is pro-european and wants more funds from EU. Make the Position "Centre-right to right-wing". 2.247.240.83 (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2.247.240.83 Relying on comparison to one party to establish the ideology of another is very unreliable. You can find many parties in EPP on even RE like irish FF, german FW or polish PL2050, labeled on wiki as centrist, which are more right-wing than PO. skout3 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting idea - if this is an accurate description to ND, then this would be a good fit for PO. Hopefully there are sources out there who do compare PO to other parties and call it right-wing. Brat Forelli (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

here: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/socialist-mep-accuses-tusk-of-turning-into-trump/ 62.169.197.95 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tge party Leader Tusk has recently accused Kaczyński of being gay and he joked about it publicly.

https://www.tysol.pl/a108103-skandaliczne-slowa-tuska-w-ustroniu-oburzenie-lewicowych-aktywistow 2A02:8108:1640:5282:588B:34C3:D6D:B6A1 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

add logo = Logotyp_platformy.png Arasakacorp (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 00:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 parliamentary elections: Coalition Octilllion (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to changed this party's position from centre-right to centre to centre right because in the ideology section there are 3 sources that say the this party is a centrist one and 6 sources that say the this party is a centre-right one. What are your opinions about this change proposal?

• User:Nick.mon, User:Vif12vf, User:Scia Della Cometa, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Autospark. User:Davide King, User:Broncoviz, User:AleCapHollywood, User:Egeymi, User:Yakme, User:Vacant0, User:Ermanarich, User:BastianMAT, User:Shadow4dark, User:The Account 2, User:Martopa, User talk:Braganza, User:Karma1998, User:HapHaxion, User:Nick Number, User:Stevan Mitnick, User:Gorrrillla5, User:Skywatcher68,User:Archives908, User:Charles Essie, User:PLATEL, User:Marginataen, User:Yue, User:Checco, User:ZlatanSweden10 and User:Brat Forelli

Pomchi-Inu87 (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pomchi-Inu87,

Thank you for your message and thank you for seeking consensus on your change! I appreciate your honesty and straightforwardness!

I personally feel like "centre-right" is the most accurate description on the party's ideology, I myself found a lot of sources calling the party neoliberal and liberal-conservative that are on this page to this day. Centre-right is also how the party is described by most major news outlets, be it the Guardian,^[1], Reuters,^[2], Euractiv,^[3], Financial Times,^[4], EUObserver,^[5] Politico^[6] and France24.^[7]

In this way, the sources that call it simply "centre" may be simply oversimplifications rather than deliberate assertions that the party is not as centre-right as commonly thought.

Thanks! Brat Forelli🦊 10:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brat Forelli: EUObserver called it centrist in its recent article.^[8] Additional sources calling it centrist are some articles from PAP^[9], The Week^[10], The Economist^[11], TVN^[12], or Polskie Radio^[13].

I would not agree that sources that call it "center" are oversimplifications, especially since you can find articles that describe it as center-left as well (although more rarely). For example some by TVN (once again)^[14] or NBC News^[15].

As of now, the ideology section says it's been mostly described as centrist or center-right, and I think it's fair if we reflect that in the lede and the infobox as well, instead of just favoring "center-right." As you can see by looking at some previous discussions here (#Centre-right, #Centre-left?!, #Centre to centre-right, #Civic Platform is definitely a centre to centre-left party nowadays, #Centre-right to right-wing like ND), there are several different stances on its ideology and the term "center-right" is too narrow, especially since many sources describe it as centrist. Max19582 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazovian Voivode Mariusz Frankowski since 2023 https://warszawa.wyborcza.pl/warszawa/7,54420,30504349,jest-nazwisko-nowego-wojewody-mazowieckiego.html Octilllion (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also KO-PL2050-PSL-NL coalition no longer TBA Octilllion (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Brat Forelli🦊 19:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ty <3 Octilllion (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

add this logo please. Civic Platform logo.xcf HoopaRoopa (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No logo given, not justification for its addition. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

41 senators, law and justice independents are listed with the party. I don't see why PO ones wouldn't be Octilllion (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright,  Done. Brat Forelli🦊 18:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody add economic liberalism to the ideologies. The sources is from [30] and [45] from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_Platform#Ideology. 75.113.159.27 (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: The source numbers can change; please provide the exact sources. Shadow311 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can found sources! 97.97.98.76 (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.derstandard.at/story/2084941/wahlkampf-attacken-im-konservativen-lager

Zur Lage der Bürgerplattform (PO) in Polen - Biuro Fundacji Polska - Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (kas.de)

I got two sources here! Now we can add economic liberalism to this party's ideology. 97.97.98.76 (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of these sources is from 2008, I'd say that's quite outdated Octilllion (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no need for economic liberalism as liberal conservatism and economic liberalism has the same meaning. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change parliamentary leader from Borys Budka to Zbigniew Konwiński Torfiak04 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found sources only in polish language:

1) https://platforma.org/ludzie/klub-parlamentarny-koalicji-obywatelskiej#0

2) https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kraj/zmiany-w-kierownictwie-po-zbigniew-konwinski-nowym-szefem-klubu/h2zgtem

3) https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/kraj/artykuly/9385776,zbigniew-konwinski-nowym-szefem-klubu-parlamentarnego-koalicji-obywate.html

4) https://radiogdansk.pl/wiadomosci/region/slupsk/2023/12/19/slupski-posel-zbigniew-konwinski-zostal-nowym-szefem-parlamentarnego-klubu-ko/

5) https://forsal.pl/gospodarka/polityka/artykuly/9385778,zbigniew-konwinski-koalicja-obywatelska-jest-nowy-szef-klubu-parlamentarnego.html

6) https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/klub-parlamentarny-ko-ma-nowe-wladze-stanowiska-rozdzielone Torfiak04 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]