This is an archive of past discussions about Poland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Zalipie wooden shack this type of traditional folk/peasent wooden architecture is part of Polish culture, also other Wiki country articles such as Estonia, Slovakia and Ukraine have similar images. --E-960 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue might be resolved at this point, since a different subject matter other then the 'manor house vs. cottage' was agreed to. --E-960 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
[[File:Dobczyce skansen PW4.jpg|thumb|left|A farmhouse in the village of [[Dobczyce]] is an example of historical Polish folk art and architecture]] is an example of how users can push their personal opinions as fact with words like "example". Who says it is an "example" of anything beyond just being there. Huts similar to that can be found all over the northern part of the hemisphere. There's absolutely nothing original in their design, and nothing typical to Poland. Please replace with something of value, which you can easily find at the Wooden churches of Southern Lesser Poland for example. Poeticbenttalk17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
'The'
I notice that many of the captions omit the word the when it normally would be included in English usage. Example: "Oder River" rather than "The Oder River." I realize Polish, like other Slavic languages, has no articles, but I would remind our Polish colleagues that English – like French, German and others – does have them. Sca (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Phoney War
Does no one think that there should be some mention of what is often described as the Phoney War in the article? There is no mention that the Allies did very little to help Poland at the start of World War II.--Henry P. Smith (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that the 'Phony War' statement that was added, pushes down more important events such the Siege of Warsaw or the Soviet invasion of Poland into the second paragraph. Also, in Polish histography the term Phony War (Dziwna wojna) is seldom used, as this is something that happened in the west (more often you hear Western Betrayal about this and Yalta and Postdam). In any case, you basically give precedence to what did not happened in the west over what was happening in Poland during the invasion. Btw, you can add endless details to the WWII section, so we focus on events in Poland during WWII. --E-960 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I accept that this article is about what happened to Poland. Surely there should be some mention of the Phoney War since it affected Poland? Because of the Allies lack of help, Poland suffered terribly.--Henry P. Smith (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
In simple terms, WWII section is very popular with editors and there is a constant flow of edits that add more and more detail to the section. The WWII section is already one of the longest in the article, and we can't just keep adding more details. Remember the reader can always, hit the hyperlink to the Invasion of Poland article to get more information about this very extensive topic — which is WWII. --E-960 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017
This edit request to Poland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
2601:1C1:8101:1E30:655A:78D1:7FA:8AE2 (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
There is too much western propaganda in the end of the soviet era it is not objective. There seems to be a biased political narrative it even states that 1989 was the first time there were "partially democratic elections" since world war II. That's definitely debatable there were plenty of elections in the Soviet era. It also mentions that it was the first time people had no censorship on the internet. The internet didn't exist in 1989! At least not to the public in any country that I know of. At the very least you need to delete the internet excerpt.
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. Nihlus13:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Poland lies in a moderate zone with mixed continental and oceanic climate influences - seems to be right, but unsourced. Please compare Zielona Góra and Suwałki.Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 3 external links on Poland. 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:
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: 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.
Pieniny national park is located in the Pieniny Mountains, not the other way around (since the park area covers only part of the area of the whole mountain range). Also the highest point of the national park is Trzy Korony (982). Wysokie Skałki is located outside of the national park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakuV (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The GDP (PPP) is currently set to "$1,110 trillion" which would make them the richest country on Earth. On the English wiki, it is the standard form to use periods for decimals so either way, it's wrong. Princewilliam3 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Apart from one single source which represents a paper written by somebody at the Dublin City University, there is no other source which characterises Poland as a semi-presidential republic. This change was unilateral, it was not discussed with anyone, and thus I ask that the change be reverted back to the actual nature of Poland - a parliamentary republic. Cipika (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Changed to democratic republic as described in the body of the article. Should it be parliamentary instead- please comment?
How about just a "Republic"? Using technical definitions, Democracy and Republic are similar BUT not the same thing — Greece was a Democracy, Rome was a Republic. So, in short I don't think the term "Democratic Republic" is anything but an political slang of some kind. But, I do like the current description of 'unitary semi-presidential republic' better. --E-960 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
United Nations Security Council
An editor has added to the lead information about Poland being on the UN Security Council for 2018-19. I think this should just be in the body of the article, not the lead, as it is only a position that will be held for a specific duration of time. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear anybody, could you deleate map that shows Slovakia in 960? That country existed only between 1938-1945 and since 1993. Not other time! This map is falsificating history and lying. --Meszaros Miklos (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
That's true, this is not a correct term, in the German version of the map this area is referred to as Nitraer Fürstentum (Princilaplity of Nitra). However, all the names on this map have modern equivalents such as Czechia, etc. Perhaps we can use this map [1] instead, for the area in question—the name translates to "Slovak lands" which is a bit more reasonable however this area was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (this map also has issues). --E-960 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
In the above discussion on the article talk page titled Poland is the largest net beneficiary? United Union stated that FYI, this article is set to receive quite a few improvements in near future. Unfortunately, this statement comes across as a threat to any one that disagrees with user United Union, and possibly implies a coordinated and planned effort by several editors to push a particular POV on this article. --E-960 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This reminds me of several incidents in the past where an editors/suck-puppet dumped information on unusual topics/minutia (normally not covered in other country articles) such as traffic fatalities in the country. --E-960 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@E-960: I fail to see how someone saying that they intend to improve the article could be viewed as POV-pushing. Also, regarding 3RR, you might want to check the article history and look at the timestamps of your reverts. I'm ambivalent to the content that's being added by United Union, though it doesn't seem out of place at a first glance, and it has a reference. If you feel that it's given undue weight, simply ask the editor to add a few more references to establish notability of the fact. BytEfLUShTalk00:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
User:BytEfLUSh, why this is a possible cause for concern... for example yesterday an editor on the Krakow page change Nazi German concentration camp to Polish concentration camp on that and three other pages, so I feel unease when someone makes such a statement (as above) on the Poland page. Or, when the Polish Prime Minister had a car accident, a user in the following days added text related to traffic fatalities in Poland and that they were highest in the EU. Now, user United Union wants to include information on EU subsidies for Poland just when there is talk in the news that the commission wants to take them away, sorry but there was time since 2004 to add such information about it, so why exactly now? The Poland article still suffers from a lack of cohesion because exactly from this, editors just adding random trivia. --E-960 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you might be on the lookout for vandalism on Poland-related articles; the examples you mentioned are certainly troublesome and you were probably right to revert them (haven't checked out the diffs, but as you describe them - those certainly weren't attempts to improve the encyclopedia). OTOH, those were different editors, different content. Poland is a member of the EU, and it's likely that it has a huge impact on its economy. Remember, there is no deadline, so information that may be beneficial to the readers can be added at any time. And, once again, I'm not sure if I condone the edits, but it's not worth edit warring about. Let's make a consensus about whether it should be included, and what wording should be used. BytEfLUShTalk00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding, and as I told user United Union to simply open a discussion — see what other editors say, btw the above discussion was actually initiated by another editor who also questions the need for such info. So, I'm open to debate, but when you make such cryptic statements, it's a cause for concern given the history of sockpuppets and obnoxious edits on this page. --E-960 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see, didn't notice it was another user opening the above section. Anyway, no need for edit war or AN/I in my opinion, per WP:BRD United Union was Bold, you Reverted them, now it's time to Discuss. Pinging @United Union: to get his input. If discussion fails and no consensus is reached, there's always WP:RFC. BytEfLUShTalk00:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Here I'm. I don't know whether I must answer here and on the Administrators' noticeboard, so, for now, I'll answer it just here. I appreciate your involvement in the dispute resolution BytEfLUSh as well as your reasonable comment on the noticeboard BethNaught. You both clearly see that my sole intention was to improve the content of this article and not to "organize persistent POV attack" which I've been accused of. I have had this account (and only this one! - I support administrators to open an investigation on the possible sockpuppetry if necessary) for more than three years during which I created 130+ new articles and in all that time I have never been pushing POV. I always write facts that are easy to check. Like this one. The sentence in question is not some random claim I came up with but a well-known fact. How can something that is easily proven by various sources be considered POV? As you can see, I tried to reasonably explain why I wrote it. In return, I came across an unreasonable user who clearly does not understand the rules and behaves like he owns the article by not allowing other users to write relevant information he considers "embarrassing". It's clear that E-960 thinks that he is allowed to dictate what we should write and what not. As of "current political situation in the real world" he mentioned (I assume that he refers to the current Brussels - Warsaw dispute), I will say that it has literally nothing to do with my edit. Poland didn't become a largest net beneficiary in 2015 when PiS came to power nor in 2017 when disagreements escalated. Just because some Polish editor(s) think that it's embarrassing to mention that their country receives generous funding from the EU and that it greatly affects countries' economy, doesn't mean that those informations shouldn't be mentioned. I'm angry about this whole unnecessary mess over the sentence. So far, I haven't heard any valid explanation why this sentence should be removed. As for user who initiated this discussion, (s)he didn't give any valid arguments either. The basis of failure of these two editors is that they are trying to dispute the fact. I'm still open for discussion but I don't know what else I could do to prove to the E-960 the importance of this information. I would like to reason with him, but I'm afraid that's impossible so I suppose that we would need an administrator to intervene (once again). As I said above, I will wait for comments from other interested editors (if any) and if it doesn't work I will use WP:RFC. Greetings, United Union (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC).
You opinions about generous funding are biased and unsourced.
Quite many writers and politicians (PM Morawiecki) describe neocolonialism of developed EU nations.
Other states of the region protest agianst low quality of products sold by developed EU countries in poor countries. Poland doesn't protest but original German products are distributed by small importers. Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If ‘largest net beneficiary’ is notable, then are ‘largest net beneficiary per head’ (Hungary?/ Luxemburg) largest contributor (Germany) largest contributor per head (Netherlands, Sweden?) smallest recipient per head (UK) all also equally notable?
Poland isn't the largest net beneficiary per capita. POlish markets are opened for EU producers and contructors. At least 50% of the help returns. The EU doesn't fight VAT crimes.Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss first on talk page, instead of edit warring, apparently I'm not the only editor who questions the overall validity or nessesity of this statement in the article. --E-960 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I gave you an explanation as you requested on my talk page. Now it's your turn to respond. Yeah, so many of you, two Polish buddies that constantly patrol the article try to cover up the fact that Poland enormously benefits from the EU funds. How shocking! The one blabbering about Lidl doing business in the Czech Republic and another about VAT crime in the EU. Oh please, at least try to act seriously. And stop constantly editing your comments. Use the "show preview". United Union (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there was a benefit and that's why I did not remove your other statement regarding the "50% GDP increase". But, France, Netherlands and Germany also benefited form the EU by having open market, somehow I don't see that fact being highlighted and explained in detail as a "EU benefit" in articles about other countries — just Poland and the "chartable" EU subsidies, so following the lead of other country articles, the topic of EU economics is not outlined in detail. --E-960 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@E-960 starting a discussion on a user talk page about the content of the Poland article is inappropriate. @United Union if someone does that to you, I suggest you refer them immediately to the Talk:Poland page and avoid a substantive response on your talk page.
Gravuritas, the discussion was about United Union edit warring (3RR rule for new text additions), I think it's appropriate to take it up with the user first not open an discussion on the article page.
Mentioning GDP growth without mentioning an important reason that significantly affected it is inappropriate. Although this discussion is not about Germany or France (if you think something needs to be added there, go and add it), I will say, since you mention it, that EU membership didn't enormously boost and transform the German or French economies like EU funds did Polish. Poland is number 1 (out of 28) net beneficiary of the EU funds and that brought Polish economy to were it is today. That's verified claim confirmed by dozens of articles from reliable sources (Bloomberg, Financial Times, The Guardian etc.), it's constantly pointed out, and that's why it's an information worth mentioning. There is absolutely no reason not to include that sentence in this article. You might think that it's embarrassing (although I don't see why would country be embarrassed for being successful in getting funds for development of its economy), but that's irrelevant since this is encyclopedia and information like that need to be mentioned. | Thanks @Gravuritas for your advice. And no E-960, that wasn't about my "edit war" since you clearly started explaining your position on the matter, and only briefly mentioned 3RR rule. United Union (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's about your edit warring, I only started the discussion on your talk page to remind you of the 3RR rule, and stated the reason why your edit was reverted — a courtesy no less, but once the issue became about merits a wrote to you that the discussion should be moved to the talk page. --E-960 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Then please start by going to the Netherlands, Germany and France articles and say how much they benefited form the EU policies, by absolutely raiding eastern Europe. Perhaps that should not be something to be ashamed of, just strait facts no doubt so please include them. --E-960 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I can find you articles in Fortune, Business Insider, EU Observer how enormously Germany benefits form the EU, see here [3], so why don't anyone write that in, no they just start with Poland and EU subsidies. --E-960 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
That's your answer? That discussion?! There is a lot you need to learn. A lot. You clearly show no interest in cooperating in the improvement of this article so the sentence will be restored shortly. United Union (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, please remember the 3RR rule (for editors who want to insert more text), this is my opinion, but another editor also disagrees, this shows that you have no interest in following rules or following examples set by other articles, just pushing your POV. In short I think this text is unnecessary and creates POV as compared to other country pages on economics --E-960 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Its clear from your comments that you have no valid arguments and that your sole purpose is to prevent other editors from improving the content of this article. FYI, this article is set to receive quite a few improvements in near future. As of this particular sentence, I said shortly. I'm waiting for other interested editors (although I doubt there will be many) to explain why this sentence should be removed. United Union (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
He again changed his comment. And for your information, reliably sourced claims are not considered POV. And also, try to read this - WP:OWN. It might come in handy.United Union (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
United Union, seriously, if you think that POV pushing is an improvement that's ridiculous, also thanks for alerting the editors who worked on the Poland article that you and perhaps other editors are in the process of pushing a particular POV. I'm sure that this will be noted. --E-960 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Many towns and villages are terribly indebted, some of them overinvested the alleged "help". Local governments finance preparation of proposals, a part of the total cost, infrastructure, additional administration according to EU rules. Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Here we have yet another 100% non-biased Pole presenting dozens of reliable sources arbitrarily accusing me of being biased. Maybe some of the editors here could start new article - "EU conspiracy theories"? It seems that there is a lot of material. What does food quality in Eastern Europe and some incompetent local Polish authorities have to do with Polish usage of the EU funds and their effect on the Polish GDP growth? No such thing as "alleged" in this case. As of "generous", you don't think that ~€64,000,000,000 (2007 and 2013) and ~€106.000.000.000 (2014 and 2020) allocated for Poland can be classified as "generous", meaning, according to Merriam-Webster, "liberal in giving"? Since Bloomberg is biased, Guardian (which by the way calls this "one of the largest wealth transfers between nations in modern history"), Business Insider, Forbes, BBC, CNN, etc. would also be considered biased I suppose, let's put them aside for a moment and let's see what three Polish ministries have to say about the importance of the EU funds for the Polish economy and their impact on it:
Ministry of Regional Development in Impact of cohesion policy on the Polish economy - Results of macroeconomic modeling of ex-post impact and forecasts for 2014-2020 says: “In the period 2007-2012, Poland was the country with the highest GDP growth in the EU. (…) The access to the EU funds essentially contributed not only to the relatively high economic growth but also to avoiding recession in 2009. It is estimated that the EU funds allowed the GDP growth in 2012 to be higher by about 0.8-1.1 pp, than in the scenario without EU funds. (…) In 2004-2015 GDP growth is higher about 0.7 pp. than in the scenario without the inflow of EU funds. (…) In 2012, the GDP volume was higher thanks to the EU funds, by respectively 6.2% and 16.1%, while in 2013 it will be higher by 7,5-19,9%. (…) The acceleration of economic growth in Poland resulting from the inflow of the EU funds makes those resources an increasingly important factor behind the bridging of the development gap between Poland and the EU. (…) The investments in infrastructure and support to enterprises financed from the EU funds contribute significantly to the revival of investment activity in Poland, leading to both higher growth rate of gross fixed capital formation and to an increase in the rate of investment. (…) The investments in infrastructure and support to enterprises financed from the EU funds contribute significantly to the revival of investment activity in Poland, leading to both higher growth rate of gross fixed capital formation and to an increase in the rate of investment. (…) The unemployment rate lower thanks to EU funds by about 4 pp."
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the report “Poland’s 10 years in the European Union” says: “These resources [from the EU funds] helped conduct modernization that had no precedent in the country’s history. The scale of the support is best illustrated by the fact that the total financial assistance provided by the European Union accounted for around 25% of Poland’s GDP in 2013. Contrary to fears that were voiced prior to Poland’s accession to the EU, we have not become a net contributor. In the first year of membership alone we gained more from the EU coffers than we paid in. Each year since 2011 Poland has received the most EU funds of all Member States. (...) EU funds made up 1.21% of Poland’s GDP in 2004, and 4.02% in 2013, respectively. (…) This had a positive impact on the growth dynamic of our GDP, enhanced the competitiveness of the Polish economy, boosted entrepreneurship, and created new jobs. EU funds not only resulted in better infrastructure (new roads, sewage treatment plants, etc.), but above all improved the living conditions of all Poles through, among other things, access to EU knowledge, training for entrepreneurs, and broadband internet access. (…) Thanks to EU budget funds Poland has carried out key investments, improved the standards of living, continued to modernise, fostered economic growth, and made its economy more competitive. In 2004–2013 EU funds helped implement over 160 000 projects, and some more are still being implemented. This had a positive impact on the growth dynamic of our GDP, enhanced the competitiveness of the Polish economy, boosted entrepreneurship, and created new jobs. EU funds not only resulted in better infrastructure (new roads, sewage treatment plants, etc.), but above all improved the living conditions of all Poles through, among other things, access to EU knowledge, training for entrepreneurs, and broadband internet access..."
As of other "biased" sources, here we have European Commission that says that "Poland is by far the largest recipient of EU regional policy funds: €7.99 billion in 2015, amounting to 60% of EU funding in the country.", and a scientific article How Poland’s EU Membership Helped Transform its Economy by professor Marek Belka which says: “In the case of Poland, the large scale of inflows contributed to the country’s development, investment intensification, and the building of human capital. (…) Between 2004 and 2012, the GDP per capita in Poland rose from 51 percent to nearly 66 percent of the EU average, and a large portion of this growth can be attributed to the European cohesion policy. Estimations show that these fund transfers should positively influence the GDP dynamics: the additional average annual GDP growth in Poland attained with the EU funds inflow is estimated at between 0.3 and 0.7 percentage points for 2004–15. (…) As shown in Bukowski, Jędrzejowicz, and Kitala (2012), while consolidating public finances, countries that absorbed the EU funds greatly cut their current expenditure and maintained higher levels of public investment than the other EU countries, which could explain why Poland maintained positive GDP growth (…)."
This article isn't about any of those countries, Gravuritas. If you think that those informations should be added to appropriate articles go and add it. As of "per person", it's irrelevant and represents pure relativisation. Per capita is not a good indicator; although, some member states take larger amount per capita than others, when we look at the gross terms, we can see that it's not that much. Poland has much larger population then Luxembourg (40 million : 600,000) which means it has more people between which it "divides the money", but the fact is that Poland receives exponentially the largest sum of money from the EU funds, and that it greatly affects it's GDP/economy/the country in general, unlike, for example, Luxembourg, the largest net beneficiary per capita, but also hosts many of the EU institutions and spends nearly 90% of the money it receives on the EU administration, so, unlike Poland, EU funds have very limited affect to its economy. United Union (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Marek Belka is a former PM and president of the Polish National Bank, apparently a biased source of informations about Poland.
Ministry of Regional Development was responsible for usage of the EU funds. Do you expect them to admit their errors?Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
United Union, perhaps you should consider adding information on all the economic benefits gained by Germany, Netherlands, etc. from the EU first. Also, you need to stop with the reoccurring personal attacks, calling out editors who you THINK are Poles — ethnic profiling — behavior which is borderline offensive and out of line (...hypocrisy at its finest). --E-960 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Very poor answers as expected. You clearly don't know how to debate, just like some of your fellows here. Your comments don't have any reasonable content. "Wow!" is obviously the highlight. I knew you were going to argue that these sources are also biased because the fact is that for some here there are no sources I proved that could be considered reliable. You go as far as classifying even official Polish Governments' publications as "biased". As of Marek Belka, not only he is a reputable economist and university professor with more than 100 published scientific papers, not only he served as Finance Minister and director of Polish Central Bank, but he has also held high positions within international organizations, the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund in particular. His authority and expertise in the field of economics is unquestionable. As of this Andrzej Janowicz, I have no idea who that is and what his credentials are. Since the whole document is written in Polish I'm unable to read it, and although this is English Wikipedia and sources in English are preferred (and there are many of those on this matter), those written in Polish can also be taken into consideration but you have to cite parts relevant for the issue. United Union (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Again you with the irrelevant comment, E-960. I already told you, stop with that pathetic "Germany, Netherland, etc." argument. It's not going to get you anywhere. We are talking about Poland here in case you forgot. United Union (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
United Union, for one reason or another three editors do not think this information should be included in the article (relevance, validity or a lack of similar info on other country pages), that's the point of the discussion, in other words, this data is NOT A MUST HAVE and makes the article that much longer. --E-960 (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Any government is biased when it describes results of its work, both the pOlish one and the EU Comission . Government publications are primary sources, we need secondary sources.
There is no methodology to measure results of EU founding says my academic source.
Polish economy grows because of - among others - foreign investments and open EU markets.
That's incorrect. The government published materials are considered reliable. Especially when they come from the respective governments. || That's not how citations work. You are supposed to find a relevant part(s) and paste it here so it could be evaluated. Nevertheless, that's wrong. It's possible to measure the macroeconomic impact of the EU funds on the GDP (which makes me question this paper of yours even more). || By "among others", I assume you think of EU funds. Good for you. (They also directly affect the growth of the Polish GDP, which is noted in the sentence in question.) || "Wow" and "2+2=5" shows your lack of understanding of the subject and inability to think of a reasonable explanation. According to the per capita criteria, Luxembourg receives more funds, but its allocation of funds for the same perspective is incomparably lower than Poland's. || I propose we move to another stage and request more effective dispute resolution method because we are obviously not moving forward here. United Union (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This is so obnoxious, you are POV pushing with this obsession about Poland and EU structural funds. Seriously, why don't you go on the Germany page and say that economically Germany is the biggest beneficiary of the open EU market — you don't believe me then read what the German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel said... that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of the open EU market, here: [4] but, for some reason you lached on the Poland page, and this is your one horse show. Give it a rest, three editors don't agree that this info should be included. --E-960 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Only obsession I have is with facts. "Seriously", why would I? I must be interested in Germany but any interest in Poland is forbidden? I already told you. If you want to include it there, go for it. Ironically, it was you who made a big deal out of this. Not me. You can't hide facts no matter how hard you try. If you want to contribute to the discussion with reasonable arguments you are welcome to, and if not, stop clogging talk page. I proposed that we go for W:RFC, and if you two agree we can start it tomorrow. United Union (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
What for, three editors said this info is not a must have, also BytEfLUSh who came over from the noticeboard and remained neutral also suggested the new info was questionable. Finally, go on other high profile articles, new text is constantly reverted (happened to me too), because other editors maintain article discipline in order to prevent the page from being swamped with excessive detail and facts — look below on the Poland talk page, I also recommended that the statement about the UN seat is too much and needs to go. --E-960 (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
If the world is crazy, should this Wikipedia copy it? Name one "problematic" problem. No more state adds for Gazeta Wyborcza after 8 years of Eldorado?Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't make the ranking, so I'm not going to be the shot messenger, but I bet you can find the answer to all your questions on the website of RWB. Yakikaki (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Just because a constitutional crisis occurs in a democracy does not mean the country is automatically un-democratic — on one hand you have the argument that 'checks and balances' are needed, on the other you have 'independence of the judiciary' (both constitutional ideas), Poland is not the first democracy to have this debate and won't be the last. --E-960 (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
NGO Press Freedom Ranking
The Press Freedom Ranking published by an NGO Reporters Without Borders is a loaded and controversial topic. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you advocate will probably determine your view of it. But, I don't think such an index should be included in the Poland article as a stand alone benchmark because it oversimplifies the issue of "press freedoms". It's no secret that this NGO is political, and independent journalists accused it of political bias. For example, in Germany journalists such as Wolfgang Herles and Udo Ulfkot noted that many media outlets follow government "suggestions" and "explanations" (perfectly seen during the Cologne incident), but no one at RWB criticizes Germany for bottle-necking opinions in the press. While Poland is accused of "limiting" media freedoms, yet anyone looking at Polish papers in the newsstand will see every political opinion loudly (even rudely) expressed from left to right. --E-960 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Last note, we live in the "post-truth" world, so CNN, NYT, FOX or NGOs such as RWB are more and more seen as promoters of particular political views, so in the case of Poland article we should just list media outlets operating in the country not opinions. Btw, Italy and Greece are also in the same category as Poland, but editors are not clamoring to include the "problematic" tag in those country articles. --E-960 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
RWB says "After turning the state media into propaganda tools". I have been watching the state TV since ages. It was a state propaganda tool under the former administration and is one now. Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"Concern is now focused on a proposed law to “re-Polishize” the country’s press" - unfortunately our administration isn't able to propose any such law. Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"Poland: Record fine for Polish TV news channel" - the channel is controlled by US fund and noone dares to fine Americans. It's cultural and legal (post)colonialism. Compare "In 2016, Reporters Without Borders published the Media: when oligarchs go shopping report which raises concern about media concentration around the world." It seemd the RWB accept concentration in Poland and criticizes one outside Poland. Double standards.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hiding evidence of slavery, a severe human rights abuse, affecting nearly one in 200 people in Poland, in a completely separate article, is shameful. If the information is truly not important enough to be included in the main article, then the article itself is far too long and ought to be shortened to 200 words or less. Ashy Waves (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Kevin Bales; et al. "Poland". The Global Slavery Index 2016. The Minderoo Foundation Pty Ltd. Retrieved 13 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)
On a side note regarding Polanski, and why that image should be removed... for one, the article has a bit too many images of folks that were born in Poland, but left and found fame outside of the country (bring back the focus on people who recently lived and worked in Poland). Also, given Polanski's history, and the recent Hollywood scandal regarding sexual harassment, I don't think such people should be glorified (a view shared by many commentators in the US media). --E-960 (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we should base it on contributions rather than scandals. It clearly says "controversial" in the caption. We view him as a director and his image is relating to cinema section. If this was an article or section about criminal offenses then that would be a different matter. Removing him would be much worse. If we talk bout clutter then kindly go to the Law section and delete Żmichowska since User Poetcibent hasn't given a response. Oliszydlowski, 10:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Really, pls consider keeping other people's selections, at this point most of the images in this article have been added by you after all the changes and additions you made in the last few months. --E-960 (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It is true, I admit. I just try to make the article more appealing and comprehensible with various images. I appreciate when someone advises me on this matter. Oliszydlowski, 11:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Like in other countries articles in the main info's can be added the date format which is
official: yyyy-mm-dd
traditional: dd-(name of month in Polish)-yyyy r.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment - I request to place both as they have equal importance to Polish culture and identity, one being successful domestically, the other internationally, Oliszydlowski, 10:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the section is not prominent and/or significant enough to include two images, bit much for a general overview text such as this one. --E-960 (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Replace - Polanski was not even born in Poland, but France and became famous in the US, Wajda on the other hand made his career in Poland. Also, in light of the Hollywood sexual abuse scandal, I don't think individuals such as Polanski should be glorified, due to his child abuse charges. --E-960 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Replace I don't have a problem with Polanski being controversial (the caption under the image covers that) but this is an article about Poland, not Poles. And Polanski's career developed outside of Poland for the most part. Wikipedia has separate articles for 'Poland' and 'Poles' and the difference seems to be that the former is about a place. Now, Polanski may be a great Polish director, but is he really the best choice for a director from Poland? I doubt it. By the way, I've just had a quick look at the article on 'Cinema of Poland' and it doesn't foreground Polanski that much. Which makes sense, because - once again - he's more of a Polish director than a director from Poland. Pearlmaster1212 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Replace Polanski is a Pole who makes films, Wajda is a maker of Polish films, slightly less famous perhaps, but better as a representative of Polish cinema. Pincrete (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Replace - The image should include someone born in Poland and as Wajda was born in Poland it obviously makes sense to replace. –Davey2010Talk17:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
If there are no objections, perhaps we can go ahead and close this RfC, there are 6 votes to 'Replace' and 0 to 'Keep'. --E-960 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the image of the Constitution of May 3 be kept as it is or replaced by Matejko's accurate interpretation? Oliszydlowski, 03:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Survey
Keep — The original longstanding image is a contemporary depiction of the event when it happened, while Matejko's painting is a romanticized depiction painted 100 years later. Also, on a side note, recently user Oliszydlowski has changed out many of the images on the page (many good choices made by him), but at this point perhaps we should try to keep a variety of selections from the past added by other editors. --E-960 (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Replace - I understand where User E-960 is coming from, however Matejko's representation is based on factual and accurate sources. Matejko included renowned Polish personalities of the epoch in this painting like Tadeusz Kościuszko and Józef Poniatowski. I don't think the romantic setting is an issue in this case. Though painted later than the current one, it is still a clearer and more comprehensive representation. The current image is somewhat difficult to assess, see and comprehend, though it is factual. The figures in it are not visible and the image itself appears to be more of an architectural plan of one of the chambers of the Warsaw Royal Castle. In Matejko's painting, the Constitution of May 3 being held by Prime Minister Stanisław Małachowski shows the importance of the event and the notion of freedom under the flag of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It is highly symbolic, which is my main argument. Moreover, the image of Casimir III the Great in the history section isn't from the Middle Ages or the period when he lived, died or shortly after. It is nice to balance this by having both historical and more contemporary representations which are of course historically viable and accurate. As previously stated, Matejko used sources and references when painting figures, which is a somewhat allegorical view of the politics in Poland-Lithuania at the time. Oliszydlowski, 11:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Casimir III the Great, we don't have a contemporary image of him from the Middle Ages, that's why there is a 19th century depiction instead. --E-960 (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
No, but there is an option of placing the head from his tombstone at Wawel. Oliszydlowski, 11:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, seriously are you on a mission to replace every picture in this article with your selections, and what you think looks best? You made some good additions in the past, but this is not the Oliszydlowski article, try to consider other longstanding images as still valid. --E-960 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not trying to replace anything with the exception of the Constitution and keeping Polanski. I don't see why I need to be lightly attacked. I am sorry if you interpret it this way. My apologies. Oliszydlowski, 12:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep The current image appears to have more neutrality and better accompanies the prose and what is trying to be portrayed. The proposed image has a very different, highly symbolic and celebratory meaning. If this portrayal has weight in the sources then I'm not against its inclusion in the article, but I think the prose of that section would have to change significantly first. Cesdeva (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep The proposed image is neither contemporary nor straightforwardly an attempt at documentation. I would point to this section from Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting):
While the procession was an actual historic event, Matejko took many artistic liberties, such as including persons who were not in fact present or had died earlier. He did so because he intended the painting to be a synthesis of the final years of the Commonwealth. He also felt that there was no real historic moment or location that fully captured the spirit of the Constitution, and so he, the artist, needed to create such a moment.
Given the painting does have cultural & historical significance, I can see it being in included (probably in addition), if it were discussed as such in the prose. This would need significant change / addition to the existing text. Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 13:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep. The proposed Jan Matejko illustration shown on the right is only a detail of Matejko's Constitution of May 3, 1791—and a particularly unprepossessing detail, at that. As also noted above, the whole painting is not even an accurate portrayal of the events. In general, it seems best to stick with illustrations that are from the time, and that are as accurate as possible. (That is why I also favor portraits and sculptures from the given periods, if necessary—again, as noted above—based on tomb effigies rather than on Matejko's "interpretations". Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request to Poland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is a complete lack of evidence to back the statement that Poland is an "emerging world power" and the citation for that assertion is from an unreliable source. i.e. and article on some unknown opinion website. I request for this sentence to be removed from the article. Charlie goodvibes (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Done I agree that the statement is not confirmed by source given. The Seeking Alpha characterization of George Friedman's book is an oversimplification and the text here misrepresents even that oversimplification. Friedman's speculation is on long time horizons (centuries) and Friedman talks about what might happen in certain scenarios that might somehow be beneficial in some fuzzy future. That's a heck of a long way from "possible emerging world power," which implies a short time horizon and a current set of circumstances favorable for that development. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)17:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Ethnicity
Before reverting back to this newly added text, pls engage in a discussion on talk page. At this point the Poland article is very long, and just like with other country articles not every topic needs or has a section. Especially, in the case of Poland, where the topic of ethnic groups is not a major issue, unlike in countries such as Canada, Belgium or Spain, etc. where you have significant populations of different ethnic groups that live together. In the Poland article's case this new addition only stated the obvious results of the 2011 survey (as in the longstanding Info-box) in a sentence instead of a list. So, does this text really add anything NEW to the article except making it even longer? --E-960 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, the new changes to the Info-box (as in the new sections) are questionable, because the editor decided to arbitrarily take out some of the ethnicities listed in the 2011 survey and adding new once, with slightly different percent numbers referencing a 2013 not the 2015 update of the 2011 census. — bit of cherry-picking. --E-960 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Nothing was arbitrary - my criterion was how numerous they are, I listed only ethnic groups which are more than 0,1% of the population, and I fixed info about percentages (before my edit the Info-Box had erroneous data). I think it is weird to list ethnic groups which are a tiny fraction of the society (less than 0,1%), so I listed only the most numerous ones in the Info-Box. Let's restore also my Ethnicity section and add info about less numerous groups (such as Romani people) there, okay?
How is anyone to know anything about what you stated above about one main group if it's not in the article for them to read about. At least metion this somewhere and link the parent articles Poles#Ethnography|Ethnic minorities in Poland. Hard to learn about demographics when they're not in the article in prostext. The boxe is to regurgitate text found in the article. Lead is supposed to summarize what's in the article and infoBoxes is part of the lead.-Moxy (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Moxy, that's an easy fix all set, I added a link to the Ethnic minorities in Poland in the Demographics section. Also, the Demographics section already has a long standing paragraph identical to the newly proposed "Ethnicity" section addition. So, this just makes the new section simply unnecessary. --E-960 (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Both the 2015 and the 2013 updates of the 2011 census contain exactly the same figures regarding ethnic groups. E-960 do you understand Polish? If so, then please check the sources below (both of these publications give exactly the same numbers for each ethnic group from the 2011 census):
1) Full list of all 2011 census ethnic groups in Poland here on pages 132-136 (in Tabl. 6.):
The groups I added or renamed are not controversial or cherry-picked, old Info-Box simply had erroneous or obsolete data. The 2011 census had two questions about ethnicity - people could declare either one or two ethnicities. Some of these "multi-ethnic responses" were so numerous that they deserve a mention. For example thousands of people declared Polish and Silesian. In case of Kashubians - nearly all of them declared also Polish apart from Kashubian, which is why I simply counted them as Kashubians. As for Germans - some declared German alone, others declared German and Polish, yet another group declared German and Silesian. In the Info-Box Germans should be counted as one, but in the Ethnicity section it can be explained. I think my section should be restored. We can mention small ethnic groups, such as Lemkos - which are less than 0,1% of the population - in this section. We can also add historical data. I will restore it for now, okay?
I moved everything related to ethnicity from the main part of Demographics section to this new Ethnicity sub-section. Thanks to this, the article is not really much longer, all information pertaining to ethnicity was just relocated to another part of the article. Same with language.
Domen von Wielkopolska, to answer your question, yes I do understand Polish that's why I'm confused about your use of 'von' in your username next to Wielkopolska, I don't believe that's proper Polish, and if both versions have the same numbers why are you citing them both in the info-box, bit redundant I would say. --E-960 (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I was editing some German wikipedia articles before I started editing English wikipedia, "von" means "from" in German. German wiki has even more Anti-Polish bias than English wiki. Okay, I will add only Poland-related links. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Domen von Wielkopolska, pls consider the length of the article, as some of the facts you included and their impact is overstated. Also, this is the 'city list' and the benchmark is 200,000 that's it. Every so often someone comes in and changes the list to what they think it should be kicking off a new debate, so this is the most neutral benchmark.--E-960 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
So is the benchmark 200,000 or more? My edit included cities over 200,000 but you reverted it. Right now, the benchmark is 400,000. Another issue is how should we treat the Tricity (Gdańsk + Gdynia + Sopot) and Silesia Metropolis (Katowice, Sosnowiec + many more)?
Sorry, the benchmark is 400,000, you can go back in the talk page archive to see just how many dumb discussions involving several editors there were about stuff like Metro areas, whether to include this or that city, etc. this is just unnecessary. Keep it simple. --E-960 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it really a good idea to count only first identity? This way, we almost "eliminate" for example Kashubians (they drop from 0.6% to almost 0%). Maybe we should check what methodology they use in articles about other countries.
Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Original research; Education
I believe the following statements would be considered "original research":
"… ranks Poland's educational system in its PISA 2012 as the 10th best in the world, … ". The source does not make the statement. It was based on the following note.
"OECD average: 13th in mathematics, 8th in science, 9th in reading (since Hong Kong and Shanghai are both in China, these two places count as one)." 10th is the simple average of these three numbers. An accurate determination of overall rank is a little more complicated. This may have qualified as a "simple calculation" if Hong Kong and Shanghai were not considered as one (this was done by the contributor), another Chinese "autonomous territory", Macau is also ranked above Poland (in mathematics), but not eliminated. Also, the PISA report did say or imply that statistics applied to all of China, just the economic region.
Conclusion: The PISA 2012 report did not rank Poland as 10th, the contributor did.
I do not know how other editors want to resolve this. Personally, I would remove the statement and note and leave a more general statement like "Poland's educational system scores higher than the OECD average." I would use the PISA 2015 statistics if more specific numbers are desired. User-duck (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I have encountered several editors that do not appreciate WP:BOLD. Also, many people (including myself) like numbers. I was not sure whether they were appropriate or not. I will post other issues here. User-duck (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I did not plan on adding to this article. I intended only to do some maintenance. This article appears on a few maintenance lists. Also, citations/references are often inconsistent or incomplete and most editors find improving them tedious. User-duck (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Oliszydlowski, just wanted to comment on your new edits, these are rather big changes, and I think they should be discussed first. In some cases you are going off on a tangent... like the Napoleon picture. He is not a Pole, he is not a Polish patriot. So, why do you have him there? Also, same with Polanski, you keep adding more and more images of people who have a relative connection to Poland, but their work and life was not centered in Poland, like Helen Rubinstein, Artur Rubinstein, Conrad, etc. I don't think these edits are on target, also why did you change the image of Częstochowa which showed big crowds which is in line with the text that this is a pilgrimage site. --E-960 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I somewhat understand your argument with Napoleon, though I still consider it important. I'll pass on that. However, Polański's career was centred in Poland and still is. Just because he has foreign citizenship and made foreign movies, does not make him less Polish or a lesser contributor. I think it is ethical to put both Wajda and Polański there. And other famous Poles were scattered across the world when Poland didn't exist, so does that make them less Polish? Secondly the Matejko image shows Stanisław Małachowski holding the constitution and not the king. The king is not even present in the image. Also in the image, you can see Kościuszko, Józef Poniatowski and Hugo Kołłątaj which make it very significant over any other, doesn't matter from what era. Oliszydlowski, 01:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I can understand Polanski, but in regards to Matejko, the other image was drawn based on eye witness accounts of the proceedings, while Matejko's painting is based on imagination, also we don't need to images of Poniatowski. --E-960 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This is where people go wrong. Matejko's painting is quite accurate, especially with facial features which are quality work. Matejko has conducted many studies and collected images, painting etc. to finish his works. The image you are proposing is representing a room or a chamber. You can't see anything and there is no trace of the constitution. I understand it is from the epoch but if an image can't portray the topic or theme then why is it still there? Oliszydlowski, 01:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
We don't need two images of Poniatowski, also he joined the Targowica against the Constitution later on. So, it's ironic to have that image. --E-960 (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not the king who is holding the constitution. I already said that. It's Stanisław Małachowski, the Prime Minister. Stanisław August isn't even there. Please see painting description. Alos, why is Narcyza Żmichowska there? The law section is overflowing. Oliszydlowski, 01:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer the old one, perhaps other editors can add their input, because I think we should included images of historic evcents made as close to the event as possible, btw my bad I was wrong it is Stanisław Małachowski. --E-960 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
My only argument is that the image/ceremony is not very well portrayed and the constitution is not visible. Readers might find it confusing. All images don't have to be from the epoch. It is nice to balance it out sometimes. Is the painting of Casimir III the Great in the history section from the Middle Ages? No. I suggest you place a voting template. This is not about personal preferences, but I understand where you're coming from. Oliszydlowski, 01:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, on a side note, please keep in mind that we should maintain stability in a high profile articles such as Poland, this is the case in other articles such as WII, Germany, US or France. Where changes are slow and methodical with discussions on the talk page, this approach prevents conflict. --E-960 (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I know there is a same issues with Casimir III, not sure if there is a image form the middle ages though... also regarding Narcyza Żmichowska, that was added by user Poeticbent, to show liberal causes, so removing this one might start an epic discussion on the talk page. :D --E-960 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The bulk of Poles lived primarily in Congress Poland?
That is just not true. As of year 1900, only about half of ethnic Poles lived in the Russian Empire, but that included also Poles in the Eastern Borderands (Kresy), not just those in Congress Poland. So I removed that claim and replaced with a more reasonable text. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The statement that "After the partitions of Poland at the end of the 18th century, the bulk of the ethnic Polish population was primarily located in Congress Poland" is untrue. In year 1900 there were 7 million ethnic Poles in Congress Poland while the total ethnic Polish population was almost 18 million people. It means that only 35-40% of all ethnic Poles lived in Congress Poland, this is not "the bulk". I'm going to edit it but I will not mention any wars (as E-960 suggested in his comment from 19 July). Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Warsaw Uprising 1944
When writing about Warsaw Uprising it should be written that Germans destroyed 80–90% of the buildings in Warsaw while an immense part of the cultural heritage was deliberately demolished, burned to the ground and stolen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.2.232 (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
2011 census
Domen von Wielkopolska, if you want to get very detailed, yes a few individuals see themselves as Gorals or Wielkopolanin first, but how tiny are those numbers? This is where a lack of proportionality enters the discussion — you wrote a statement, which basically implies to the reader like there are sizable groups of people who view themselves as such, but just look at the numbers you yourself quoted 2,935 people see themselves as Goral, and 1,515 people declared Wielkopolanin (the other 3 million Wielkopolanine see themselves as Polish). Sorry, but you are pulling out exceptions to the rule and exaggerating their significance along with status, and placing them on a pedestal, while ignoring millions of people, and mainstream declerations that Wielkopolanin or Goral is Polsih, etc. --E-960 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Metropolises are not necessarily cities in this case. We are talking about independent major cities here and not agglomerations, conurbations or municipalities. Oliszydlowski, 10:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Gdańsk isn't independent. It belongs to the Tricity, to województwo pomorskie, Poland, EU and NATO. It's more simple to describe a city than to understand it in its context. Xx236 (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
First major omission to attend to is Poland's highly notable military intelligence contribution to the world. Nearly half of all British intelligence reports in WWII came from Polish sources, and the Enigma story needs no introduction. Optionally, one could add the several Cold War Polish defections, but it's not essential here. The flaccidity of this article is no excuse to leave out Polish cryptanalysis, one of the roots of modern computing. Enigma is featured in the Polish language version of this article in the context of the Lwow School of Mathematics and the Warsaw School of Mathematics. Cuts for space can be made in this article, and a few lines can be added to keep the length the same.
One of very many verifiable sources on the matter:
"Bravery of thousands of Poles was vital in securing victory"
"The Polish contribution to Allied victory in the Second World War was extraordinary, perhaps even decisive, but for many years it was disgracefully played down, obscured by the politics of the Cold War. Poles fought alongside British soldiers in North Africa, Monte Cassino and Arnhem. One in 12 Battle of Britain pilots was a Pole, and some 250,000 Polish troops served with British Forces. Poles played a vital role in the other, less visible aspects of the conflict -- intelligence gathering, espionage and, above all, codebreaking. But with Poland behind the Iron Curtain and under Soviet domination after the war, Western historians tended to play down the Polish part in Allied victory. In 1946 Poland was not invited to attend Britain's Victory Parade, but instead told to join the celebrations in the Soviet Union. Poland's prewar success in breaking the code of the German Enigma machines had been pivotal. Without these breakthroughs, dating back to 1932, Britain would not have been able to read the most secret messages of the German High Command. And without that unique advantage, the Allies might have lost the war. Less well known is Poland's contribution to the spy war. In 1940, its government in exile in London under General Wladyslaw Sikorski handed over all its intelligence material to MI6, providing Britain with top-grade secret information for the rest of the war. One of the most important Polish spies was the mysterious Agent Knopf, a spy operating at the heart of Hitler's high command during the most crucial years of the war, whose existence was revealed by The Times this year. Knopf supplied his handlers with at least ten separate reports on German strategy and operations on the Eastern Front, including the date of Hitler's main offensive against the Soviet Union. Polish intelligence also played a crucial part in the North African campaign and the D-Day landings, as well as pinpointing the site at Peenemude where Germany's V1 and V2 rockets were under development, enabling an Allied air raid in August 1943 that retarded the weapons programme by at least two months. In 2005 the Anglo-Polish Historical Committee concluded that 45 per cent of all Britain's wartime intelligence was derived from Polish sources, of which 85 per cent was of "high or very high quality". The repatriation of the remains of Gwido Langer commemorates a remarkable codebreaker, but it might also be seen as a long overdue tribute to the thousands of Poles whose skill and bravery helped to defeat Hitler."
In the field of Intelligence Poland made an immense contribution by sharing with Britain and France, on 25 July 1939—just six weeks before war began—their six and one-half years’ work in cracking the German Enigma code. This enabled the code-breakers at Bletchley Park, at a very early stage in the war, to provide my grandfather with the “Ultra” decrypts—undoubtedly the most important single source of real-time intelligence available to the Prime Minister and the British Chiefs of Staff. “Ultra” played a crucial part in the successful prosecution of the war, and in ending it earlier than would otherwise have been the case.[1]
From elsewhere on Wikipedia, to be excerpted from:
Gordon Welchman, who became head of Hut 6 at Bletchley Park, has written: "Hut 6 Ultra would never have gotten off the ground if we had not learned from the Poles, in the nick of time, the details both of the German military version of the commercial Enigma machine, and of the operating procedures that were in use." Gordon Welchman, The Hut Six Story, 1982, p. 289.
Also:
The British intelligence services signed a special agreement with their allied Polish counterparts 1940. In July 2005, the British and Polish governments jointly produced a two-tome study of bilateral intelligence cooperation in the War, which revealed information that had until then been officially secret. The Report of the Anglo-Polish Historical Committee was written by leading historians and experts who had been granted unprecedented access to British intelligence archives, and concluded that 48 percent of all reports received by British secret services from continental Europe in 1939–45 had come from Polish sources.[2] This was facilitated by the fact that occupied Poland had a tradition of insurgency organizations passed down through generations, with networks in emigre Polish communities in Germany and France; a major part of Polish resistance activity was clandestine and involved cellular intelligence networks; while Nazi Germany used Poles as forced labourers across the continent, putting them in a unique position to spy on the enemy. Liaison was undertaken by SIS officer Wilfred Dunderdale, and reports included advanced warning of the Afrikakorps' departure for Libya, awareness of the readiness of Vichy French units to fight against the Allies or switch sides in Operation Torch, and advance warning both of Operation Barbarossa and Operation Edelweiss, the German Caucasus campaign. Polish-sourced reporting on German secret weapons began in 1941, and Operation Wildhorn enabled a British special operations flight to airlift a V-2 Rocket that had been captured by the Polish resistance. Polish secret agent Jan Karski delivered the British the first Allied intelligence on the Holocaust. Via a female Polish agent, the British also had a channel to the anti-Nazi chief of the Abwehr, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.[2]
Poland has not had a recession for 25 years, and within that time it has had over 20% unemployment. You don't have to be in recession to have mass unemployment. Poles emigrated since 2004 due to unemployment, the Martial Law baby boomers over-supplying the labour market, wage differentials with the West and several other factors.
I have made the change [8]. This also is to accommodate the verifiable fact that the entire EU labour market did not open immediately, it was only Sweden, Ireland and the UK which opened in 2004. Polish unemployment at that time was high not because of the 2008 Global Recession but because (i) verifiably more babies were conceived during Martial Law (the curfew gave young people an excuse to stay over at other people's houses, and there was nothing on the telly anyway) causing an over-supply of job-seekers around 21 years later and (ii) there had been years of mass closures of inefficient state-run enterprises as part of the transition to capitalism. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Official name of the country
There is one info worth to mention. English name of the country "Republic of Poland" is obviously related with political system within the country. But the literally meaning of the country name "Rzeczpospolita Polska" is "Commonwealth of Poland". It is the 3rd republic, but all of them were called "Commonwealth", however it is mentioned only in relation with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Basically the origin and meaning of those 2 names is the same, but Polish word "republic" is "republika" and we do not use it to call our state.
In subsequent centuries, the English word "commonwealth" came to be used as a translation of res publica, and its use in English was comparable to how the Romans used the term res publica.[19] Notably, during The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell the word commonwealth was the most common term to call the new monarchless state, but the word republic was also in common use.[20] Likewise, in Polish the term was translated as rzeczpospolita, although the translation is now only used with respect to Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.199.123.78 (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The word rzeczpospolita is a calque of the Latin term res publica, i.e., "a common matter", which also gave us the French "république" and English republic. That the Polish-Lithuanian union is called a Commonwealth and not a Republic is a matter of tradition only; technically it was a republic. Commonwealth in English usage does not imply a republican system while Poland both currently and in 18th century had a republican system. — kashmīrīTALK11:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The history section should mention the harsh political development in Poland during recent years. Poland and Hungary are heavily criticiced by European Union. Its going in the right-wing nationalistic way, harsh on immigrants etc and the party has also direct control of both media and the political process. In Europe Poland and Hungary are often mentioned together, as the most extreme countries in this respect. --Mats33 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a good idea to mention the criticism. However, I wouldn't dwell on the topic nor trust any kind of media coverage stating that it's "most extreme" which it isn't. Oliszydlowski, 12:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
There's a middle road here.
I would support a line or two on recent history, the struggle between Poland's PiS and PO parties has been going on for 14 years, it came out of internal rivalry in Solidarnosc and it's noteworthy.
But be careful not to go drinking the Kool-Aid of media hype from any political side and let's get the facts into the article. Because it's verifiable that Poland issued the highest number of non-EU immigrants work permits in 2017, more than Germany, France and Britain, which by that measure are the ones who are "very conservative" and "harsh on immigrants": [9].
Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia doesn't care too much about what happened recently (especially in history articles), so Mats33 might be better off taking their proposal to articles on the EU or Polish politics.
Per WP:NPOV Wikipedia also doesn't care what the European Union criticizes any more than it cares about the EU's critics, who range from political movements such as the German and French right to reluctant members such as Greece and Czechia to leavers such as Britain.
The Polish government is as practically socialist as it is rhetorically nationalist, giving out child benefits and lower retirement that is the envy of the EU left. In post-communist history Poland has remained far more economically socialist than France and Spain, and I went to the trouble of adding this to the article last year, but the sourced content was removed and I hereby say it should be restored precisely to address misconceptions: [10]
Per WP:RECENTISM we may not assume this situation will last; since Donald Tusk left them to run the EU, the Polish centrists have taken zero initiative and squandered latent support amoung floating voters, which you can read about here [11].
Do not agree, this rhetoric of calling the Polish government "right-wing nationalistic" is bias, especially that in today's toxic political environment everything right of center is called "extreme", and demonization of political opponents is commonplace on both sides. Poland has a conservative government in the basic sense according to the definition. There is a ongoing political dispute regarding the Judiciary reforms with the EU (however this also has a political dimension over influence — EU/Governments), so what is it that this Polish government does to be called right-wing nationalist (certainly not Police violence against voters as in Catalonia election, or suppressing news as in Germany after the Cologne attacks). Use of such terms just comes across as political rhetoric and hyperbole. --E-960 (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Mild is a more adequate word than harsh to describe the system. Tusk's government was more harsh. Hungary is completely different, the alleged cooperation is wishful thinking. Poland wants stability, Hungary wants to recreate Great Hungary.Xx236 (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2018
This edit request to Poland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Just noticed a revert that makes text very hard to read .....As per WP:SANDWICH best we dont squish text between to images....because on many platforms text is all broken up. Plus not sure a one off gallery that depicting architecture of buildings in the Education section complies with WP:UNDUE - WP:GALLERY - WP:CAP.--Moxy (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The small gallery which depicts the four biggest universities in Poland in not WP:SANDWICH. These arbitrary deletions of images are very as questionable, as are the claims that there are too many images, Just look at country articles for Russia, France or Italy as example, they have a multiple of galleries, tables and maps, yet the Poland article has only one gallery, and you keep trying to delete it. Your arguments stated above are simply not accurate, however one option is to just trim the original gallery not deleted it entirely. --E-960 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Good solution. ..great see we are now following the MOS here....last thing we want is clean up tags as they have a France and Russia. As for sandwich that was not about the gallery...but all ok now I think. WILL start a talk at France swe if we can fix that one next. --Moxy (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe the borders to have been so exact as presented here. What is "Old Prussia" ? Further the Oder mouth was under control by the Vikings. And what about the Holy Roman Empire ? Boeing720 (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the Holy Roman Empire proper extend this far in the 10th century — what is now eastern Germany were Slavic lands paying tribute to the emperor, these borderlands were called Marches, but were not actually part of the empire. Old Prussia or Old Prussians were Balts, pagans living in a tribal society, before they were wiped out by the Teutonic Knights and replaced by German settlers. Mieszko I took the mouth of the Oder river in the 10th century.[1] No borders were exact at that time, and same can be said for the Holy Roman Empire and every other kingdom in the early middle ages — btw, I noticed the Holy Roman Empire article is stacked with maps to the point of ridiculous. --E-960 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
References
^The New Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 11, Encyclopædia Britannica, 1998, p. 473 "In the 8th and 9th centuries Szczecin was a Slavic fishing and commercial settlement. During the 10th century, it was annexed to Poland by Mieszko."
Music
The best Polish composers /known in Europe and in the world/ are ex
Probably a good idea to incorporate that into the article. Political ideologies are one of the fundamental parts of a country, it's rather odd that there is no mention of it, especially considering the fact that Wikipedia's page for democratic backsliding mentions it. Originally Origins (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This was discussed already, and for broad articles such as this one, it is not optimal to include issues which are ongoing, especially that much of the controversy is just fueled by partisan voices; for example, Wolfgang Schauble said in a newspaper interview "that the rule of law means the observance of court rulings" and the German Bundestag president said in the Rzeczpospolita newspaper that "he has not seen a situation in which Poland has not observed Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) verdicts."[1] Also, the lead paragraph is not a place as for "alleged" issues. --E-960 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Oliszydlowski and Kozuch, I actually think the interactive map is a clever addition, which allows the reader to navigate through and see Poland in greater detail than the static picture map. Also, I'm not sure the "cities" argument is valid, since you can just zoom-in and see the cities by clicking on the interactive map. I think we should restore the iterative map. --E-960 (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
VM - as you are circumventing an established consensus for the article title in general - you shall have to provide a rationale (one would assume a different one) why a different title is appropriate in each specific article in which you chose to act against said consensus. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not "circumventing an established consensus". Stop making nonsense accusations. Stop making stuff up. Stop making false personal attacks and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Stop smearing other editors with things which are just plainly not true. And please keep the discussion in one single place as requested.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
These are separate discussions. Why do you want to use a different title in this article? Policy based rationale please for use of "the Holocaust in German occupied Poland" as opposed to the Holocaust in Poland - in this article. Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to change the image caption, it provides a reference to the German occupation and that's fine. --E-960 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The mafia lead by Icewhiz rewrites history of the Holocaust transferring responsibility from Germany and Austria (and their smaller allies) to Poland. Poland had its government in London and did not participate in the Holocaust. TThere was no holocaust in Poalnd but a series of German actions (also Ukrainian nationalists and Lithuanians) in different parts of occupied Poland. Wartheland Holocaust was led by Greiser and Operation Reinefarth was implemented in GG. Ignorants lack such basic informations.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not about the responsibility for the Holocaust. The problem actually lies in the fact that to some editors, "Poland" is merely a politico-geographic descriptor while other see its use as suggestive of complicity of the Polish state.
Neither are correct in my view, although I might be a minority. The wording "in Poland" does not really approportion any blame. However, both politically and legally, Poland did not exist at the time of the Holocaust. The Holocaust took place within the then borders of Germany and in the areas remaining under German control and within German jurisdiction. Yes, I am aware that the Poles like to claim that their statehood continued to exist throughout 1939-1945, but this position is untenable in law as far as I am concerned. Hence, it might be wise to rename the article in question, or even merge to Holocaust. — kashmīrīTALK11:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
World War II
Polish Bomber Squads
You misinform suggesting that there were only Polish Fighter Squads. Informing about certain squads and omitting the other ones is biased. This paqe is long and has 329 references. If you need references about the bomber suads, described in this Wikipedia, please add them. Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Oliszydlowski, there was never a formal terms such as East Germania, also it is highly questionable the term Germania was still in practical use by the end of the 5th century AD, due to the Migration Period and the Germanic tribes migrating west, the invasion of the Huns and the creation of Attila's Emipre (map:[12]), and then the creation of Germanic kingdoms in western Europe (map:[13]). In short, the Slavs moved in after the collapse of the Hunic Empire which already displaced the Germanic tribes and changed the geopolitical structure of Europe. --E-960 (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Hence, it should say in former eastern Germania and present-day Greater Poland as the region had no official name until the creation of the Polish state. By East Germania I meant eastern Germania. A clarification that the West Slavs settled in former eastern part of Germania is also useful as the West Slavic gords reached modern-day area of Berlin and Brandenburg. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That's over thinking it I would say, and a bit POV-ish. The Slavs moved in after the collapse of Attila's Emipre, at which point the Romans referred to central Europe in relation to the Huns and their domain, not Germania. Also, no point in talking about Berlin and Brandenburg we are talking about the origin of the name Poland, Slavs further west are not an issue here. --E-960 (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Poland is parliamentary Republic not semi-presidential
Please change from semi-presidential to parliamentary. According to The World Factbook by CIA, Poland is parliamentary republic, not semi-presidential as confirmed by Constitution. --31.0.124.252 (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@MozeTak: Please explain why you call this "abominable sourcing removed". No word why this source is bad. No need for removal as multiple sources are allowed. The Bannertalk22:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
You should provide evidence this website run by anonymous people is reliable. Its own mission statement is "A nonprofit, public benefit organization, created to preserve and popularize lesser known Central and Eastern European WWII stories". MozeTak (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
No, you removed it as bad sourcing. So it is up to you to prove that it is bad sourcing. Just throwing in a few lines is no proof, sorry. The Bannertalk23:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The website doesn't list any credentials that establish anything. It has partisan material. The people who run it are anonymous, or at least not listed anywhere. It is not a "peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions". There is no evidence that this website is credible. MozeTak (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
This is backward. The WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include information to achieve consensus for inclusion, not on others to "disprove" the reliability of a source. Regardless, the book that the website is drawing from is by Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist), who does appear to be a legitimate expert in the history of Poland during WWII. So again, why don't we cut to the chase and just cite Piotrowski directly? GMGtalk13:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, the burden is not on those who wish to remove the source. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it is reliable. From what I can tell, we have almost no information about the source whatsoever. Simply being a registered non-profit demonstrates nothing other than the fact that someone filed the correct governmental paperwork. It tells us nothing about who runs the organization, whether it is a bona fide organization and not a single person, whether this person or these people have any relevant credentials, whether anyone exercises editorial oversight, or whether they are affiliated with any legitimate educational institution. There is no reason I can tell to treat this as anything other than a generic personal website, and we do not simply assume that generic personal websites are reliable. GMGtalk14:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Is Poland developed or developing?
In the lead it is written that Poland is a developed country and the source for that seems to be the World Bank. But the World Bank classifies Poland as a high-income economy[14] not as "developed". The IMF considers it as developing.[15]
What do? KREOH (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Really good source which explains a lot here.[16] Also FTSE reclassification from 2018 here.[17]
So FTSE and UN as of 2018 consider Poland developed, with a developed market. IMF takes into consideration GDP per capita and GDP nominal as well as GDP by Power Purchase Parity. As you can see the nominal GDP per capita still lags behind PPP but the primary reason is that only recently Poland reached a developed market status per FTSE so the IMF may not have updated their data. Also, IMF has not yet released their updated status to find out the most recent information for 2018/2019. Furthermore, developing countries do not have developed markets/economies. That wouldn't make sense. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
What I am working with here is the latest IMF database which came out 2 days ago, so there is no such thing as "the IMF may not have updated their data". The UN also seems to consider Bulgaria as developed, so make of that what you will. I think it is a bit too early to call it developed. KREOH (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Please look at the article Developed country to the section comparative table 2019 and see that HDI, OECD, WB, GDP PPP, United Nations and now FTSE consider Poland developed, with the sole exclusion of IMF. Hence, it part of the considered developed in pending recognition. It is not too early when only one international organization has not "yet" recognized it. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's be consistent across wikipedia regardless of our personal nationalities. No one here should be trying to push agendas, no one should care if Poland is listed as developed or not, we should all just be disinterested and wait until all the sources say developed just like is done with all other countries. Sorry, I've just seen countless times where nationalists from other developing countries are trying to make exceptions for their country to insert puffery, I had to shut them down too. Of 19 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Of 19 - It is sourced. I do not see any puffery and you have no argument to prove. No POV in Wikipedia. And from which countries were these nationalists? I'm curious. You already edited Poland article on this issue countless times before with the same argument. Oliszydlowski (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Turkey and Israel are crap shoots on here, always editors trying to make edits like this one, they want separate rules for their own countries. Always some editors from PRC going after Taiwan as well, so I made revert yesterday; they were trying to add Taiwan's area to China and add a fake low Gini ranking. There may be other problem countries too like India, but India related articles are so poor they should be prima facie unreliable. I have zero relation to these countries or Poland, I'm just trying to keep it consistent across wikipedia even though is pisses off those most interested in the article's subject.
@KREOH So I have two pissed off editors who want this country to be posted as developed while the wikipedia article on developed countries lists Poland as developing due to the IMF rejecting the notion of Poland as being developed. Now the question is should we make an exception for Poland or treat Poland neutrally? The IMF lists Poland as developing, I'm sure you can find a number of Polish sources stating it is developed, but non-involved international sources are superior. Of 19 (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Of 19 Instead of attracting other editors for help, maybe you reconsider using foul language and discuss it with us and other users. I don't care of the outcome, however, if 5 others contradict IMF (which focuses heavily on GDP per capita and is oblivious to other aspects) then the discussion is pointless. Oliszydlowski (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski The IMF does not focus "heavily" on only GDP per capita. If this were the case then Qatar with a per capita of $70,000 would have been classified as developed/advanced a long time ago.
But I have some good news. A few days ago the 2019 Human Development Index was released and in its IHDI index (aka, the harder one) it reveals that in 2018 Poland joined a group of 27 countries classified as highly developed. Poland is now one of these countries, surpassing the United States and probably going to surpass France.
By the way Oliszydlowski, I saw your sneaky and poor-spirited edits to Bulgaria and Croatia and it is quite clear at this point that you care very much about this and want to prop up Poland's economic standing in the European Union by showcasing that there are poorer members in the Union and that Poland is richer and more developed than them. This behavior does not help. It shows that you have little honor. KREOH (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
KREOH Instead of focusing on my edits on other articles, focusing on proving your point on this one. Thanks. Moreover, I do not understand how honor fits with discussing this topic. IMF is the sole organization which provides an "emerging economy" description, over FTSE, OECD, UN and others which described Poland as developed. I really do not care whether it is developed or not, but I avoid POV and use these organizations as a source. Also, in Economy of Poland, I'd like to know why "Footsie" as you described can't be placed beside IMF index to show a difference of views. Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I've already said that using the UN or FTSE won't be ideal. The OECD? What of it? It's already stated in the lead that Poland is a member of it. KREOH (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Passive involvement in the Holocaust
@Piotrus: Following your objection on length[18] I've tried to maintain balance while trimming the whole paragraph down,[19] so this shouldn't be an issue. As for WP:DUE - this is very much due if we're to suggest or even imply widespread involvement in rescue activities by Poles, as the new revision does.[20] As for Wiki-conventions - we don't mention rescue of Jews by underground movements in most of them, so if conventions bother you we can trim that from here as well. That said, I much preferred if we covered this issue properly everywhere (see eg. this diff).
Indifference was just one emotion, there were Poles who were horrified and scared when they witnessed what the German Nazis were doing to the Jews, but remained helpless. It's a bit POV-ish to just say all Poles were "indifferent", a term which more broadly captures the wide range of thoughts would be "passive" it's undisputed that for whatever reason most Poles did not take action. --E-960 (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, I would agree with Piotrus that this particular text is a bit too specific for a high-level country article, and as noted earlier, this type of info does not appear in other country articles such as France or Germany. --E-960 (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
And there were more yet who gleefully killed Jews in various gruesome ways. "Indifferent" is the middle grounds between these, not a superlative.
We mentioned the US remained mostly uninvolved when the Nazis took over Europe; we mention the Vichy regime cooperated, we (now) mention that the Swiss rejected thousands of refugees; and we should mention that 6,000 "righteous" out of 25 million does not give one bragging rights. François Robere (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
It is obvious that the text should cover all aspects, as historians cover all aspect, and not just rescue rhetoric not used by historians. Historians cover majority indifference as well as the minority who actively persecuted or helped. Also, @E-960:'s edit: [22] is not constructive and misconstrues the citation. The Yad Vashem page says nothing of Armia Krajowa and Żegota. Says nothing of "more than any other nation". It actually has a caveat for Denmark: "The title of Righteous is awarded to individuals, not to groups. The members of the Danish resistance viewed the rescue operation as a collective act and therefore asked Yad Vashem not to recognize resistance members individually. Yad Vashem respected their request and consequently the number of Danish Righteous is relatively small. A tree was planted on the Mount of Remembrance to commemorate the Danish resistance.", but nothing collective for Poland. It warns against use of statistics in the manner E-960 is using in original research, saying: "Before drawing any statistical conclusions about the proportions between different countries, one should bear in mind that although the Holocaust was a global and total attempt to annihilate the Jews all over occupied Europe, there were important differences between countries – differences in the number of Jews, the implementation of the Final Solution, the type of German or other administration, the historical backdrop, the makeup of the Jewish community, Germany’s attitude to the local population and the extent of danger to those who helped Jews, and a multitude of other factors that influenced the disposition and attitudes of local populations and the feasibility of rescue.". Maybe E-960 could explain where he pulled the text he wrote from?' It is not in the citation. Shkrata (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Trimming of this section is overall a good idea, a lot of details belong in History of Poland and subarticles and not here. Some content may be UNDUE, both as too positive or too negative, added by editors who want to make a point about some minor historical footnote (too often along the lines of "Poles are great heroes" or "Poles are evil"). Such big articles need to be carefully pruned of both types of propaganda. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here15:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Shkrata, do you need a source to a reference in the text to Żegota and that it was an organization made up of of both AK and ordinary Poles in order to save Jews. These are just some basic facts, not contentious statements that need a source, and definitely not "original research" as you called it. Also, the level of detail you discussed in your above statement is not appropriate for this high-level article, again pls see sections on WWII in other country articles such as France or Germany. --E-960 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we should sort out this one paragraph first. Also, as example, I noticed in the United States article how it discuss the issue of English settlers and Native Americans, in the section it has a picture with a caption "Benjamin Hawkins, seen here on his plantation, teaches Creek Native Americans how to use European technology, painted in 1805". I think that an image of the Trail of Tears is a bit more appropraite given what happened to the Native American population, so I'm just perplexed why this short minor statement in the Poland article is attracting so much attention. While other country articles have such glaring misrepresentations. --E-960 (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Finally, the WWII section is already by far the longest (compared to other sections in this article) and has seen too many editors "trim" or "fix" the text, if you find the paragraph too contentious than just remove it all together, instead of "trimming" it by adding more detail, making the section longer and longer. Poland is not WWII land, we don't need to add ever more detail or analysis to his high-level summary. --E-960 (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
You are right that a lot of articles on Wikipedia are not balanced enough, but that's not a justification to delete correct and sourced information that were meant to improve the neutrality of this particular article. If we mention in this high-level article that Poles rescued Jews, then we definitely need to put it into context and mention that the vast majority of Poles did not help, but also not persecuted them (--> neutral and balanced information). Furthermore, a fully balanced article would also mention the "szmalcowniks" who collaborated with the Nazis and turned Jews in. But I agree with you on the point that this paragraph actually shouldn't be a part of this high-level article about Poland and should be fully removed. The WWII section is long enough and already contains a lot of details. LaCucaracha91 (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I can see your argument, but you fail to realize that this is way, way too much detail (the disputed statement is not long-standing, it was only added and reverted a couple of days ago). Most country articles don't even have a separate WWII section, in this article the WWII section is by far the longest. All because every so often editors come in and stubbornly insist that another detail is crucial to the narrative. Seriously, Poland is not only WWII land there is more to the country than WWII history, I would just take out the disputed paragraph instead of making it longer by trying to make it more "neutral". --E-960 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree the content on WWII should be shortened. Too much here. I also think that if we mention rescuers, we need to say that most of our compatriots were indifferent and that there was also a minority that murdered Jews. Winstone, Connelly, and all serious historians say this. If we say the good, we need to say the bad too. MozeTak (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Not exactly, as I mentioned above, based on past experience with this article, we again have several editor joining this discussion on this the topic of WWII, who made their first Wikipedia edits just a few weeks ago, and as I noted earlier predictably insist on adding more what they view as "crucial" details to the WWII section, to make it more "balanced". I think this is too much detail, the section is too long, and as user Piotrus noted that this is an "example of excessive detail not needed in this big overview level article". --E-960 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI I copied some content removed from this page to History of Poland where it is more due at that level of detail. Regarding The Holocaust in Poland, I think the overview article here should simply mentioned that it happened, was orchestrated by the Nazi Germans, and resulted in the destruction of the Polish Jewry. Any other details are simply too minute here, and invite POV pushing of various sorts (pro- or anti- Polish). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd advise the infobox value on Poland's government should be changed to Parliamentary rather than Semi-presidential, as the one I propose also applies to the system of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and other countries of the Central Europe, which the system of Poland is similar to the most. Importantly, the Polish version of this article features the parliamentary system, not presidential. Mustafar29 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Great read ...but
Have not looked over this article in a long time! Great read lacking some sources but the images are affecting accessibility as per WP:Sandwich and MOS:IMGLOC . I would normally jump-in and start fixing this by removing some and moving others but I see great care has gone into selection. Anyone have any suggestions on how to fix the sandwich of text all over?
e.g for me I see 4 words per line on my phone and 7 words per line on my PC making it hard to follow.--Moxy🍁16:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Chief of State Marshal Józef Piłsudski was a hero of the Polish independence campaign and the nation's premiere statesman between 1918 until his death on 12 May 1935.
During World War I, all the Allies agreed on the reconstitution of Poland that United States President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed in Point 13 of his Fourteen Points. A total of 2 million Polish troops fought with the armies of the three occupying powers, and 450,000 died. Shortly after the armistice with Germany in November 1918, Poland regained its independence as the Second Polish Republic (II Rzeczpospolita Polska). It reaffirmed its independence after a series of military conflicts, the most notable being the Polish–Soviet War (1919–21) when Poland inflicted a crushing defeat on the Red Army at the Battle of Warsaw, an event which is considered to have halted the advance of Communism into Europe and forced Vladimir Lenin to rethink his objective of achieving global socialism. The event is often referred to as the "Miracle at the Vistula".
During this period, Poland successfully managed to fuse the territories of the three former partitioning powers into a cohesive nation state. Railways were restructured to direct traffic towards Warsaw instead of the former imperial capitals, a new network of national roads was gradually built up and a major seaport was opened on the Baltic Coast, so as to allow Polish exports and imports to bypass the politically charged Free City of Danzig.
The inter-war period heralded in a new era of Polish politics. Whilst Polish political activists had faced heavy censorship in the decades up until the First World War, the country now found itself trying to establish a new political tradition. For this reason, many exiled Polish activists, such as Ignacy Paderewski (who would later become prime minister) returned home to help; a significant number of them then went on to take key positions in the newly formed political and governmental structures. Tragedy struck in 1922 when Gabriel Narutowicz, inaugural holder of the presidency, was assassinated at the Zachęta Gallery in Warsaw by painter and right-wing nationalist Eligiusz Niewiadomski
Tadeusz Kosciuszko
This edit request to Poland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Americanisation in "British code-breaker Gordon Welchman said: "Ultra would never have gotten off the ground if we had not learned from the Poles[...]"
At the time he wrote that in The Hut Six Story, he had been living and working in the United States; and either he adopted the American spelling, or an editor changed the wording.
This was shortened in a way, that significant deatils of this was spared and practically Poland look like jus a signatory of the Warsaw pact and nothing more.
We discussed it with Oliszydlowski, and finally he accepted and thanked my edit. In case you disagree, we likely to roll back to the original one.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC))
I've restored the original - it reads better. Open to being told that the reference says something else -----SnowdedTALK13:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Snowded:@KIENGIR: - The reference justifies simply the influence set on all Eastern Bloc countries and Warsaw Pact signatories. Saying "under Soviet influence" is synonymous and repetitive, but can be sometimes incorrect as the degree of influence varied for each satellite country. So it is best to state the obvious that one cannot discuss - Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Bloc and the lead is for stating the obvious. Although simply by stating that the country was a signatory of the Warsaw Pact means that it was in the Eastern Bloc, so I find adding "member of the Eastern Bloc" also redundant and superfluous. The word "member" is already used three times in the lead section alone. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Its clumsey, lacks a date and 'Russian influence' is more meaningful that 'signatory to the Warsaw Pact'x. I'm not going to gether into an edit war with the pair of you over this although the lack of respect for WP:BRD is odd. I restored to original to allow a discussion. -----SnowdedTALK16:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Snowded:@KIENGIR: "Soviet" influence...let's stick to facts. The older version didn't state any Soviet-supported organizations like the very important Warsaw Pact which acted as a counterweight to NATO. I think it's best to rely upon facts which is belonging to an official political organization. One can insinuate that being part of the EU is under the influence of Brussels and so on and that breaks the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, particularly for the lead which is a summary and not a discussion field. Pardon me for WP:BRD. I believe that "The Polish People's Republic proclaimed forthwith was a chief signatory of the Warsaw Pact amidst global Cold War tensions" is the most neutral and best grammatically structured summarizing sentence. For more information one may click on the Warsaw Pact link and read more what was that about before jumping to conclusions. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to catch up only now, read through the whole discussion. Well, as I see, the waters became settled, I think the current wording is fine, as we agreed once. I think the number of the word member is not annoying, three is not much as obviously a state has been a member of many entities. Moreover, what is obvious to you or me about Poland, not necessarily for the average reader. Also in Hungary articles we have to clarify many things, since there have been many cases in history that is often misunderstood or simply unclear for an average reader and are poorly written. As it has been pointed out in the discussion, Soviet influence is undeniable, suffered all of us. I have also no problem with the statement under what influence EU might be, since it is as well apparent and undeniable. Thus one single mention of the Eastern Bloc is not devilish, but necessary, and the end result is even far more soft as the previous sentence before. I think, over 80% your preferred version is set now, so in the end you may be satisfied, I will always try to find the best consensus with you also in the future. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC))
I generally don't pardon people for BRD violatons but I often walk away if people don't respect it. I'd like to see what the reference actually says as you haven't changed the reference although you have changed what is said which is a little odd. If you don't have access to the reference then you should have deleted that as well if you could not validate it. As to facts "satillite state" is a fact and well supported by references. The EU comparison would assume that tanks would roll onto the streets on Hungary at the moment which is unlikley - its specious. -----SnowdedTALK16:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not see why a reference would be required for Poland signing and being part of the Warsaw Pact if it is too obvious? A cite may be placed in the body of the article in the section relating to the post-war communist period rather than the lead for that. Perhaps comparing Warsaw Pact of "Mutual Assistance" (or mutual invasion to be fair) to the EU is inappropriate due to past historical events, but I was talking about it as a counterweight to the organization or "league" of nations of the Western Bloc. Does it say in the West Germany or France articles that they were part of the Western Bloc or under the influence of whatever nation such as the US? No, it says that they were founding members of NATO, which summarizes it. Regardless, I think that membership in the Warsaw Pact justifies both being an Eastern Bloc and a satellite ("monitored") country. Poland was one of the founding members of the Warsaw Pact, where it was planned and signed. All I attempted to do is improve Wikipedia for the benefit of the reader and avoid any bias or discrepancies. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The statement is currently supported by a reference so if I understand your comment above you changed the text but did not check back? Otherwise I think you are making a political point with the idea that the Warsaw Pact was there to balance NATO, that was the Soviet line at the time so its not really NPOV. And the Hungary point applies as well to NATO as it does to the EU, and I could add Czechoslovakia -----SnowdedTALK17:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that after the war Poland was NOT established as "satellite state", this was not an official political model, like say the British overseas Dominions or something. Poland was established as an independent People's Republic, however in practice the Kremlin got on the phone whenever they needed to "recommend" something, and to describe this de facto arrangement the term "satellite state" was often used, but than again the US pretty much did the same thing to its allies, like during the Suez Crisis, though in most cases more subtle approach was used. --E-960 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Really - got any references around that perspective? The US refused to support (rightly) the UK in the Suez Crisis but that is very different from direct interference. Any invasions of NATO countries by the US? This looks to be an attempt at revisionist history. But as I say, do you have reliable sources that say the US control of NATO was the same as USSR on Warsaw Pact? It won't take long to find references that use 'satellite state' -----SnowdedTALK11:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Look, was Poland in practice a "satellite state" yes, but that is not an official designation, such as British Domains. I would say that Poland was under Soviet influence or became a satellite state of the Soviet Union. However, it was not "established as a satellite state". --E-960 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
As for your question regarding the US, in the case of the Suez Crises the Eisenhower administration put financial pressure on the UK to end the invasion. So, Washington had ways to get it's message across, without being as crude or clumsy as the Kremlin. --E-960 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
François Robere, this is not an option but a fact. The term "satellite state" is not an official designation. You can say New Newfoundland was established as a British Dominion, but it is not technically correct to say Poland was established as a Soviet Satellite State (because this is not an official designation for a polity). You can say that Poland was established as a People's Republic and became a satellite state of the Soviet Union. --E-960 (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski: This discussion is taking place without sources whatsoever, and it's unclear what the core disagreement is even about (other than whether Poland was actually a satellite state at the time, and whether "Western Bloc" scholarship is is WP:DUE, the answer to both here is "yes"). Is it stylistic? Material? It's all over.
I don't think there was a new source presented, it was a minor text change that kicked-off this discussion, which read "The Polish People's Republic proclaimed under Soviet influence". --E-960 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
~@Piotrus: - Do not know why etymology popped up there in the edit summary. I am going to place this info into the Politics of Poland or perhaps History of Poland under a new section. However, one report cannot justify the entire democratic slip so that's why I do not think it is appropriate for the main Poland article. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think such details should be included in a high level country article. Also, let's not bring in the issue of politics into this article. I agree with Oliszydlowski, NGOs are a loaded issue, and you can't base everything on some reports. Great example of political bias and turning a blind eye is when the previous PO-PSL government run by Donald Tusk (later elected as the president of the EU Council) sent police in to confiscate embarrassing material from a news magazine reporter, you can see the event unfold here [28], however the EU and the NGOs hardly made any noise about it, since this was a centrist/liberal government, however PiS is a staunchly conservative government, so it's exposed to accusations of democratic back sliding on a regular basis (warranted or not), if we wanted to cover both sides of this issue we would end up with an entire paragraph about it, and this is not the article for it. --E-960 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it should. The nature of a country's governmental system is highly important in exactly that sort of article, certainly at least as important as the fact that "Poland has an active music scene" or that "Ida by Paweł Pawlikowski won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film". François Robere (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I placed the text into the History of Poland in the contemporary section instead. That section may be used more for discussing the issue rather than in Poland article which is more of a summary of current governmental structures and government type. The Freedom House report did highlight that though the situation deteriorated heavily, democracy is still intact. If Poland's classification as a functioning democracy would change (as in Hungary's case) then it would be appropriate to place this info in the main article. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday the US Ambassador to Poland Georgette Mosbacher in an interview with Radosław Sikorski stated, when asked SPECIFICALLY about the Freedom House report, that she does not agree with that assessment. So, this only confirms that this NGO report is just an opinion, and not an be-all-end-all verdict. This reference simply is too detailed and partisan to be included. --E-960 (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, pls see my comment on the History of Poland talk page on how a proper neutral statement should look like, capturing both sides of the debate - the way this one NGO report is highlighted and presented creates undue weight and neutrality issues. --E-960 (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
"Neutralize" it as you wish. The bottom line is it was widely cited[29][30][31][32] and that as a statement on current affairs it belongs first and foremost here; as a record of progress, it belongs in the "History of..." article. François Robere (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Citing news websites is not the proper approach in this case, even many Wikipedia articles have a banner which reads that a particular event or issue is current and information is subject to change. Besides, it does not matter how many times in the news the Freedom House report gets quoted, at the end of the day it's still just one report from an NGO (...is that like some kind of a force multiplier? one report = 1 source, but if the news media reports on the report then it = multiple sources? it's a bit unreasonable). On the History of Poland talk page I wrote down a quick example of how this should be presented. Definitely not a blurb which reads, Freedom House says Poland's undemocratic... case closed, let's put that one away! --E-960 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
even many Wikipedia articles have a banner which reads that a particular event or issue is current and information is subject to change These apply for "breaking" events, not societal processes that have been ongoing for years.
it does not matter how many times in the news the Freedom House report gets quoted Actually it does, because that's one of the ways you judge WP:NOTABILITY.
at the end of the day it's still just one report from an NGO Which is why it's attributed, and not presented as absolute fact.
On the History of Poland talk page I wrote down a quick example of how this should be presented As I said, you're free to present it as you wish, but do so in this article. You can't claim it's a "current event" and then push it to "history of". François Robere (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It's still undue weight, one NGO report is not a verdict form the International Criminal Court in the Hague or something, that you can base an entire statement on it. If for example the US Ambassador does not agree with it, it just shows you that this report is just one opinion in among others. --E-960 (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@E-960: Since you plain reverted my correction in the article. The "rationale" for my edit was the following: the text currenty claims "By the late 1930s, due to increased threats posed by political extremism inside the country, the Polish government became increasingly rigid, banning a number of radical organizations, including communist and ultra-nationalist political parties, which threatened the stability of the country." This is objectivly wrong on multiple levels and also not supported by the given source.
Not a single political party was banned in the 1930s. The Communist party of Poland was already banned in 1919.
The source does not say anyone was banned because they "threatened the stability of the country". It states that this was simply a campaign to root out opposition and secure the power of the Sanacja government.
Not only "extremist" or "radical" organsations/politicians were threatened and arrested, moderate leftists and opposition were too; as per the source
Dead Mary and Kashmiri, you keep repeating that the communist party of Poland was banned in 1919 (I think there were other communist parties involved, if I recall correctly), in the late 1930s several parties got banned see here Kategoria:Partie i ugrupowania zdelegalizowane w II Rzeczypospolitej[33] — so you conveniently removed the fact that just about all of the illegal formations were radical movements — I would call that rather POV-ish, much easier to just add the word "authoritarian" and remove context. The source clearly says most parties and/or politicians targeted were either communists, separatists and ultra-nationalist. At this point, there is no consensus for the rather inaccurate change to the original text. --E-960 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@E-960: I don't think you even understand what the purpose of the changes were. Not sure why you are so combative.
"By the late 1930s [...] the Polish [...] banning a number of radical organizations, including communist and ultra-nationalist political parties"
This sentence is simply wrong. There was not a single political party banned in the 1930s. I honestly have no idea why this is so hard to understand.
The source clearly says most parties and/or politicians targeted were either communists, separatists and ultra-nationalist.
The source nowhere says something like this. It clearly states the entire political spectrum was targeted and how the the Sanacja government became a "military regime which undermined democracy". The only reference to that is when it talks about the Bereza Kartuska prison, but this is about Poland as whole. Dead Mary (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Dead Mary, the source clearly says that the far-right Camp of Great Poland was banned in 1934. Also, the reference says that the political prisoners were either — and here is the actual quote: "most of the prisoners were communists or Ukrainian separatists" (aka OUN). Also, you fail to realize that the term 'by the late 1930s' does not denote the time between 1935 and 1939, but that by that time several parties got banned — communists in 1919 and far-right in 1934. If some wording fixes are needed that's fine, but that oversimplified statement first inserted is not factually accurate. --E-960 (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It is an improvement, but still congested. I'd just remove the tanks photo - the resistance and the RAF wing are more notable IMO. François Robere (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, all stages of the war are important - invasion, pilots, holocaust (camps) and uprising. The tank image has an important statement with caption clarifying WW2 began with the invasion. Plus, none of these images less important than the other - all show some period of the war chronologically. The war did after all start with the invasion in Septemeber 1939. Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be sensible to add the following addition to the infobox to reflect the official/legal status of regional and minority languages:
|regional_languages<ref>{{Dziennik Ustaw|2017|823}}</ref> = '''Official auxiliary regional language'''''(number of [[gminas]])''
{{unbulleted list
| [[Kashubian language|Kashubian]]''(5)''
}}
'''Official auxiliary minority languages'''''(number of [[gminas]])''
{{unbulleted list
| [[Belarusian language|Belarusian]]''(5)''
| [[German language|German]]''(22)''
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]]''(5)''
| languages_type = Recognised minority languages <ref>{{cite web
|url=http://ksng.gugik.gov.pl/english/files/act_on_national_minorities.pdf |title=Act of 6 January 2005 on national and ethnic minorities and on the regional languages |via=GUGiK.gov.pl}}</ref>
| languages = '''National minority'''
{{unbulleted list
| [[Armenian language|Armenian]]
| [[Belarusian language|Belarusian]]
| [[Czech language|Czech]]
| [[German language|German]]
| [[Jewish languages]] ([[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] & [[Yiddish language|Yiddish]])
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]]
| [[Russian language|Russian]]
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]]
| [[Ukrainian language|Ukrainian]]
}}
'''Ethnic minority'''
{{unbulleted list
| [[Karaim language|Karaim]]
| [[Rusyn language|Lemko]]
| [[Romani languages|Romani]] ([[Polska Roma]] & [[Bergitka Roma]]<ref>According to [[Ethnologue]] the following Romani languages are
spoken in Poland: [[Vlax Romani language|Romani Vlax]], [[North Central Romani|Romani Carpathian]], [[Sinte Romani|Romani Sinte]],
[[Romani language|Baltic Romani]]. See: [http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=PL ''Ethnologue. Languages of the World'', Ethnologue report for Poland]</ref>
| [[Tatar language|Tartar]]
}}
I think it is best to just keep the recognized regional minority language which is Kashubian. Silesian does not possess this status. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this will make the info box too cluttered, especially that these languages are spoken by very small groups of people. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@E-960 well there are a lot less Kashubian speakers than Belorussian or German speakers though? Those two and Lithuanian hold official status in more bilingual gminas than Kashubian.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You need to look at this in wider perspective and context, the situation in Poland is not like in Canada with English and French. This discussion is based on secondary details which some editors want to raise to the status of primary facts. Also, these languages are listed in the Languages section, so they are referenced in the article. --E-960 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@E-960This discussion is based on secondary details which some editors want to raise to the status of primary facts; I'm not sure I follow your point, would you mind developing your point what you mean? My point was merely based on the statute relating to the languages, where I pointed out that 3 other languages have similar official status as much as Kashubian and many more speakers but only Kashubian is listed. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Abcmaxx, are not those recognized languages listed in the "Languages" section? How much detail do you want to keep adding to the info box? The truth of the matter is that even though a number of those other languages are listed as having a recognized status, none of them are used in everyday communication, even the Kaszubs and German minority primarily use Polish as their main everyday language. Yet, you want to list those languages in an already cluttered info box, as if the situation in Poland was the same as in Canada with French and English, where more than one language is widely and commonly used. So yes, this is trying to elevate details and exceptions. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@E-960 - in which case surely Kashubian should be removed from the infobox? Elevating one language over others is disproportional. German, Belarusian and Lithuanian is much more widely used in bi-lingual gminas than Kashubian and more frequently a mother tongue too. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Abcmaxx the infobox is a summary of the MOST important facts about a country, not a place to reference every other detail mention in the article text. --E-960 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Mentioning polytheism alongside church
@Volunteer Marek: Please check the revision history before you revert. If something is unclear, then instead of giving "uh, what???" as the edit summary, ask.[34]
And there's absolutely nothing that requires us to "either mention both belief systems or neither". I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about with this stuff, in particular "You can't say "religion is a part of culture" and then only apply it to one culture". Are you seriously suggesting that Polish culture is polytheistic? Volunteer Marek 22:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
What exactly in revision history should I check? The edit summaries of the last 7-8 revisions, so you'll know what you're reverting. François Robere (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I checked them (and you shouldn't assume that I hadn't done so before). What's your point? I was pretty sure that I reverted you adding "polytheistic" to the article, and after a thorough examination, a detailed investigation and an extensive audit, it appears that that's exactly what I reverted indeed.
I added the terms "Slavic customs" and "Western cultures" this was changed/augmented to "customs" and "Latin Church". I think my original approach was more optimal because customs/culture already encompass religion. --E-960 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@E-960: That's not the question. The question is why you removed the note on "paganism" (or rather - polytheism). If you note that Western culture is associated with the church, then you should also note that Lechithic culture is associated with polytheism. François Robere (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
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. Nihlus 13:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: And not needed. Beata Szydło is not listed as the Prime Minister and Mateusz Morawiecki is listed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Done I agree that the statement is not confirmed by source given. The Seeking Alpha characterization of George Friedman's book is an oversimplification and the text here misrepresents even that oversimplification. Friedman's speculation is on long time horizons (centuries) and Friedman talks about what might happen in certain scenarios that might somehow be beneficial in some fuzzy future. That's a heck of a long way from "possible emerging world power," which implies a short time horizon and a current set of circumstances favorable for that development. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Done - OR removed. Why don't you GO WP:BOLD next time? — kashmīrī TALK 20:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC).jpg)
Done Outriggr (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polska_960_-_992.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haushalt_der_Europ%C3%A4ischen_Union#/media/File:Nettozahler_und_-empf%C3%A4nger_pro_Kopf_2012_mit_Werten.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20110927ZurichFilmFestival1371.JPG){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrzej_Wajda_1974.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:450_roman-hunnic-empire_1764x1116.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europa_in_526.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
