Jump to content

Talk:Poles in the United Kingdom

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

Actors seeking self-publicity should be moved

[edit]

I've never heard of any of these so-called Polish British actors and they're not the faces of our community. It looks like they are trying to jump on the bandwagon and increase publicity. Please lets move them to the long-list of Polish-British people, and please lets remove their photos. -- 78.30.76.221 (talk · contribs) at 08:29, 14 August 2008.

Should Scottish immigration to Poland be mentioned on this topic?

[edit]

This is now the ONLY British ethnic minority page on Wikipedia not to show a brief list of people of that descent. It's now out of kilter with the other pages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.215.251 (talk • contribs).

Then this is the only page of that type to follow our policies. Such lists should be collected by categories, not pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It is a stretch to call Bonnie Prince Charles Polish - maybe Remove?

[edit]

I think it is very dubious to call Bonnie Prince Charles Polish. While he did have a Polish Mother, His father was not (James II/VII of England/Scotland). He was born in Italy, and the wikipedia article on him doesn't mention any time spent in Poland. Saying he is Polish is a a bit of an exaggeration, and even half Polish seems too much. I suggest we remove his image and link suggesting he is. Bagster (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. You may want to ask for input at WP:PWNB.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. - Francis Tyers · 20:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Most Polish-Americans haven't been to Poland so why should Bonnie Prince Charlie have been to Poland in order for us to term him Polish-British? His mother was born and raised in Poland and Polish was her first language. Bonnie Prince Charlie was as Polish as he was Scottish as he was British. And he precisely fits in with the Wikipedia definition of Polish-British. Put him back.

I agree with my precedessor. Calling Bonnie Prince Charlie a Polish British or Polish English does not mean that he was Polish, only he was an Englishman or a Briton with Polish descent. When a person is not monoethnic and is a descendant of immigrants from other countries than where he or she lives, it is common to call that person and identify with his or her ancestry. That's all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.173.190.230 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about her?

[edit]

Barbara Kaczmarowska Hamilton - I think she should me be mentioned here. She's a famous portrait painter, wife of Lord Hamilton.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.223.233 (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, she needs an article: Barbara Kaczmarowska Hamilton.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British?

[edit]

Wouldn't this be better as Anglo-Polish? I don't see any mention of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. - Francis Tyers · 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Since 2004 there have been an increasing number of Polish-British citizens in the UK." As the majority of Polish immigrants to the UK do not seek British nationality, can this mainly be attributed to the number of babies being born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.66.249 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Perhaps it was intended to mean that the number of Poles in the UK has grown since 2004, but that is already covered earlier in the introduction. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Ullman

[edit]

Should Tracey Ullman be included as her dad was Polish? [1] Jniech (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Notable individuals

[edit]

I have reorganised the “Notable individuals” section. Hopefully it makes it clearer who is listed in this section. There seem some strange choices. Are those killed in Iraq really that notable? What about Artur Boruc and Tomasz Kuszczak?

Anyone have thoughts on how to select those to be included in this section? Jniech (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we need here (and for other, similar articles) is a single source that lists notable individuals from the group in question. Whether that exists is doubtful though and, at the moment, the list is just made up of those people editors could think of, which isn't much by way of a selection process. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I largely agree which is why I reorganised then questioned those listed. I wonder if I rename it something like “British Poles with book written about them” i.e. not in a book but a whole book written on them. That way I have selection criteria justifying their inclusion. Jniech (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, although maybe we could lower the requirement to a publication of some sort (such as a newspaper article) rather than it necessarily having to be a book, providing it discusses their connection with Poland in more than just a passing way? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further comments. The category on British person of Polish descent has 179 individuals who I suspect I will find some newspaper article and/or website with an article on them. In fact there are many not listed. The idea of a book was to limit the numbers. There are a number of individuals I think should be included but before I add them as want a consensus to ensure I am not simply putting my personal views here i.e. Wikipedia:No original research Jniech (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I understand the need for parsimony so I'm happy to try the book criterion and see how it goes. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I don't agree that not having a book written about an individual makes that person not notable. I doubt many of those WW2 Generals, nor the British Foreign Secretary, nor the Polish Finance Minister, have had books written about them yet. I would vote for using a newspaper mention as the test. Am happy for some of those actresses to be cut out. I think we should use our own judgement and discretion rather some arbitrary rule that may cause freak results. As it happens I think Eleanor Dlugosz is an example of someone who is notable, even though she doesn't even have her own Wiki, let alone a book. She is, however, in many news items. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we really want to limit it to is significant coverage in publications. That's why I initially thought that limiting it to books was too restrictive. I'm sure there won't be too many newspaper and web references providing that we insist on it being more than non-trivial coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First I am suggesting changing the title therefore you don’t have to be notable simply have a book written about you. Now to have a book written about you generally means you are famous/ notable/important. Sorry but newspaper simply means 100s of individuals being listed.

Being a British descendant of a Pole deported by the Soviets, I am not trying to cause issues here but have a test giving a clear reason for inclusion. I bet you more people know who the Manchester united reserve goalkeeper is than a solider killed in Iraq therefore is more notable in a famous sense than notable in extraordinary sense.

Sorry but unless I misunderstand “our own judgement and discretion rather some arbitrary rule” is not allowed as Wikipedia does not allow original research. Sadly freak results are the norm on Wikipedia. Jniech (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling for WP:OR, just common sense when forming some rule of thumb about who to select. If you want to talk about what Wikipedia allows, Wikipedia does not consider books superior to newspapers as verifiable source material. With respect, this 'book' rule, is your original idea, not Wikipedia's. Imagine if we can't find books on Rostowski and Miliband, but then we can find a book on Rula Lenska? God forbid.. ;-) -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But generally there are fewer books than newspaper articles hence limiting the number. Newspaper articles today include Andrzej Tadeusz Karcz who was killed by a bus driver, Kazimierz Sadowski received an eight years prison term for his part in the repeated rape and Edyta and Dariusz Wiewiorka are expecting their first child in January. My suggestion limits the number, your suggestion means 100s per year. Jniech (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I have never said we should include every single Polish British person who gets mentioned in a newspaper. I am talking about the very strict guidelines at WP:Biographies of living persons. According to Wikipedia, we cannot delete individuals from this page purely on the basis that they haven't had a book written about them. That would be our very own editorial policy, not Wikipedia's. Editors are meant to use judgement and discretion in what gets included or cut from articles. I'm sure you have some common sense reasons for wanting to cut some individuals from this page - the procedure is for us to discuss who we want cut, rather than for us to create our own editorial policy independent of Wikipedia guidelines. For starters, I'm not aware of any book about Jacek Rostowski, the Finance Minister of Poland, who was born, raised and educated in London. He should not be cut, and that doesn't contradict Wikipedia guidelines. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well suggest a criteria as otherwise we need to add all 200+ individuals of Polish origin with British connection with Wikipedia articles on them to this article. If you want we can change it to those with books written and/or have written a book, hence include Jan Vincent-Rostowski. Jniech (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how having written a book makes the person notable. I'm also concerned that this discussion is heading in the direction of deciding who we want to include and then finding the criteria to justify that ex post. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will redraw from the discussion for now as I don’t want to upset anyone but feel we need an agreement on who should appear. I understand my suggestion was not perfect but it gave a reason otherwise it is down to the editors personal views. Jniech (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken. We definitely don't need to add all 200+ individuals of Polish origin just because a newspaper mention justifies some entries. That would be like saying, 'people can smoke at the age of 16, therefore everyone over the age of 16 is a smoker'. Some notable people are in books, some have written books, some have been in newspapers. We the editors have to discuss and choose, this is where human common sense is required, and that is why Wikipedia invites us to contribute in the first place. We're meant to use our personal judgement and ability to communicate with each other and establish consensus. We're not meant to make up new rules, and I'm not going to make up any new rules about selection criteria either. Frankly, I don't see such a big problem with a long list in the first place, but if you're desperate to cut entries then in my opinion a couple of those 'notable actresses' can be binned right away, no made-up rules required. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, don't give up Jniech. Your efforts are appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not giving up as such, just letting the other editors have time for their say. I have got an idea which I will work on in my talk area and if it yields any result then will ask you to review it in a week or so time. Jniech (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have still to come up with anything to deal with who should be included in this article. Would it be worth changing the name of the article, e.g. History of Poles in Britain, then remove notable individuals section. I could then create a series of lists of Poles in Britain by the different groupings.

Note: I have changed the importance to Mid-importance for Polish side. The Polish American is high hence mid here seems fair. As the Polish government was based here during WWII/in exile and with the recent immigration making this one of the largest Polish communities in the world, I think this should be more than just low. Jniech (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion the article is fine how it is. I'd likely vote against re-titling it, splitting it, or removing sections from it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without any rule about who to put into the people section it is difficult to expand the rest of the article. To demo I have expanded the further reading. I have every book and a fair few more in the collection on this topic. Once we agreed on a final structure then I will start work but my worry is who goes into the “Notable individuals” as there are hundreds in the books Jniech (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

[edit]

The information about Poland offering sanctuary has been removed from this article. I accept it but question where we can put it? Even the article Poland – United Kingdom relations may not be the right place. Jniech (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about History of the Jews in Poland? I removed it from this article because it was clearly about people moving from Britain to Poland, not the other way around. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Poles in the UK" or "Polish British"

[edit]

WP:CONSENSUS needs to be established on the title of this article. I prefer "Polish British" because (1) it is a logical continuation of Polish Australian, Polish American, Polish Brazilian and Polish Canadian ( WP doesnt have e.g. "Poles in Canada" for good reasons); and (2) it more clearly indicates the inclusion of second and third generation Poles, many of whom are no longer Polish citizens (can e.g. David Miliband really be described as a Pole in the UK?) Editors please add below whether you support or oppose my motion to restore the title to "Polish British", with reasons why. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to go with a term that enjoys wide usage, and I'm not sure that "Polish British" does. A quick Google search suggests that "British Poles" is faily widely used, in popular and academic contexts. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This title follows other titles in the series "Migration to the United Kingdom from Europe". The article cannot be at "British Poles" or "Polish British", because most of the topic (as with others in the series) covers Polish people in the UK whether they are also "British" or not. So while the suggested article titles don't cover these guys, the current title ("Poles in the United Kingdom") covers migrant Poles as well as naturalised Poles and English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people of partial/full Polish descent. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to mention that, but the problem is that people such as David Miliband would most likely never regard themselves as Poles, but rather as British, so the title is problematic either way. A solution might be to retitle the article Polish migration to the United Kingdom, which avoids labelling the people concerned. A similar solution has been employed at Latin American migration to the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then this article isn't for him,, no matter the title (as all suggestions imply he is Polish). On the other hand, no matter what Miliband thinks, he is a Briton of Polish descent and, as long as that is verifiable from reliable sources, he can get listed as such. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I don't think being a "Briton of Polish descent" makes him a "Pole in the United Kingdom". Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more or less so than "British Pole" or "Polish British"; you see, I get the problem, but the suggested names don't solve it. In any case, having a list of people of Polish descent in this article doesn't not mean that people on the list are "Poles" in the sense you think Miliband would reject. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "British Pole" or "Polish British" are equally problematic, as I concede above. That's why I suggested Polish migration to the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we need to decide which series informs the title, either (1) the precedent of "Migration to the United Kingdom from Europe" or (2) the precedent set by the articles on American, Australian, Brazilian and Canadian Polish communities. FWIW we also have Black British, British Pakistani and British Indian but the London Mayor is billed as a "Turk in the United Kingdom" and the Duke of Edinburgh is billed as a "Greek in the United Kingdom", which IMO reads as a bit funny... -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed sound a bit odd! The point with Black British etc. is that they are terms used in UK National Statistics, so using them as article titles does not involve coining neologisms. Being used in the census also means that we know how many people there are who consider themselves to be Black British, which we don't for British Poles and others. I see that as another reason to go for Polish migration to the United Kingdom in this instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now moved the article, since there didn't seem to be any objections to the title Polish migration to the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]

The intro has veered off in the direction of recent migration, with data on numbers born in Poland. The article is about the community as a whole, including second generation descendents of Polish immigrants, people like David Miliband who were born in the UK. The 1 million figure always seems to indicate a total of 1st, 2nd and 3rd gen Poles - which would not contradict the country-of-birth data, as the intro suggests it does. The intro needs a re-write to reflect this. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in the sources for the 1 million estimate that this includes British-born people of Polish origin? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one states that the 1 million figure is an unofficial estimate of the number of Polish migrant workers. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - at one stage there were around 7 sources for the data in the intro, at least one of which I recall (I think it was The Guardian) had the 1 million figure as a total Polish-born plus British-born members of the community. That source was removed, so indeed the sentence was not backed up by a source. However, the source could be restored, if someone can find it again. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed for Dave?

[edit]

Seen as Ed Miliband is now leader of the opposition, while his brother is only a back bencher, should Ed replace Dave in the main article picture or does Davids years as the Foreign Secretary over-rule this? --Yerkschmerk (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced notable individuals

[edit]

In light of this discussion, I've removed all of the unsourced entries from the list of notable individuals in the article. They are listed below, as they appeared in the article, so as to facilitate their restoration if and when references can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artists and Fashion

Business

Literature and media

Military

Musicians and performers

Other

Politicians

  • Leo Abse, MP for Torfaen (famous for bringing about gay rights to Britain). (Polish Jewish Grandfather).
  • Mark Lazarowicz, born Marek Jerzy Lazarowicz, Labour and Co-operative MP for Edinburgh North and Leith.
  • Daniel Kawczynski, Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham
  • Denis MacShane, born Denis Matyjaszek, Labour MP for Rotherham
  • David Miliband, Labour MP (all four grandparents Polish Jews, mother born and raised in Poland)
  • Edward Miliband, Labour MP, Leader of the Labour Party, brother of David Miliband
  • Jacek Rostowski, current Finance Minister of Poland (born and raised in London)


Sportsperson

Victims of crimes

2nd or 3rd Language

[edit]

I had to correct the assertion that Polish is "the second most spoken language in Britain". It is, in fact, the second most spoken language in England, not Britain (as the references themselves indicate). In the UK as a whole it is the third most spoken language after English and Welsh. Sanddef (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is incorrect. The 2011 census said that 546,000 people in the UK reported that Polish was their main language; the numbers have since risen. The National Survey for Wales (2013-14) reported that only 11% (310,600) of all people aged 3 and over living in Wales could speak Welsh fluently compared with 12% (317,300) in 2004-06. See http://gov.wales/statistics-and-research/welsh-language-use-survey/?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.66.249 (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

[edit]

Failed due to insufficient inline references. That said, the article doesn't need that many of them, and is reasonably well structured. A little dedicated work could see it approach GAN. I've added a few good refs for anyone interested in improving this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Blood

[edit]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/20/polish-migrants-strike-blood-donation-protest Xx236 (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Poles in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Poles in the United Kingdom. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to introduction

[edit]

A large addition has been made to the introduction of the article today. It is unsourced, which wouldn't be an issue if the material was sourced later in the article (per MOS:LEAD, the introduction should summarise the article), but that doesn't seem to be the case for all of the material added. It is also non-neutral in places (e.g. "the hard won resurgence of an independent Polish state" and "placing the state under the Soviet yoke"). I will inform the IP editor of this discussion, and will be partially reverting their additions if improvements cannot be made. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small review

[edit]

I was asked by the anon editor working on this (I suggest you create an account, if only to get access to nice gadgets in preferences, etc.) to look at this. I think it is looking much better than it used to. Yes, there are some minor unreferenced parts, but not many (keep in mind each sentence needs a reference, otherwise end of paragraph is assumed to have them). Another part with problematic citations is the list of notable individuals, it also does not specify the criteria for inclusion. I am not fond of such lists, but I'll ping User:Nihil novi who dealt more with them in the past (IIRC).

If I was reviewing it for a GA, I'd point out as well:

  • 'History and settlement' is a weird heading, it is a bit like apple and oranges. Settlement (geographical distribution) should have its own heading on an equal level. A map would be very helpful here. Later, there is a section 'Geographical distribution' which probably would be a good place to merge this content too.
  • 'Culture, education and economic links with the old country' probably should not be part of the above section (Tthis content would be better of moved to 'Social issues' section I feel), neither should 'Political governance as symbolism'. The latter section reads very much out of place, and perhaps all of its content should be just moved to Polish Government in London.

Finally, see also indicates topics that should be discussed in prose in text. Good articles have very little see also content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit more concerned about the IP's additions (see above), and in particular the lack of sources. Where they have added references, the sources don't necessarily seem to support the content that they accompany. For example, the PhD thesis that is now cited for the "including the descendants of over 200,000 immigrants who settled in the UK after World War II" part of the introduction does not appear to support this figure. The tone is also problematic in places. The first paragraph of the "Culture, education and economic links with the old country" section reads like an essay, presenting original research, for instance.
There are also problems that pre-date the IP's additions. For example, parts of the section on World War II seem to be more about British-Polish relations than about Poles in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Per request at the top of this talk-page section, I have reviewed this article's "Notable persons" section. It provides useful informative on individuals who have made notable contributions to important fields of endeavor. The lists' modest dimensions sometimes (as in "Literature" and "Music and entertainment") group together persons who might otherwise have been allocated to a larger number of lists; but splitting such lists may not be indispensable for this article.

I have renamed and reordered the lists, along the lines of Wikipedia's "List of Poles".

When time permits, it would be well to review and, where appropriate, edit the information about each individual, and to add their birth and death years.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I am not sure of the rationale for the presence, in this article's "See also" section, of "British Jews", "History of the Jews in Poland", "Lipka Tatars", or "Polish Library in Paris". Each is a worthwhile article in its own right, but seems to have only a very indirect connection with this article. Perhaps these items should be removed from "See also"? Nihil novi (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll remove them from SA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also recently removed a section that was added about food. This was too essay-like in tone and contained original research, drawing inferences from sources that went beyond what the sources actually state. To give some examples, the heading used was "The centrality of food", which is not encyclopedic. "Food" would have sufficed. The first sentence was then "When Poles first arrived in significant numbers on British shores in the last century, it would have been in the midst of Wartime rationing". Apart from the odd grammar (why "would have been" rather than "was"?), no source was offered for this statement. Lots of unsourced sentences then followed. Where sources were offered, they did not appear to always support the material. For instance, "Since the start of the century Polish dining has expanded into the rest of the country" was accompanied by a reference to a restaurant review. The review proves that there is a Polish restaurant in Birmingham, but that's about it. Even if several reviews of Polish restaurants from across the country were cited, to jump from this to a claim about the spread of Polish cuisine is original research. The only way that the article should include the claim that Polish cuisine is spreading is if a source that states that Polish cuisine is spreading is cited. I hope this helps clarify why I reverted the addition of this material. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it helps to discern your point, thank you. The task remains exacting however, as scholars like Chojnacki and Tarka indicate, since they have only latterly turned their attention to the commercial aspects of the diaspora, including food retail, and hence to the analysis of the possible wider effects. Much of the material is in Polish, and there is a balance to be struck. I think I see what you are getting at though. The point about "centrality" in the title was perhaps a feeble pun on "Central Europe", never mind. Best wishes, --80.168.172.177 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If sources don't cover the topic, then we can't make up for that with original research. Wikipedia articles should only cover what the published sources cover. Those sources can be Polish ones, though - there's no requirement for all sources to be in English. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlining needed

[edit]
This article's lead is much too long and should be boiled down to some 3-5 lean paragraphs.
Much of the rest of the article is similarly too chatty and unencyclopedic, and needs to be streamlined.
Gen. Sikorski's death may be mentioned in a sentence or two. Let the "Władysław Sikorski" article explain all the circumstances and conspiracy theories.
Don't complicate what doesn't need to be complicated. "Polish Navy" (that is what Wikipedia calls it) will do. Readers wanting to know its Polish name (Marynarka Wojenna) will find it in that article.
Good luck!
Nihil novi (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some editing of the "World War II" section, adding information, along with sources.
Other sections could benefit from editing.
Best,
Nihil novi (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. Thank you. More to do, I'll have ago. --80.168.172.177 (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed some further editing, in the lead.
Nihil novi (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It reads much better and is therefore cogently informative. Well done. I guess the bare references will need tackling at some point. --80.168.172.177 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to insert a time line of Polish events that led to migrations to the UK and put the list of all those Anglo-Polish "notables" into a separate article? --80.168.172.177 (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]

Fellow Wikipedians and watchers, thank you for your help and support, especially, Nihil novi, Piotruś, Jonesey95, JackofOz (and Cordless Larry for your forbearance) in raising this article into a higher class, it is to be hoped. I still think we should have some inserts on commerce and food, but maybe I am not the one to do it: once bitten, twice shy and all that... (On your advice, and after hearing from Wikimedia volunteers, I shall be re-launching myself shortly with an alias and log in). Festive greetings.--80.168.172.177 (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When first ever English-Polish contact happen?

[edit]

Not very likely the article tells the truth and first contacts started around times of king Jogaila and forming of Polish-Lithuanian union, I believe it was at least a century earlier but when actually ? 2A02:C7C:A820:6F00:81B6:1C87:5D10:2052 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poles_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1212773642"