Jump to content

Talk:Poland/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"must seek to defend the rights of ethnic Poles"?

Section: Foreign Relations.

Statement: "Poland has found itself in a position where it must seek to defend the rights of ethnic Poles living in the former Soviet Union".

I propose this to be deleted or corrected, as a state has no legal authority on any citizen of a foreign independent country no matter its religion or -so called- ethnicity.

Poland has no legal rights on people speaking Polish in the same way Russia has no right over Russian speaking people that are citizens of other countries, and least of all, over any Slavic speaking people.

If this is an official policy pursued by the Polish authorities it should be noted as such, and regarded as a "belief" and not a duty of the Polish state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.38.112 (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Some people hold more than one citizenship so technically they can use the embassy of their homeland in a different country as a legal authority. Also, I don't see any problem with the statement since it's true (as backed up by the source at the end of the sentence). Eastern Europe in general is pretty terrible when it comes to dealing with ethnic minorities and the Polish state is no angel either. To be honest, I think the statement about defending "the rights of ethnic Poles living in the former Soviet Union" should be more specific as most of the problems are related to Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. The same can be said for Russians living in Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that it's referenced and is a genuine issue. The IP hasn't made allowances for the fact that borders have shifted a multitude of times, therefore enclaves of ethnic groups have become isolated on relatively newly delineated 'foreign' sovereign territory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Bridge between the east and west

Something like nestled between Russia/Germany. Iran? ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.58.140 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand, would you please explain?Xx236 (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Lusatia ?

Only a small part of Lusatia belongs to Poland, the majority to Germany. Is it worth to mention Lusatia without explanation here?Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent discussion

I'm not sure where to bring this up and I'm not modifying the discussion above since it clearly says that we're not supposed to do that, but I just wanted to point out that after so many discussions about this clearly showing us that the topic is controversial (with Wikipedians and outside sources willing to support both Eastern Europe and Central Europe), yet the lead of the article still uses only Central Europe and any edits to that sentence are quickly reverted. If this is not vandalism and completely ignoring bias in the way that articles are written, then I don't know what is. At the moment it looks like the English Wikipedia is a huge free-for-all where crude force and mass numbers dominate over discussion, providing source and actually expanding content. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Since we clearly cannot settle this using evidence (as both sides provided pretty much equal points), it is clear that using Central and Eastern Europe is the only way of solving this dispute, so when will the Poland article be edited to reflect the conclusions drawn from this discussion in a way that ensures the changes last more than a few hours? When will the users constantly reverting these edits be banned from Wikipedia? I know I've already wasted plenty of my time on this before, but I would like to think that the whole discussion above (and this time it was an actual discussion with more than one side) did not take place just to waste the time of everyone else...
I'm going to ping all who took part in this discussion (I guess some of you must hate me now) so that those of you who don't follow the talk page and Poland article can see how stagnated this place is: User:Cunard, User:Moonboy54, User:Cordless_Larry, User:Piotrus, User:OnlyInYourMind, User:OwenBlacker, User:Yatzhek, User:The Gnome, User:Norill, User:Xx236, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Johnbod, User: RGloucester, User:GRuban, User:S Marshall, User:Oliszydlowski, User:Poeticbent, User:Oranges Juicy, User:Staszek Lem, User:GenQuest, User:FoCuSandLeArN, User:LavaBaron. Sorry if this method seems crude, I just really don't know what to do and who to turn to with this, so people who were actually involved would be a good place to start. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The RfC closed with no consensus but lots of participation. Clearly we should not describe it solely as Central or as Eastern or as Central-Eastern, since there is so much controversy. We should probably write something like "Poland is described as being in either Central[ref1][ref2][ref3] or Eastern[ref4][ref5][ref6] Europe", giving the 2 or 3 best sources for each side as the references. If the Central-Eastern supporters prefer and can find good sources for their argument, we can even add "... or Central-Eastern[ref7][ref8]...". --GRuban (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. As so often in WP discussions, many people were so intent in forcing their preferred term that the necessity of representing both views was overlooked in the RFC. Clearly they both need to be represented. The RFC closing is not very helpfully clear on this point, but I think including both in the lead is covered by it. Maybe we should ask the closer back for a comment? Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Unless you can find a source that describes Poland as "variously being in Central or Eastern Europe" or "described as being either...", you cannot include that phrase. It is pure WP:OR. Find a source that says that. Do not synthesise separate sources that do not say anything about "variously described". RGloucester — ☎ 15:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Would this do? I think this part gets pretty much everything across: "Poland, from the United States’ perspective, is the matter of Eastern Europe, while for Western Europe it constitutes eastern borders of European Union. In turn, Polish neighbors – the Czechs (J. Kroutvor, M. Kundera, J. Křen, etc.) – are attached to the concept of Central Europe, what in the 1980s and 1990s found many followers in Poland. However, at present, the opinion that Poland is situated in East-Central Europe predominates in this country. All these terms bear various traditions and evoke different connections." I think this could be easily used as a source for "variously described". --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
And what would you do with the fact that the American source that we have, the CIA World Factbook, places Poland in "Central Europe" alone? Anyway, we can't cite the abstract, and the paper attached to the abstract clearly states on its cover page "This paper is a draft Please do not cite". Try again. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The CIA is certainly not the only organ representing the views of the US as a state nor does it represent the views of the American people. Throughout this discussion I've linked to many sources from various American institutions and newspapers referring to Poland as an Eastern European country. It is also worth noting that the CIA considered Poland an Eastern European country too until the 1990s, when the Polish government campaigned for the change of labels (mostly due to Russophobia and not wanting to feel worse by the connotations they felt that "Eastern" had - "we are part of NATO and EU now, we're the 'good guys', don't confuse us with those barbarians from the East"). However, "This paper is a draft Please do not cite" is a much better reason for not citing this source so I'll agree with you there. Nevertheless, the fact that so many Anglophone sources from 2000 onward speak of Poland as being in "Central and Eastern Europe" should be enough evidence for you, but if you really need one specific source that says something like that and isn't a draft, then this one and this one are pretty much spot-on. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
"New World Encylopaedia" is not an RS. It is essentially a Wikipedia fork controlled and operated by the Unification Church. RGloucester — ☎ 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Though I don't consider the CIA World Factbook a particularly reliable source either, which is why I used numerous agencies of the UN as sources in the past, but unfortunately none of them show what you asked for - all of them use "Eastern Europe" only. Regardless, is the increasingly widespread use of "Central and Eastern Europe" not enough for you? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
As I said below, if this article is going to say "Central and Eastern Europe", a source needs to be provided that says "Central and Eastern Europe". I'll look for one myself, in the interests of compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking at the other articles and there is much variation. Switzerland probably provides the best example for how to handle Poland which is that the first line simply gives it as being in Europe but shortly after, it is stated that Switzerland is in both western and central Europe. The same can be applied to Poland by stating it is in Europe, and a later note stating that it occupies central and eastern European territory. It is wrong to name Poland as outright being one or the other and I say the same of Slovenia which is given as (southern) central Europe despite a chunk being on the Balkan (southeastern). --OJ (TALK) 17:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried something like this in the past (also created a section here), but as always my edits were reverted on the Poland page itself. I think it's a reasonable solution that takes both points of view into consideration. In fact, we could nail all 3 definitions by writing something like this: Poland...[pronunciation and all that stuff here]...is a country in East-Central Europe that occupies both central and eastern parts of the continent, bordered by... - though I guess some may dislike the use of East-Central Europe, because in some contexts it is seen as a different concept entirely (though most often understood as both Eastern and Central Europe OR the eastern part of Central Europe). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm bemused that I'm back from another {{ping}} (but don't worry, Samotny Wędrowiec, I don't resent it ☺). I stumbled across this map of cultural regions in Europe a little while back and Pinned it in case I came back to this question — apparently the Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen seems to consider Central Europe as a cultural region to run from the German borders to the north and west (plus Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine), all of Switzerland, all of 1914's Austria-Hungary (plus most of the Veneto), all of Poland and the three Baltic ex-Soviet Republics, plus the Kaliningrad Oblast and part of Grodno Region.
Personally, I'd argue that Congress Poland and Subcarpathia "belong" culturally to Eastern Europe, with the rest of the current Rzeczpospolita "belonging" to Central Europe, as can be seen in election results, for example. But either way, I don't think continued arguing is in any way useful — as LavaBaron noted in his closing remarks, most people simply don't care which term is used and the other participants are never going to reach a consensus.
Given we're all here to make a better encyclopædia, fixating on two terms that most non-Poles consider interchangeable doesn't seem like the most productive means of doing so. The Swiss solution of Poland is in Central and Eastern Europe seems like a good one. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Your point about Eastern and Southern Poland being in Eastern Europe, whilst parts of Western and Northern Poland being in Central Europe is something I could easily agree with - especially since you used the election results to back that point up, as that's something I was looking at some time ago with this year's election results and I was thinking along similar lines. One explanation for this is that territories which voted for PiS are the traditionally "more Polish" parts of the country (their inhabitants are tied to the land in that their ancestors had been living there for centuries) with what could be considered more Eastern European values, whilst the territories which voted for PO are inhabited by offspring of people who were resettled westwards from Polish territory in the East (or people who were often witnesses of territorial changes) - so their traditions are not as strong and thus they vote for the more liberal party. This is an interesting topic, but I'll stop there before we lose focus. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

To sum things up so far (and please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth): GRuban, Johnbod, Oranges Juicy, OwenBlacker and I are for practically the same solution (compromise of East and Central). RGloucester is opposed to the idea (they have not offered an alternative, so I assume they support the current use of "Central Europe" only). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester has reverted to the current "Central" many times, so yes. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I've said that I would support "Central and Eastern" provided that a source is provided that says "Central and Eastern". I have not seen such a source yet. Synthesising multiple sources is unacceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No such source is required for a formula such as "variously described as ..." which is designed precisely to avoid this need. Yet you have several times reverted this. Otherwise we should implement the RFC closing by alternating "Central" and "Eastern", perhaps monthly. How would you feel about this? Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
A source is required for "variously described". If a source does not say "variously described", and if you only have different sources saying "Eastern" and "Central" alone, that's WP:SYNTH. Regardless, I'm going to provide a source here for review. It describes Poland as being in "Central and Eastern Europe", but in what in calls the "first zone" of said region, which is now often known as "Central Europe". RGloucester — ☎ 17:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair summary on my part. (And fwiw, I disagree with RGloucester on whether or not it's WP:SYNTH, but I'm not sure that's the biggest issue here right now.) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I was pinged as one who took part in this RfC, and I am appalled at the level of blatant disrespect exhibited towards the outcome of our previous discussion. Bullying your way through is not an option. Poeticbent talk 17:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me quote the closing comment for you: "Closed with no consensus. Until or unless decided elsewhere, "Central Europe" and "Eastern Europe" can be used interchangeably to describe Poland. Though I suspect this closure will be challenged as it, frankly, seems like a terrible idea to use CE/EE interchangeably". It was quite clear that our previous discussion brought no real outcome, and as LavaBaron put it, the problem was a lack of consensus... so, according to you, we are being disrespectful because we're finally trying to reach that consensus so that everyone's input wasn't wasted? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

When will this be resolved? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Right then, I think over 4 months is enough time for anyone who is still interested in seeing this issue come to an end to come back. I'll once again sum up the arguments of all those who have returned: GRuban, Johnbod, OJ, OwenBlacker, and I (that's 5 people) have argued for a compromise of Central and Eastern Europe or a solution to similar to that of Switzerland - saying that Poland is first and foremost in Europe, but occupies both eastern and central parts of the continent. RGloucester and Poeticbent (2 people) argued against this in favour of keeping the current exclusive term of Central Europe. On the other hand, this time no one has argued for the use of Eastern Europe exclusively (0 people). That is 5 against 2 against 0 Wikipedians in total. LavaBaron, is this close enough to actual consensus to resolve this matter? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Samotny - Given the investment of energy and argument put into the first RfC by a large number of editors, I don't believe seven total !votes is sufficient to trump the result ("no consensus") of that discussion. Further, the proposal put forward ("Central and Eastern Europe") is essentially a new one but is stuffed under, what has now become, an archived RfC that doesn't present that as a discussion point. The 5/2 !votes in favor of "Central and Eastern Europe" are, however, sufficient to indicate a new RfC is warranted and such a RfC should be opened under its own, unique header. Considering the weird level of passion of the various sides in this discussion, to not do so would probably invite charges of trying to backdoor a change through obfuscation. In summary, I'm not personally willing to declare a consensus in favor of "Central and Eastern Europe" but I do think there is sufficient voice here to run a new, 30-day RfC that is narrowly constructed to present that as a compromise option. If this is opened as a new RfC under a new header today, and everyone from the previous RfC is pinged, I'm sure we could wrap this up by January 23. (P.S. If I'm asked to adjudicate such a RfC, I would appreciate it if it were constructed in a way similar to this for ease of review). LavaBaron (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Will do. This is actually a much better idea than my suggestion. I will make the RfC right now with the neutral statement proposed by you, but yes - I would appreciate it if you could also adjudicate it. Many thanks for your reply, LavaBaron. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2015

hacked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.237.103 (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Recently added text to Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth section

The below statement was recently added by user Jgrosay~enwiki to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth section. I don't think that this text fits into the high level overview of the History of Poland section, and actually focuses on European history, and not that of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth:

  • Leopold Ranke indicates in his book: 'Histoire des Osmalis et de la Monarchie Espagnole pendant les XVI et XVII siecles', Paris, Debécourt Editeur, 1839, pag 14: 'History of The Osmanlis and the Spanish Monarchy during the XVI and XVII centuries', that: 'From one part, peoples of Roman and German origin built fortresses all over the countries they occupied, and used artillery for attack and defense, for the other side, nations of Tartaric origin fought with countless cavalry squads in the unfortified open plains, and fortresses served only to keep the Prince's tresors, Poland having then a so numerous cavalry, that after stablished calculations, Germany, France and Spain altogether were not in the condition of setting up a comparable one. The big duke of Moscow could bring to war 150'000 knights, in Hungary, just the Szelkers were assessed in 60'000, and the forces of Woïwodes de Transylvania, Moldova and Wallachia to 50'000 cavalry men, these had also as neighbors the Tartaric peoples that pass their lives on the back of a horse'.

Also, user Jgrosay~enwiki made this edit back in November [1]:

  • Alfred Jarry, in the first act of: 'Ubu, roi', indicated: 'The Story takes place in Poland, ie nowhere', because the lack of a geographical accident defining the Polish land impeded talking about a defined place.

In both cases the editing appears to have a disruptive quality to it. --E-960 (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Greeks

Greek Communists arrived shortly after the WWII, many of them returned later to Greece. I doubt very much that to-day Greeks lack Polish citisenship after 65 years.Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Some people always yearn for what they don't have. Please don't use italics in discussion pages. --141.196.198.234 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Provide a source for that claim. Misdemenor (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Poland be described as existing in "Central and Eastern Europe"?

This RfC was closed with no consensus to enforce a description of "Central and Eastern Europe" in this article. After 28 days discussion, eight editors registered "Support" and eight editors registered "Oppose". The strength of arguments on both sides was roughly equal and each provided solid policy and factual citations. Since the question was one which, had it passed, would have amended a previous RfC, the previous RfC stands. According to the closure ruling in that RfC: Until or unless decided elsewhere, "Central Europe" and "Eastern Europe" can be used interchangeably to describe Poland. The closing editor acknowledges this is the worst possible outcome and is more an exhibition of the limits of the RfC process than anything else. LavaBaron (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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 Poland be described as existing in "Central and Eastern Europe"? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

The other source provided by Samotny Wędrowiec is a link to the UN geoscheme, but this is not a source for geographical information. Instead, it is a categorisation scheme for statistical use, as described by the UN here, and hence not suitable as a source for the geographical location of Poland. Indeed, insofar as the geoscheme is concerned, even Kamchatka is considered part of Eastern Europe, which is not true in a geographical sense. If and only if the editors above can provide a preponderance of sources that say that Poland is in "Central and Eastern Europe" can that phrase be included. Otherwise, it is mere WP:OR and the elevation of such OR is WP:UNDUE weight and nothing else. RGloucester — ☎ 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Pinging everyone who contributed to the previous related RfC: Cunard, Moonboy54, Cordless_Larry, Piotrus, OnlyInYourMind, OwenBlacker, Yatzhek, The Gnome, Norill, Xx236, Iryna Harpy, Johnbod, RGloucester, GRuban, S Marshall, Oliszydlowski, Poeticbent, Oranges Juicy, Staszek Lem, GenQuest, FoCuSandLeArN, LavaBaron. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: First of all, I'd like to apologise to all for bringing you here again, but I believe that once this RfC is resolved - one way or the other - we will finally be able to put this problem to rest. In the past I have argued for the usage of "Eastern Europe" instead of "Central Europe", over time I changed my mind to "East-Central Europe" or "East-Central Europe" and similar solutions, but it has become evident that "Central and Eastern Europe" is the most adequate answer to this issue and perhaps the only possible compromise. Poland used to be referred to almost exclusively as a country in Eastern Europe - even more so in previous centuries when it controlled more territory in the east - with some alternative voices calling it a Central European state. Although "Eastern Europe" continues to be a very widely-used category among the public, it is clear that the term "Central and Eastern Europe" in regards to Poland is becoming more and more widespread in the worldwide (though especially Anglophone) news/reporting and is gradually entering common parlance. It seems to be very popular among scholars as well. "Central and Eastern Europe" is also regularly used by various (though not all) agencies of the European Union, NATO and UN. At the same time, it is similar to "Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia", which Poles often use in the media when referring to Poland.
I think that instead of is a country in Central Europe,[3] we should use: is a country in Central and Eastern Europe,[1][2]. I suggest using these sources because the UN Statistics Division and the CIA World Factbook seem to be the most often cited sources by supporters of both arguments in previous discussions. At the same time, the lead of the article should not clarify whether Poland lies in Central or Eastern Europe; firstly because Central and Eastern Europe is often understood as one region, but this varies with sources and the Poland article is not the place to talk about that - it is already covered on the Central and Eastern Europe page; secondly because it is the most neutral solution, as writing that Poland is a country in the first or second part of the Central and Eastern Europe region is very likely to provoke edit-warring. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
A double mention is not a "compromise" but the only correct thing to say, since sources (contrary to what you say) are very divided and always have been. By all means throw in Central and Eastern Europe, but this should not be the only link given. People like you who insist there is only one correct answer are the whole problem here. There are several, and we should give all the common ones. Please don't feel obliged to respond. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
In all honesty, I mostly agree with you - sources have become much more divided indeed. This and the need for neutrality is exactly why I made this over a year ago (although originally I wrote more as can be seen here: [2], but another editor has removed much of it, some with valid explanations). I don't see how this can be seen as a problem and the hordes of angry users reverting all edits made to the lead of the article are not, but you are probably referring to the brief times when I was arguing for using Eastern Europe only. Anyway, when posting my view for this RfC, I was initially thinking that perhaps is a country in Central[2] and Eastern Europe,[1] would be a better solution, but when I argued such things in the past people were opposed to it, so that is why I view Central and Eastern Europe as a compromise, which was previously proposed by others also. Besides, I think it is reasonable considering the changing nature of the media. If you look at various news posts and their dates online (especially Anglophone sources), you will most likely find like I have that Eastern Europe used to be the most popular category for Poland, but has gradually been overtaken by Central and Eastern Europe. Central Europe on its own remains less common, but it has grown in usage considerably and seems to be a favourite of the more business-oriented outlets out there --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Which part of Poland is in Central Europe, and which part is in Eastern Europe?
I've always understood that Poland is in Central Europe—East-Central, when you want to be that precise—but I prefer just plain "Central Europe".
Nihil novi (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In fact, the first official declaration of the geographical center of Europe was made in 1775 by the Polish royal astronomer and cartographer Szymon Antoni Sobiekrajski, and that center was calculated to be in the town of Suchowola, near Białystok in modern northeastern Poland.
Guinness World Records recognizes Bernotai, 26 km north of Vilnius, Lithuania, as the official geographical center of Europe. And the bulk of Poland lies west of Lithuania. Nihil novi (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
References to Poland as part of Eastern Europe are relics of the Cold War, when Europe was thought of as consisting of a Western Europe allied with the United States, and an Eastern Europe under the hegemony of a now defunct Soviet Union. The Cold War ended over a quarter-century ago. Poland is no longer part of a Soviet Bloc but of a European Union of almost exclusively Western and Central European countries. The Cold War ended over a quarter-century ago. Why should Poland today be held hostage to an obsolete Cold War division of Europe? Nihil novi (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Geographically and historically, it has been considered part of Eastern Europe. JamesBay (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Your statement is unreferenced, so we don't know who did consider.
Poland was moved to the West in 1945 and become West Slavic and Roman Catholic, which separates it from Orthodox and East Slavic Eastern Europe.Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is the crux of the matter. The loss of the eastern territories of Poland during the Second World War and the subsequent acquiring of the former German territories led to a geographical change in the location of Poland. This is recorded by reliable sources. Furthermore, one must note that while Poland was commonly described as part of "Eastern Europe" during the Cold War, this descriptor was not based on geography, but on the basis of the distinction between the USSR sphere of influence and the Americo-European sphere of influence. This is confirmed by the National Geographic style guide, which notes that "While Europe was politically divided into Western Europe (non-Communist) and Eastern Europe (Communist), the term central Europe was not commonly used but is now regaining popularity". It says that the "geographic designation [of Central Europe] is inexact but generally includes: Germany, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and sometimes Switzerland and Slovenia". It is clear that contemporarily, from a geographical perspective, Poland is in Central Europe. Historical designations based on the different territorial boundaries of Poland, or based on spheres of influence during the Cold War, should not be used to define Poland today. If we stick with reliable geographical sources, one sees that "Central Europe" is the universal designation for Poland. RGloucester — ☎ 20:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - bot summoned - I assume this is for the lead based on some of the comments above. To be honest, if the borders have shifted over time so that Poland is currently considered to be Central European, why not simply write "Poland has been historically known as an Eastern European country but after losing eastern territories to [whoever it was] and gaining western territories from [whoever it was] during and after WWII, it is now located in what is typically known as Central Europe." (I base this off comments above) Would that be acceptable? I honestly don't know more but would simply say that it is contested to be in either or both parts of Europe due to it's shifting borders post-WWII. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
What does Spain no longer being American have to do with Poland no longer being Eastern? At any rate, Spain controlled colonies/states in parts of America, it was never an "American state", much in the same way Britain was never "American" but it controlled American colonies; however, this discussion is not relevant to Poland and is more of a red herring than anything productive. You can keep throwing "par excellence" but Poland ain't better than it's neighbours because it is being considered as a Central European country. My argument is based solely off of the geographical borders that Poland currently has as opposed to it's historical borders, it's political sphere of influence nor it's (possible) defense partners. A country's location is geographical, plain and simple. The problem is that Europe doesn't know where the East, West and Central areas actually begin and end because they keep opening borders and everyone keeps moving around like it's just one big country split into states. Just say it's a European/EU country if you really need to, rather than debate over Central/Eastern/both or actually attribute which sources say Poland is part of which area of Europe. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone wonders what happened, I moved the above comments (in their original order) down here to where they belong. Please use the "Survey" section for what it's for and keep all further comments here. Let's not make this RfC any more difficult to adjudicate for LavaBaron than it already is, ok? Thanks in advance. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is directed mostly at some of those who have argued against this and in favour of the current solution of Central Europe (namely Nihil novi, 188.95.31.34, RGloucester, Oliszydlowski, Doctor Crazy, and Xx236). Apologies for grouping you all together like that as I know you do not all represent the same stance on this matter, but my studies have been taking up much of my time in the past weeks and for me this is will be the most efficient way of responding. Although I believe many interesting discussions are to be had about why Poland should be categorised as an Eastern or Central European country, I honestly thought we were past this. Some of you seem to use political/cultural arguments for Central Europe - Poland as a Catholic, West Slavic country, member of the EU and NATO, with strong business ties and investment from German capital, etc.
The problem with this is that similar and equally valid arguments can be used for Eastern Europe - Poland as a Slavic country with Slavic folklore roots (after all, there is no country with a Slavic majority outside of Eastern Europe), Poland's shared cuisine with Belarus and Ukraine (to a lesser extent Slovakia and Czechia too), Poland as the birthplace of vodka, the similar infrastructure to other members of the former Eastern Bloc, the views and political attitudes of Poles that are often analogous to other Eastern European countries (for example, their government's stance on same-sex marriage as seen here or more recently the new government's - and largely the population's - unpleasant words about the refugees), etc. However, such arguments - whether they are for Eastern Europe or Central Europe - are both POV-pushing. That is why I am arguing for Central and Eastern Europe this time, which is a compromise that is based on the commonly used phrase in the media. And Wikipedia is an enclyopedia that should not promote one point of view or another, but as objectively as possible reflect the most commonly accepted norms whilst adequately representing alternative points of view where appropriate.
On the other hand, the arguments based on geography are in my opinion more valid than cultural/political ones and it is true that Poland has lost much of its eastern territories and gained land in the west after WW2, but that line of argument also gets us nowhere because it depends on where we accept the centre of Europe to be (and there are many ways of calculating it, as the centre has been marked by various people in various places - from Germany to Lithuania). Anyway, guys I would really appreciate it if you could keep the discussion down in this section and only post short summaries of your decisions in the survey section. Thanks in advance. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe that the fundamental purpose of this sentence in the lead is to indicate the location of Poland from a geographic sense, as is done by an atlas, and for that reason I reject any arguments involving cultural and political categorisations. If we were talking about any other country, I don't think we'd have a problem here. "Japan is an island country in East Asia" is not controversial in the manner that this is. That's because of the politicisation of geographical categories rooted in the Cold War, as is indicated by the National Geographic style guide I posted above. There is no reason why we should be bound by past political/cultural categorisations when indicating the location of this country in the lead of this article. Reliable geographical sources universally use "Central Europe" for Poland, and I believe we should follow suit. If there is to be a discussion of political/cultural categorisation of this country, or even past political categorisation, that can be dealt with later in the article. However, in the lead, we should restrict this to contemporary geography. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Perfectly stated. "Central Europe" is a clear geographical designation that accurately describes Poland's location in Europe. Nihil novi (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but you do know that geography is far from being free of political agendas and cultural influences? Like I and Doctor Crazy have said, there are many different ways to determine where the centre of Europe is - some would place Poland well into Western Europe, others would label parts of Germany as being in Eastern Europe. This is certainly not an uncontested topic. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
That's why we follow reliable sources. Our own opinions are irrelevant. There is indeed a consensus in contemporary geographical reliable sources that Poland is in "Central Europe", as demonstrated by the CIA World Factbook, the National Geographic citation, &c. In mainstream reliable sources, the topic is indeed uncontested. Even the official EU website, Europa, labels Poland as geographically part of "Central Europe". RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
So, if we have a preponderance of RS's, why is there really a dispute in the lead? The lead is a summary and presents the main points of an article. Or is there actually a mainstream/significant minority contention that Poland is a Central-East/East European country? I really am becoming confused as to why there is even a dispute. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Doctor Crazy, that is the main problem I've been coming across when trying to discuss the issue with most of those who are trying to uphold the current status quo - they claim this is completely uncontested and it's clear as day that Poland is "Central European", therefore the issue doesn't need discussing because... well, apparently, there is no issue? That's why various previously proposed changes have been ignored, marginalised and rejected many times earlier until we finally got some fresh perspectives from the outside in some discussions here. And if anything, those discussions finally highlighted that I'm not schizophrenic and the topic is indeed highly contested - both here on Wikipedia, in the media, and across encyclopedic sources as well as numerous international organisations. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
RGloucester, how can there possibly be a consensus about Poland being in Central Europe when there is no consensus among various agencies of the EU and UN? For example - to challenge your source from the EU, here is a link to EuroVoc's (official multilingual thesaurus of the European Union) entry for Eastern Europe that lists Poland as part of the region. Moreover, various parts of the UN (which have already been linked to here and in previous discussions) define Poland as being in Eastern Europe too... even the United Nations Bibliographical Information System lists Poland as Eastern European. Defining Poland's geographical location is extremely controversial and there is no consensus, which is exactly why we're talking about it on this talk page. And it's why I've proposed Central and Eastern Europe - as a referenced compromise that represents both of the most common viewpoints out there. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Have you read any of my comments above? You are once again using the UN geoscheme as a source, but that is not a system of geographic categorisation. It is a categorisation scheme for statistical use, and as I said, it even places Kamchatka in the "Eastern Europe" category. I think you may be aware that Kamchatka can not in any way considered to be in Eastern Europe, no? That is not a source for geographical information. The same is true of the thesaurus you just linked, which is once again, not a source for geographical information. In geographical sources, which are the only ones that can be accepted for determining the location of Poland, there is a consensus on "Central Europe". You not provided a single source that says "Central and Eastern Europe". RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Samotny Wędrowiec:, you seem to have misunderstood my statement, though in a perfectly understandable way. I should have stated more clearly "why is there a dispute about the lead's content when we have a preponderance of RS's saying that it is in Central Europe". To add minority or fringe POVs of the location of Poland based on politics, historical borders, etc. is undue for the lead unless it is a simple sentence of "However, there is some contention amongst groups as to whether Poland is located in Central-Eastern Europe, and/or Eastern Europe based on [factors]." That seems to be the maximum extent of what could, but maybe shouldn't, be placed in the lead from what I am hearing and seeing. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Samotny Wędrowiec: My comment is based solely on the reasoning given by RGloucester above; the location of a country is not based on political ties, nor allegiances, nor is it based on (possible) defense allies and is certainly not decided by historical factors. The unfortunate problem, as you stated above, is that there is no concrete centre of Europe. Perhaps the solution should be to state the obvious: Poland is a European country located between [X, Y, Z, A, B, C]. It is considered by [Source 1] to be part of Eastern Europe, however [Source 2] considers Poland to be in Central Europe, etc. This will obviously upset the editors that want to insert their POVs, or try to have a "perfect location" of East/Central/both, but this is being written in Wiki's voice and as such we either attribute disputed/contested information or we exclude such problematic information per WP:V#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and editorial "common" sense. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Those are actually some interesting solutions, but I don't think it would be possible to achieve right now due to how articles about other countries are structured (and almost all of them seem to say "this part of" Europe, "that part of" Asia, "this part of" Africa, etc.). It's a very smart way of solving the problem, but one that should probably be suggested in a more general sense for all countries if it were to take off. And it could be possible. Fairly recently a great idea about removing images from the infoboxes for ethnic groups was achieved. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If there exists a similar problem in other articles, then possibly take this solution across to them as well. However, since the "location" in Europe of Poland is so contested, Wiki (i.e. editors) can't simply say "Central/Eastern/both Europe" without attribution to sources and per DUE this would require us to then also mention and attribute the opposing views of whatever choice goes first. I'm mainly just winging this based on policies and guidelines. I honestly couldn't place Poland on a map except to say "somewhere near Germany and Russia and kinda Eastern Europe area" so this is nice to be learning a bit more of life's many "facts".
At any rate, I'll see about writing a draft of my solution for consideration and hopefully I won't see a single nitpick over a comma. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The overwhelming preponderance of cartographic and other evidence in the "Central Europe" article places Poland within Central Europe. Nihil novi (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead of the Polish Wikipedia's "Polska" ("Poland") article describes Poland as "a unitary state in Central Europe". Nihil novi (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Every encyclopedia and dictionary that I have consulted describes Poland as a country in Central Europe—and only in Central Europe. Nihil novi (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Poland is one of only 4 countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia—together also known as the "Visegrád Group") that are listed as part of Central Europe by all the following authorities: the World Bank; the OECD; the European Union's Central Europe program ([3]); the 1994 Prague Conference of the International Geographical Union; The Economist; CIA World Factbook; Ronald Tiersky, Europe today, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, ISBN 9780742528055, p. 472; Lonnie R. Johnson, Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-510071-6, pp. 11-12, 16.

Some countries, such as Germany and Austria, that are often considered to be parts of Central Europe are sometimes omitted from authoritative listings such as the above. Poland always appears in those lists as part of Central Europe—and only of Central Europe. Nihil novi (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've dug up a ton of reliable sources saying Poland is in Eastern Europe in past discussions, neither of you were so keen on talking about the issue then. Anyway, I am no longer arguing for using Eastern Europe and the fact that you're determined to keep bringing out sources saying Poland is Central European only supports my argument - there are plenty of sources saying either Central/Eastern or both about Poland, hence the need for a compromise. I won't take part in digging up more sources to combat your POV with my view, because it is essentially POV-pushing one way or the other. You already know that I personally think Poland is in Eastern Europe, but during the time I've spent on Wikipedia so far I've realised that this is NOT for representing my own views (regardless of how many sources I can find out there to support them) but to represent the views most commonly held by reliable sources and present in the media. As for sources for Central and Eastern Europe, a fair few have been posted in past discussions also and it's arguably the most commonly used designation for Poland (and most of its northern, eastern and southern neighbours) in academic papers. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Without evidence provided here, as opposed to somewhere else, your claims have no backing. The only sources you linked here and at the previous discussion were links to the UN geoscheme, an EU source using the UN geoscheme, and Eurovoc. None of these are sources for geographical information, as has been explained to you three times. In EU and UN sources that are not using categories for statistical use, Poland is placed in Central Europe. Furthermore, you citation of political papers in that discussion is also irrelevant, because as the National Geographic source said above, "Eastern Europe" is used in academia as a political construction to refer to all of the countries that had been under Soviet influence, in contrast to the Americo-European "Western Europe". This type of classification is not based on geography, and hence is not suitable for determining the location of Poland, as was agreed above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
If these categories are not geographical to you, then I do not know what is... I was always under the impression that adjectives such as "central" or "eastern" denote the geographical position of the noun that comes after, but according to you this applies only to "central" - whereas "eastern" apparently always denotes a territory's political allegiance? That is utterly perplexing to me. Indeed, "Eastern Europe" is often used in a political context in reference to countries that used to be under Soviet influence, but you should also be aware that the category of "Central Europe" is often used in a political/business-oriented sense to group all the former Eastern Bloc countries that are now under German and American economic influence and whose governments have allied themselves with Western powers. "Central Europe" is also historically a political concept of countries between Germany and Russia with opposing political/economic/military interests to both of their powerful neighbours. Geography and all these different categories are all socially constructed and depend on the historical, cultural and indeed political context of the situation - on Japanese world maps the USA is in the east whilst Russia is western. Furthermore, both the EU and UN are political organisations, and although statistics are never completely neutral either - they are certainly more objective than the political documents you've linked to (the CIA World Factbook is also a poor candidate for an apparently neutral source that is supposed to tell us that Poland is undoubtedly located in Central Europe alone). Anyway, my point is that nothing is completely free of political connotations and historical/cultural context of a given society. Of course the term "Eastern Europe" is not 100% neutral, but it is wrong and manipulative to suggest that "Central Europe" somehow is. "Central and Eastern Europe" looks like the only compromise between the two. The sources offered are clearly adequate for this solution (the ones you've shared with us also illustrate my point). Last but not least, in your second source (the one from the UN) Poland is also mentioned several times in the context of "Central and Eastern Europe". --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"Eastern Europe" as an alternative name for the Eastern Bloc
"Eastern Europe" as a geographical category is coloured in salmon
You are not listening to me. Again, the UN geoscheme is a set of categories that is meant for statistical analysis. It is not based on geography, but on cultural and political factors. That's why Kamchatka is considered "Eastern Europe" in that system of categorisation. It isn't because Kamchatka is in "Eastern Europe", but because the UN statistical area called "Eastern Europe" includes Russia, which includes Kamchatka. When doing statistical analysis, it is standard to group together countries that are alike for comparison purposes, and that's what the UN geoscheme does. As I linked above, the UN geoscheme does not claim to be based on geography. It is not a source for the location of Kamchatka or Poland or anything else. It is useful if one is doing statistical analysis, and not for any other purpose.
As far as "Eastern Europe" is concerned, there are two "Eastern Europes". There is a geographical "Eastern Europe", and then there is a use of "Eastern Europe" as an alternative name for the Eastern Bloc. In sources that are not dealing with geography, it is very common to see the second definition used. That usage dominated during the Cold War. It is not a matter of geography, as one can see by looking at a map of it. It groups together a wide swathe of countries that have no clear relation to each other other than that they were under Soviet influence. "Eastern Europe" as a geographical category is clearly shown to be "the eastern part of Europe", as one can see in the picture here. The World Factbook is the most comprehensible and reliable source for this sort of information, and is considered de rigeur for academic papers. It is not a "political" source. You have not provided a single source that says that Poland is in "Central and Eastern Europe", and even if you were able to, it would be WP:UNDUE in comparison to the preponderance of sources that says "Central Europe". There is no need to accommodate WP:FRINGE beliefs here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
European countries with a humid continental climate correspond entirely with Eastern Europe or Central and Eastern Europe
Any map that has the borders of states on it is known as a "political map". A "purely geographical" map would feature the names of regions of Poland at most (along with their topographical features), but the arbitrary borders of a nation state like Poland or any other country are purely political and have nothing to do with geography. As such, even though terms like "Eastern Europe" or "Central Europe" are geographical, as I've said earlier they both carry political connotations and neither will ever be "pure geography". You claim that Eastern Europe "groups together a wide swathe of countries that have no clear relation to each other other than that they were under Soviet influence"... but then why do all of these countries have pretty much the same climate as seen on the image to the left? Is that not an important element of geography? There is no preponderance of sources to say that Poland is only in Central Europe... even when searching though Google, "Poland"+"Eastern Europe" comes out as the slightly more popular result with 51 500 000 results as opposed to "Poland"+"Central Europe" with 50 000 000 results (see 1 and 2). And if the CIA World Factbook is the ultimate source on the matter for academia then why is Central and Eastern Europe the academic standard for grouping Poland and its non-western neighbours together? At least that's what I've seen online and during my experience as a student in Anglophone universities. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
As for sources explicitly stating that Poland is in Central and Eastern Europe in the same sentence - they are fairly easy to find. You probably won't accept any newspapers which say so, such as The Guardian or other broadsheets, because they would not be "geographical" enough for you (and academic papers often represent only the views of individuals), so I won't waste your time with all those. A quick search brings out the OECD Glossary - "Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) is an OECD term for the group of countries comprising Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and the three Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania." Your argument about statistics and Kamchatka simply can't be applied here. The source is clearly geographical in the context of agriculture, moreover it lists these countries without Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, or Russia - the OECD clearly understands them as a separate region. Lastly before I depart (I've already spent a bit too much time on Wikipedia today - but that's how it is with this website), I just want you to know that even though we disagree I still appreciate this discussion. It's a lot more time than most people arguing for "Central Europe" only have given to this issue. Thanks for that. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If you can give me one clear reliable sources that reads "Poland is a country in Central and Eastern Europe", I would be able to accept your conclusions. You still have not done this. That's all I'm asking for. The fact that this hasn't been done by any party here makes it very hard for me to accept. Both of us have been spouting a bit of our own WP:OR about geography, climate, &c., and really that doesn't matter in terms of what we are talking about. I do appreciate this discussion, however. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 20 January 2016 (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.

LavaBaron, why did you close this RfC two days early? On your talk page you asked me to remind you on 23 January to return here and close the RfC... I am confused. And it's worth nothing that there was no clear consensus among those who opposed it - 5 argued for Central Europe, 2 people argued for East-Central Europe, 1 argued for Eastern Europe... whilst 8 argued for Central and Eastern Europe + 1 more (which may not count, since it was) after the RfC was prematurely closed. I’d understand if the opposition was homogeneous or at least similar in argument, but that was not the case and the majority of users agreed that Central and Eastern Europe was the best option. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Samotny Wędrowiec - To your first question, clearly it wasn't close enough that there would be enough of a change in the final 48 hours to merit dragging it out - plus there had been no !votes registered in the final three days. In other words, it was reasonably clear the RfC had run its course after 28 days. To your second question, the RfC was "Should Poland be described as existing in "Central and Eastern Europe"? Based strictly on survey results (as strength of argumentation was roughly equal), you are correct that 50% of respondents supported describing Poland as existing in "Central and Eastern Europe." However, all other factors being equal, 50-percent is almost never a consensus. All that said, the closure can be appealed at Wikipedia:AN and I won't object or be offended if you choose to do so as this was a tough one and a second opinion couldn't hurt. LavaBaron (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, your explanation is reasonable. And no, that is fine, I think I will let this issue rest for now. I'm exhausted after failing to achieve anything with this again (as I'm still convinced the lead of the article shouldn't mention only Central Europe). I should focus entirely on my studies right now. Thank you very much for taking the time to adjudicate this again. All the best, --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c "United Nations Statistics Division - Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications". United Nations. Retrieved December 22, 2015.
  2. ^ a b c "CIA World Factbook - Poland". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved December 22, 2015.
  3. ^ Prof. Rick Fawn, Oxbridge (2013). The Elusive Defined? Visegard Co-operation as the Contemporary Contours of Central Europe. Routledge. pp. 47, 49. ISBN 1135314020. Retrieved 28 June 2015. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

The formal beginning of World War II

First was Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, later the war started.Xx236 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

President of the European Council Donald Tusk picture

Tusk was the PM in 2010.
Who cares about a EPP congress in 2010? European People's Party doesn't list them.

Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Two Polish citizens in Foreign relations, strange.Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could elaborate on this - what you mean, what you want to change and why. Most of your contributions to this talk page are laconic and extremely cryptic. This is probably the main reason why no one has replied yet. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Tusk wasn't any President when the picture was taken. This way we can publish his kindergarden picture as President Tusk eating his cereals.
Is the picture of two citizens of Poland during an unimportant meeting appropriate to inform about Foreign relations? No, it isn't so it should be replaced. Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Poland. 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked No archived captures exist due to no bots text used by site. Replaced with Jstor version. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2016 on Poland

On the Poland page, Poland isn't just the Republic of Poland, it's actually the THIRD Republic of Poland, so I wish to edit the head of the page.


Jacob Alan Henson (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: its official name is the Republic of Poland, not Third Republic of Poland Cannolis (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Cannolis, it is kinda the official name but isn't.
There was 3 republics of Poland, the First and Second, now we're on the Third Republic.
So, it would only make sense to make it the Third Republic of Poland.

Doctor Crazy, To edit the official name from Republic of Poland to Third Republic of Poland, not a move page, that wouldn't make sense. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobthe4gaming (talk • contribs)
Comment - Jacob Alan Henson, are you requesting a page move (the title of the page) or wishing to change the "official name" from Republic of Poland to Third Republic of Poland (in the intro/lead)? If you are asking to move the page to Third Republic of Poland, that would require an RfC and very good arguments as to why it should be moved from Poland's common name. Pinging Cannolis. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
This has been answered... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Foreign relations

Given the ongoing debate regarding Lech Wałęsa, his past and final legacy, perhaps it might be a good idea to use a more neutral image associated with Foreign relations like this of MSZ building or perhaps another nomination [4]. Interested to get everyone's opinion on this. --E-960 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, but your motive for changing it is quite worrying - unless I've misunderstood it. However, it seems to me as though you don't want an image of Wałęsa on the Poland page because of the recent controversies that have sullied his image (though he has been an unpopular figure in Poland for many years now), yes? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should show the good, the bad and the controversial about various topics - not just the positives. The opposite of this seems to be really popular on most of the important pages related to Poland. Wałęsa, a xenophobic and corrupt old man who has been hailed as a hero in the West for decades, is being exposed and you no longer want to use him to sell the country and everything that is borne of it as if they were something great? Sorry, I know I'm jumping to conclusions and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I guess I am a bit too sensitive when it comes to these issues because I've come across so many Wikipedians editing pages related to Poland with the attitude I'm speaking of. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes... I do think the above assessment is a bit much. Just as a quick example, look at the Germany page, everything it the History (Weimar Republic and Nazi era) section in that article has been presented in such a way as to downplay the role Germany played in WWII — title, wording, image selection, excessive references to what everyone else did during the war to blur the context — So, in general terms, yes I think your assessment about Poland is excessive. The Poland article carries the same approach as pages about other countries such as France, Spain, US or UK and so on. On those pages would you argue for things such as adding images of economically deprived areas such as this [5] or this [6] to "keep things real"… or about crime, war, poverty and so on. All those articles focus primarily on neutral or positive aspects of those countries as does Poland article. In any case, in regards to Wałęsa it is a difficult situation simply because due to the current legacy crises, he may not be Poland's representative to the world, hence, to keep the Foreign relations section neutral as you suggest, a simple image of the MSZ building would keep things objective and take out the issue of personalities who currently represent Poland, leave this to the MSZ. --E-960 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
E-960, I never claimed this problem was exclusive to Poland-related subjects on Wikipedia. Besides, I don't see how acknowledging that things are bad or worse elsewhere is a valid reason for not trying to be encyclopedic here. If someone wants to replace the image of Wałęsa with one of the ministry building (in the interest of neutrality) only after more news of Wałęsa's shady past reached the West, it means that they were fine with the obvious positive connotations that his figure had in the West before (after all he has been hailed as a "hero" in Western media for a long time, plus all the prizes). Are encyclopedic values only desirable when they can help you remove some embarrassing or otherwise undesirable element of information about a country from a patriotic point of view?
And if I had more time or interest to become involved as much in articles about other countries as I am here, then yes - I would very much argue for inclusion of less glamorous images, as long as they represent a significant enough part of the country in reality. It's for the same reason why I defended someone else's inclusion of the March for Life and Family photo here in the Poland article in the relevant section when others tried to remove it, despite of the fact that I'm completely against what the people in the image stand for, because they nevertheless represent a significant part of Polish society. With regards to Polish figures in international politics in the past few decades and even earlier, no one has been more popular or influential - especially in Western media - than Wałęsa, whether we like him or not. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, I disagree with that approach, you have to keep things in perspective and in balance with other WP articles of the same kind. Otherwise by drastically changing the approach you potentially may create an incorrect picture of the country. Also, Poland does not have issues which are so great they overwhelmingly define the country, again pls use perspective… no poverty like Haiti, no urban decay like the Rust Belt in the US (just Google Detroit urban decay) [7], and no explosive prison population. Poland has even significantly lower unemployment than Spain, Italy or Portugal. By trying to overemphasize issues like that, you may erroneously give the impression that Poland is really struggling with a particular problem. The truth of the matter is that Poland by almost all indicators is a very middle-of-the road country. Again, this article is not a bubble unto itself, overall context of similar WP pages is important. As for the Wałęsa issue, I'm going to assume that you would prefer to keeping the current image, which is fine. --E-960 (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Every country has plenty of problems, including Poland. Yes, it may look fine when compared to distant islands and developing countries, but within Europe it is certainly in the poorer half of the region. It has a huge problem with migration (in that young and able-bodied people are fleeing the country, in great numbers, to work in other countries where they can live more decently - even on wages that are considered really poor by Western standards). Its minimum wage is far from a living wage. Most youths have to live with their parents until they're 25 as it is not easy to get a house and car of your own. The welfare state is practically nonexistent in Poland, hence why there are plenty of homeless on the streets in most cities. Workers' rights have actually decreased in the past few years, even though they were on the rise following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. Urban decay may not be as large as in the US since Poland is a much smaller country, but nevertheless there are still plenty of really rundown places - every place has these, where industry used to be booming, but after closing down factories and such there is more and more poverty (parts of southern Poland are a good example of this).
People rightfully complained that in the PRL not enough was done to properly restore many of the old buildings in Warsaw, but it's been over 25 years and the issues persist - a significant part of the Varsovian population continues to live in squalor. As for modernising the tower blocks built after the war, in most areas this has (literally) been limited to adding a new coat of bright paint on the outside of the building. Yes, consumerism has really developed, there is no doubt about that but living conditions haven't went up as much as many would have you believe. Most of the money, from EU grants among other sources, has gone into building shiny new skyscrapes (many of which continue to be almost completely empty because companies prefer to use other areas), stadiums with expensive events, etc. whilst much of the stuff like housing and roads continues to be in a mostly poor state.
I'm not trying to show Poland as some generally terrible place to live, of the poorer European countries it is actually one of the most well off, but it's far from luxurious and its standard of living continues to lag behind Western European countries. Anyway, although this could be an interesting discussion, we are already going very off-topic here and it's mostly my fault. As I've said earlier, I don'r really mind if you replace the image with one of the MSZ building - I just wanted to encourage you to question your motives behind changing it. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Most of Your statemants about Poland is a complete joke. Housing and roads? Many of them are in good to great state. This is exactly where Poland shines when You take a trip thorought most of its territories - infrastructure. Once again You're trying to divide Europe into two gropus only. It's really outdated. Poland belongs to non of them beacuse in terms of quality of life Poland places as the middle-income European country. Deffinitelly better than poorer group of European countries. Try to accept the fact that significant part of Poland population lives in good conditions and do not need to take a part in migration process to reach such satisfying level. This is the truth and a couple of percent (deffinitelly not more) of young emigrants won't change the situasion (and yes - this is not a major problem becaue 95% of young people still stay in country). And I know what I am saying - I lived here for all my life - as opposed to You right? I am here only to give you a quick respond and revise what You're thinking is 'truth' about this country, and in reality most of Your statemants are fare below the truth. In other words - every time You wrote "many", "most of" "a siginificant part" - it should be only "some", "there are still". etc. Poland is deffinitelly better than worse place to live in. And PLEASE do not repsond me, cause I won't continue this off-topic discussion any further.87.205.196.1 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)~
It's all a matter of perspective. Yes, I no longer live in Poland, but I spent most of my life there and visit it every year. My point is that living for a significant while in any other country or countries (and not just staying there for a few weeks as a tourist) gives you more perspective. It let's you see how things really are in comparison to where you come from, as opposed to making judgments without having any other place to compare it to. If I lived in Poland all my life and my family was as well off as you claim most are, then I'd probably be arguing that Poland is a wonderful country to live in. In saying that not only would I be assuming that most people living within the borders of the state (regardless of their class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, background and city/village of residence) have the same experience as I do - I'd also be basing all of my assessments on an arbitrary idea of how it is to live in other parts of the world, without actual research or personal experience to back it up. This is how privilege works - it is invisible for those who are privileged. The challenge is to not take these things for granted.
As it is, even your statements about Poland being a "middle-income European country" and there no longer being a two-way division of the continent are completely unfounded. If you look at this, you'll notice that Poland - in terms of wages - is like I said doing really well for the poorer countries. However, as soon as you take a step over the western border, the average wage is tripled! Poland is doing better with wages than most of the Balkans or Belarus and Russia, but the fact remains that its average wages are still MUCH closer to these countries and its other eastern neighbours than any single state in Western Europe. The only places to the west that can even be compared are parts of Southern Europe (which aren't categorised as Western as often as Germany, France or the UK are) - and even they are doing considerably better than Poland in terms of average wages. Of course, wages are not the only factor that decides whether a country is doing well for its citizens (as I've mentioned earlier), I just wanted to show you how even this is not as simple as you make it to be. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If I can bring the discussion back to the original point about Lech Wałęsa, I'd like to go ahead and change the image and If someone reverts I fully understand given the controversial topic, we can discuss the issue here further. Again, I'd like to emphasize the thinking behind this change: it is not to start a war over his legacy, but due to the current situation, which is controversial and ongoing, his role as a representative of Poland is at least for now sidelined. Also, given that this is the "Foreign relations" section it might be good to just focus on MSZ and not on individual personalities linked to past politics, as retired politicians can be and are inherently controversial. --E-960 (talk) 16:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Btw, this is the same approach as with the image regarding Somlensk air crash, we have a picture of Poles mourning outside the Presidential palace as a nation, but not of individual politicians who died in the disaster. --E-960 (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Those reasons are even better and something I can get behind. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Polish provisional government in the lead

The Polish Committee of National Liberation wasn't a government, because the Polish government was in London. Stalin wasn't able to create a government, this Wikipedia gors further than Stalin in 1944. The area administered by the Committee was the rear of the front, so the Red Army ruled there.Xx236 (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Błędów Desert

The unsourced description here says something totally different than the Błędów Desert. Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Population Chart

Hi Samotny Wędrowiec. Well, my reasoning for changing the chart are as follows: that the condensed chart is more up to date (1961-2014), also I'm questioning the logic and the method behind the other chart (1900-2010) when it makes claims about the population of Poland from 1900 to 1918, before the Polish state even existed. In this case are we talking about population of ethnic Poles, while in the Second Rep. the population numbers include other ethnic groups. --E-960 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Population of Poland 1900-2010 chart is far more informative, and a lot nicer to look at. There's nothing wrong with the prewar Poland being a multicultural country. Poeticbent talk 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Let me clarify, I'm not worried that Poland was multi-ethnic before WWII, I'm concerned about the data form 1900 to 1918 on that chart, there was no Poland at that time, so what do those numbers stand for? Are they a combination of partitioned Poland… Congress Poland, Galicja and Duchy of Posen? If that's the case, those are not accurate numbers and the chart presents hybrid statistics, criteria is unclear. --E-960 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
E-960, I stand by my original reasoning for keeping the old chart in that it covers a longer time period, therefore being more informative by providing more data and - as Poeticbent put it - it is also nicer to look at and more interesting. Your original reason given in the edit summary for the change, that the new chart gives more recent data and that's why it should be included, I disagree with because 4 years more of recent data don't equate to 61 years of older data. However, your argument that the criteria is unclear is much stronger. Still, just because the data is from the Second RP does not mean that it includes other ethnic groups (in which case the image should be annotated appropriately as the "ethnic Polish population" rather than "population of Poland"). To find out if that is the case we would have to research the sources used to create that chart. I don't know French, but according to what I could gather from a machine translation of this, the specific sources used by INED are not listed. If no one else can discover the original sources used to create this chart, I'd say the best solution would be to find a different chart or create a new one from scratch based on clear data from other reliable sources - one that would cover a wider time period than 1961-2014. If we cannot find a chart like that or none of us have the time to create it, then I'd say we should use the one you proposed, E-960. Sorry, I know this complicates things and I'm not saying this out of spite, I just think we should aim to cover as large a time period as possible. Chances are that the chart you propose is indeed the best option. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Ehh, half the things I write feel really bloated... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that creating a new chart is a good idea, I know that the Polish Wikipedia article "Ludność Polski" [8] has one that omits the pre WWI data, unfortunately the format is one that I'm not familiar with, so I can't just paste it into this article. Perhaps you might be able to work out the technical issue. --E-960 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: include Silesian language in infobox minority languages

Silesian language is spoken in the southern parts of Poland. Particularly in Silesia by Silesian people. Please include this in the infobox: Silesian. This language is significantly more common than say Yiddish, which is included in the infobox. Silesian language in the context of Poland has cultural relevance, and contains many similarities to Polish language.--137.132.22.254 (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There are many open questions. Jan Miodek and Dorota Simonides, both of Silesian origin, prefer conservation of the entire range of Silesian dialects rather than standardization and the standardization has not yet happened. Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

"... most of whom were Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, and Jews." Most of them were Germans, see the BBC site. The senetnce must be " ... most of whom were Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.105 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The BBC source does not specify numbers per country per nationality, only gross numbers for Eastern Europe. Any order will be correct. — kashmiri TALK 12:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Borders "shifted westwards"

That is all that's said in this article about the forceful and wholly illegal take-over of German territory in Eastern and Western Prussia as well of Silesia by Poland at the end of WWII as result of the Russian conquest and on the behest of the Potsdam Agreement Powers. The very important territorial take-over that changed the outlook of Poland completely - not to speak about the outlook of Germany - is for very obvious reasons just simply not mentioned. - No word, no picture, no map. Wow! A remarkable feast of bend and twist and falsification of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.87.90 (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

People like to avoid uncomfortable topics. On the bright side, there is an article about it. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016

The word "largest" is misspelled in the economy section of this page. It is written "largets." Please change "largets" to "largest."

Bethanyspiva (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Done nyuszika7h (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox pilgrimage

Grabarka-Klasztor could be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

CSS bug?

This page displays very large scrolbars on both IE11 and Firefox. I can’t find the code that causes this, so i can’t remove it. � (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

FDI 2015

http://www.paiz.gov.pl/20150624/poland_joins_the_top_20_fdi_receivers_in_the_world Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statements About Gender Equality

This page makes a number of inaccurate statements about women's rights in Poland, historically and today. The authorities cited don't support the statements made on this.

Here are some other authorities.

www.wikigender.org/countries/europe-and-central-asia/gender-equality-in-poland/

pl.boell.org/en/2014/07/22/gender-equality-poland-after-eu-accession-expectations-and-reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.35.18 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Women in Poland had more economic rights than in Western Europe according to the Napoleonic Code. Polish men were frequently at war or imprisoned, so the women had to act.
Is wikigender.org neutral and reliable or gender?Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
THe author doesn't know history of Poland Women attained their highest numbers in Sejm (Poland’s Parliament) from 1980 to 1985 - the parliament did almost nothing 1982-1985 (martial law).Xx236 (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
boell This publication reflects the views only of the author, nothing about history.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Polish 1st Army

Polish 1st Army distinguished itself in the battles for Warsaw and Berlin - Battle of Kolberg (1945) too.
Warsaw is linked to Warsaw Uprising, the Army fought also the Battle of Studzianki. Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2016

Poland is currently at 37 place by population. Not at 34, as it's now in article. 178.214.30.70 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tourism section

Ok, the way I see it, there is no room to jam more pictures in the Tourism section, as User:Zugspitze2962 keeps doing. But ok, if the user is so bent on adding the aquarium image (as the most visited attraction in Sląsk), then the only way I can see it, is that the image of the Table Mountains is changed out. But, sure as heck we should not be removing Zamość or Malbork, for an aquarium. And, add a smart statement in the section about Wrocław and this aquarium. --E-960 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Zoo Wroclaw is the most frequently visited attraction in Poland! Not only in Lower Silesia. Much more than a castle in Malbork.
Read: http://wdolnymslasku.com/node/2907
So how is the most reasonable to add this photo. Photo Malbork Castle is the beginning of List of castles in Poland, to which the link is in the tourism department. Zugspitze2962 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław Poeticbent talk 20:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
At this point, I see that User:Zugspitze2962 despite effort to open up a forum to discuss and to perhaps accommodate some of his suggestion, keeps on edit warring, and disregarding reverts by several users. So, we should treat this a disruptive editing and close this thread. --E-960 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User E-960 persistently deletes the information that most fits the chapter on tourism and I see no reason to remove it. Zugspitze2962 (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DENY

Removed. Thread initiated for trolling purposes, and carried over to Talk:History of Poland (1939–45) article. --E-960 (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

South Korean Enterprises in Poland

   Many South Korean enterprises as well as other foreign companies have increasingly been entering into the polish market, and it may be assumed that two main reasons would be affected to make the choice to invest in Poland; first, it had geographical benefits surrounded by Germany and Russia which hold large consumer markets. Also, Poland bordered on the Baltic Sea, which is the substance of the trade in Northern European ocean. Second, the labor cost in Poland was relatively low compared to Korea. According to Eurostat, internal hourly labor rate in Poland was 7.4 euro (as of 2012) about 30% less than the Chec Republic and 10% less than Slovakia. In addition, the quality of the labor as well as its cheap price was one of the merits of investigation in Poland. Among the population aged 25 to 34, 41% of the youth at least got a bachelor’s degree, which is higher than the average of the European Union (EU), 35%, second highest among the middle-eastern Europe countries.   
   Daewoo International was one of the successful pioneer which expanded to the Polish market among South Korean companies. In the automobile industry, its lowering price strategy was effective; for example, Daewoo sold its middle-sized car (named Nexia) as the same price with the small cars in competing brands, such as Ford and Peugeot. For the small-sized car, Daewoo brought down its price as it did in auto markets in the other European countries. Likewise, other Korean companies, especially manufacturing and sales subsidiaries, buckled down to Polish market since 1993. It was impeded in the early 2000s as Korea was suffered by IMF at the end of the 1900s. However, as Poland became a member of EU in 2004, and its economy has been speedily increasing, the investigation and trade between Korea and Poland are also growing. 
   As well as an expansion of business in Poland, South Korean enterprises also tried to land a government project. For example, in 2003, KT and Daewoo International won a contract of a high-speed broadband network construction in Poland, a global project which Podlaskie state government ordered and was supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to realize a “Digital Poland” project. After seven months, Mazowieckie state government also signed a contract with those two South Korean companies to establish the information super-highway network, and Korean government agency such as Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA) have promoted the cross-border contract for several years from searching information to awarding contract.  
   Recently, the effect of the Brexit is expected to cast over the burden on polish economy, since Britain had accounted for lots of share, and Poland has gained the most benefits from the EU fund. However, Poland is relatively safe without accepting refugees and EU funded projects are still emerging to develop Poland, which let polish market become more promising. Until 2013, Korea has invested to Poland more than 1 billion US dollars as cumulation, positioning a second largest investor in East Asia. As it is shown in the recent trend, the economic relationship between South Korea and Poland might post positive growth.

[1]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis GM Song (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ KOTRA. (2016). "폴란드 내 한국기업 진출 현황", http://news.kotra.or.kr/user/nationInfo/kotranews/14/userNationBasicView.do?nationIdx=127&cdKey=101115&itemIdx=16610&categoryType=004&categoryIdx=192. (accessed November 13, 2016) 신주철 (2011). 1900년 전후 한국(인)과 폴란드·헝가리(인)의 상대 인식, 동유럽발칸연구 김종석 (2004). 체제 전환 이후 폴란드 정치 변동, 1997-2001, 국제지역연구 Political changes after the transformation in Poland(3): 1997-2001 박수형. (2013). “KT obtains 100 million USD worth Poland Internet network” October, 4 Sean Chung. (2013). “KT, Daewoo International Win Broadband Network Contract from Poland”, March 25 해외투자진출 정보포털. (2013). “폴란드 내 외국기업 투자 동향 및 우리기업 투자진출 전략”http://www.ois.go.kr/portal/page?_pageid=93,721534&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_deps1=info&p_deps2=&oid=1131024170400777577. (accessed November 13, 2016) Eurostat. (2016). “Labour Cost Levels”, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/sbs_na_con_r2 BAN Ki-moon. (2013). “World Investment Report 2013”, UNCTAD 해외투자진출 정보포털. (2016). “Brexit 사태에 따른 향후 폴란드 경제와 우리기업의 투자진출 전망”http://www.ois.go.kr/portal/page?_pageid=93,721488&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_deps1=pds&p_deps2=&oid=1161025173346294471 Frédérique Sachwald. (2001), “Going Multinational: The Korean Experience of Direct Investment”, Psychology Press Ewa Kaliszuk. (2016). "Chinese and South Korean investment in Poland: a comparative study", Taylor&Francis Online. pp 60-78.

University buildings

I would have to respectfully disagree with the assessment that: "none of these structures are more notable than the Kazimierz palace and Collegium". In Krakow, Collegium Maius, the proposed image [9], was build in the 15th century, it is the first university building in all of Poland. The current image of Collegium Novum, only show a structure that is just over a 100 years old, it serves as an admin building, and falls after other notable Jagiellonia University structures such as Collegium Nowodworskie [10].

As for Warsaw, the hallmark image of the university are the entrance gates and the surrounding buildings [11] (all you have to do is Google 'Warsaw University' and see all the pictures of the gates). Unfortunatly, there is no good image of that on Wiki Commons. So, I will say this, the proposed image of the new Physics Building [12] is a judgment call; perhaps we should also show a modern building which got quite a bit of recognition in the media becoming a new icon of the university's modernization efforts [13] and legitimately shows that universities in the country are not relics. --E-960 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

-It is true about the Collegium Maius being the oldest and therefore more significant, but the Collegium Novum is more utilised and is in the front of the campus facing the street. But I am convinced with the argument you've stated. With Warsaw, however, although modernization is taking place, the old buildings, including the Kazimierz Palace and the Main Gate, are regarded as iconic in comparison to new buildings, such as the physics department. It is true that the images of the Main Gate are included in several articles about Warsaw and the University, therefore a change would be good. However the Kazimierz Palace currently houses the Warsaw University rectorate and is therefore the most important central building of the University. To sum up, I am not against the changes you made and you proved your point so I am not going to revert anything. Best Regards :) - Oliszydlowski (TALK) 18:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Clearly, there's a misunderstanding here with regard to how universities differ from, let's say, swimming pools. The older university gets, the more reputation it has to show for it. Magnificent historic buildings with considerable heritage value are the best symbol of that tradition. Meanwhile, buildings which look like yesteryear swimming pools give no clue of the sort. Also, please consider the informative value of every image ahead of its (debatable) aesthetic qualities, because this is the general trend in all encyclopaedias. Also, Collegium Maius is not a part of a living university. It is a museum. Poeticbent talk 13:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Oliszydlowski, thank you for considering the arguments presented on this issue, by no means did I try to start a conflict with this topic, as your input is definitely very constructive to this page. :)
Poeticbent, again pls note that the discussion is still open... why the automatic revert? I stated that if more editors object to the changes the original items will be put back. Also, your swimming pool example got me lost… The theme that the new images try to convey and show; is the oldest university building in Poland (Collegium Maius), and one of the newest and most modern (Physics Building), this has more to do with showing historic/dynamic progress, than esthetics, or arguing if Collegium Maius is a university museum now or not. A classic stereotype about Poland is that everything is old and outdated, this change shows that this is not so, there is a real (not esthetic) mix of tradition and modernity side by side. --E-960 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but your comments come across as just disruptive… What does Cambridge U. have to do with anything? And, what's up with the "swimming pool" references? The image is of the new Physics Facultie building, not a swimming pool facility. Here are more pictures from a news source documenting the new structure and how it looks inside and out [14] --E-960 (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I said: "The older university gets, the more reputation it has to show for it. Magnificent historic buildings with considerable heritage value are the best symbol of that tradition." Your edit has been challenged and removed by multiple editors. Stop edit-warring. Poeticbent talk 19:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Poeticbent, your behavior is disruptive, and quite honestly it comes across as vandalism, first your sarcastically call the new building a "pool facility" and posted comments not based on merits just ridicule. Now, you are simply manipulating people's comments, when you said "Your edit has been challenged and removed by multiple editors". Not the case at all, after a positive debate which was settled until you re-opened it, please look at user Oliszydlowski comment: "To sum up, I am not against the changes you made and you proved your point so I am not going to revert anything. Best Regards :)". At this point, after reverting the images that were up for two weeks, it's you that is edit warring, and only you that objects. --E-960 (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Pls stop deleting my comments, this is vandalism plain and simple, everyone can see what I wrote and judge for themselves. --E-960 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

King: Jesus Christ

That was a good one.Ernio48 (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Hysterically funny. Why didn't you revert it? There's a huge difference between inane vandalism and "funny": and it was about as funny as plastic vomit. Grow up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Ernio48, not sure why an editor would condone offensive behavior with a new section/comment on the talk page? --E-960 (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, simple. /in article, someone reverts it and its gone as opposed to a new section on the talk page.Ernio48 (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
In other words, you're advocating the violation of WP:TALKNO in order to draw other people's attention to a vandal edit. You didn't bother reverting the edit, but have made a WP:POINT of retaining it for archiving. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Vernacular

Could you please consider changing, "During the previous period, men were obliged to undertake compulsory military service. In the final stage of validity of this type of military service (since 2007 until the amendment of the law on conscription in 2008) the duration of compulsory service amounted nine months." to something a little more readable, dare I say grammatically conventional? I suggest, "Compulsory military service for men was discontinued in 2008. From 2007, until conscription ended in 2008, the mandatory service was nine months." Or then again by all means leave it as ugly roughshod. 167.88.81.122 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. --E-960 (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

GDP (PPP)

21st ? Rather 23/24.Xx236 (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Other metropolises

Other metropolises include Kraków, Wrocław, Poznań, Gdańsk and Szczecin. - Why Szczecin?Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added Łódź and removed Szczecin.Xx236 (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Łódź is not more metropolitan than Szczecin is. The Katowice urban area could be added instead. But if Łódź remains, then Szczecin should be also added back. And Gdańsk should be rather replaced with Tricity. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ski jumping deserves to be mentioned in Sports

Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Should 16th position describe Poland as one of the most visited countries

The consensus is against describing Poland in the lead as "one of the most visited countries in the world" because editors found the statement to be imprecise and editorializing. Editors largely preferred noting in the lead that Poland has 16 million tourists and is the 16th most visited country in the world. Cunard (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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 16 million tourists and the 16th position in the world describe Poland as "one of the most visited countries in the world" in the lead section?--Oliszydlowski (TALK) 21:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • No. There's no need for it. 16M and 16th/18th are a) accurate, b) precise, and c) specific. "One of the most visited countries in the world" is a) only arguably accurate, b) not precise, and c) vague. It's also editorialising; I don't much mind the stressing of positive things in this lead, but let the facts speak for themselves. EddieHugh (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is almost 200 countries in the world, if Poland ranks in the top 20, then it's a noteworthy item (think of G20, that number has a significance in international relations)… as an example, Poland is right behind Greece, and Greece prides itself as a tourist mecca in terms of history and culture, right along with Italy, UK, and France. This make Poland quite interesting—people what to see the place, and this is reflected by Poland's standing. --E-960 (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That's arbitrary. This is about tourism, not international relations, and we could pick G7 instead. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@EddieHugh, why is this statement an issue for you on the Poland page? Just as an example Greece has this in their intro paragraph: "It is one of the most visited countries in Europe", and Italy has this: "and is the fifth most visited country" Are you going to challenge those statements as well? Your choice in debating this issue on the Poland page could be considered as "arbitrary", to use your earlier statement. --E-960 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on Greece; I've changed it there, too. Italy is fine: "fifth most visited" looks (without checking) that it is accurate, precise, and specific, because of "fifth". "One of the" is just opinion. I came to the Poland page looking for other info, then found several vague and imprecise comments in the lead that amount to editorialising, i.e. adding a commenting opinion. They shouldn't be in any article where specific, precise info is available. EddieHugh (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - sort of. I think convey that without the numbers and just show "highly popular in World Tourism rankings". Statistic numbers of the kind shown are both transient and disputed; and since the context of overall world tourism has it's own article it seems better to not make a fork have coordinated edits worries if you can just put in the core meaning 'popular' as fixed text and wikilink to the details. And the standing is a bit problematic -- I see sources mentioning Poland as among the top ten OR ninth OR ninteenth. The comparative statement also feels kind of like WP:SYNTH, and could be open to apples-vs-oranges counting or differing sources or having differing nations showing differing year stats kind of issues. So ... just say its popular and wikilink for the ranking. Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Such a statistic should be treated with context, not casually thrown around. Whatever the intentions are, the sentence reads as outright boosterism, and feels desperate and unencyclopaedic. Even giving the ranking seems a bit pointless. What does this say about Poland? Not much. Is tourism significant because it plays a large role in Poland's economy? Say that. Does it have a great effect on Polish culture? Say that. If there's another good reason, say that too. This article, and its lead, are meant to give readers an overview of Poland, being as informative as possible within our style limits. Have actual reasons to put text in. CMD (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes It is informative and it is accurate as well as referenced properly. More information is better than less but also other National pages have such information and is not considered advertising or marketing. Include it, yes. Damotclese (talk)
  • Weak oppose - Only report the statistics that is "16 million tourists and the 16th position in the world" without editorializing. That being said, I do see E-960's argument, about Greece also being "one of the most visited countries in the world" but the other countries' pages should also be changed for consistency. Meatsgains (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No (just remove it from the lead) I just removed a source which is not reliable. I don't think this should be there in the lead as it is cluttering it up. (Actually, I would remove even the part about 16 million tourists). I do not see any indication why tourism is particularly significant to Poland - is it a significant part of the GDP?. The lead is not supposed to contain statistics and information just for the sake of containing it. And yes, many country articles are in a bad shape. That doesn't mean this one has to be in a bad shape as well. Let's not use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:SEWAGE arguments here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No If the facts behind this are important to the country, state those facts, tourist income, number of visitors, whatever. This sounds pretty obviously promotional language and it isn't even clear how the claims have been arrived at. Pincrete (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
nb on source site:When data on number of tourists are not available, the number of visitors, which includes tourists, same-day visitors, cruise passengers, and crew members, is shown instead. Sources and collection methods for arrivals differ across countries. In some cases data are from border statistics (police, immigration, and the like) and supplemented by border surveys. In other cases data are from tourism accommodation establishments. For some countries number of arrivals is limited to arrivals by air and for others to arrivals staying in hotels. Some countries include arrivals of nationals residing abroad while others do not. Caution should thus be used in comparing arrivals across countries. The data on inbound tourists refer to the number of arrivals, not to the number of people traveling. Thus a person who makes several trips to a country during a given period is counted each time as a new arrival.Pincrete (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No - summoned by bot. Agree that what's there is good and would not be improved by calling it one of the most visited countries in the world. I'd throw out an olive branch and instead suggest that using this source, [[15]], might we say "In 2015, Poland experienced one of the fastest rates of tourist growth in the EU, and is visited by approximately 16 million tourists every year (2014), which makes it the 16th most visited country in the world. Timtempleton (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sort of per Markbassett. The lede can reflect what the source says best by specifying who says Poland is a popular destination. Absent this specification, I'd agree with the "no" camp because of SYNTH issues. I'm sure Poles would like the article to say their native land is popular but we need to stay objective. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No. The actual facts (16th most visited) is specific and non-editorializing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove from lead, put in economy -- Summoned by bot, have pondered this a little. I think "16th most visited" is significant to a point but it is surely not among the most important characteristics of this country. I think "16th most visited" is better than "one of the the most visited" but we should also specify when and update the statistic if appropriate. Hope this helps. Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2017 (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.

Łódź

Sources please. Who says that a declining metropolis isn't a metropolis? Xx236 (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Szczecin is also declining.Xx236 (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Łódź is not a metropolis not only because it's declining, but because of its proximity to Warsaw, with which Łódź cannot compete as metropolis of the whole region. And maybe Szczecin has been declining for some time, but not anymore. A 120 m skyscraper in building is rather not a sign of declining, so don't many other private investitions. The proximity to Berlin is not a problem because it's located in another state. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I am from Łódź and it is obvious that the city has been in decline for some time, however, it has never been a metropolis because it was officially considered as an "industrial city". The official definition of the word "metropolis" is a large city or conurbation which is a significant economic, political, and cultural center for a country or region. Today Łódź has no significance in the Polish economy or politics and furthermore it isn't a cultural center. The only exception is the fact that it has a large population (in decline) and is the capital of a voivodeship. Oliszydlowski (TALK) 22:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Sources, please. We don't decide, we quote sources.
The population of Szczecin is declining, the number of skyscrapers doesn't help. Łódź has a new big railroad station.
The page doesn't inform about agglomerations/conurbations.
pl:Obszar metropolitalny Łódź is listed. Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Just because Szczecin has more skyscrapers doesn't mean anything. I believe you're going outside of the box and not focusing on the topic. The newly constructed train station isn't very significant either. Please look at some statistics between Szczecin and Łódź and I won't provide any sources as they're obvious and can be found on the internet. I'd say we won't include Łódź or Szczecin at all in the lead. The most important cities are already mentioned. Oliszydlowski (TALK) 10:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if such list is needed in the lead. The USA don't have one. France lists statistical urban units.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The United States informs about megaregions. Gdańsk is a part of Trójmiasto so listing it misinforms. Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Europol Silesia-Cracow [16] was former government's policy..Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion, there are 8 metropolises in Poland: Warsaw, Cracow, Łódź, Wrocław, Poznań, Tricity, Szczecin and Katowice. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion about a new law for metropolises (probably for Warsaw, Upper Silesia, Tricity).Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Poland is ... among the fastest growing European economies

This statement has 3 sources. The Eurostat one does not give growth figures, so does not apply. The other 2 are the same, so actually 1. It gives forecasts for 2016. We can't use forecasts to state "Poland is...", so this source does not apply either. We should have said will be or might be. Michael Mrygas I've tried a Not in source tag, which was removed; I've tried removing the sentence, which was reverted. Oliszydlowski suggested that I add this to the talk page. So here it is. Please find a source or remove the statement. EddieHugh (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I am in search of proper sources but for confirmation please look at the article Economy of the European Union. It has detailed references and places Poland on the 8th place. Oliszydlowski 01:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The 8th in the EU bit is fine now. The "among the fastest growing" is unsourced (and, as with the previous tourism comment, see above, if it's useful information, put in the actual position, not the vague "among the"). EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not able to find such information there. If it's 2.8%, it's the eight place together with Cyprus.Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Population cartogram

I added population cartogram in Demographics which was deleted with a description: ,,We are starting to overload the section with charts, this item can be viewed Demographics of Poland article" Contrary to photos, that are more abundant than charts, charts and maps show some characteristic of whole Poland. This map shows also administrative divisions and is a summary of 396 row table and that is why it suites the main article. PawełS (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed it, partially because there is a bit of an edit war going on regarding its insertion into the article, but also because I think it needs discussing. It's a rather puzzling diagram to study, and I'm not convinced it's wholly effective at conveying all its information. In particular, I find the use of colour to represent area difficult to grasp, as it is competing with the actual size depicted (which rather perversely represents population size, rather than physical area). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I would also agree that this type of chart is difficult to read (why distort geographic boundaries to show population size — an odd correlation, it's one reason why such cartograms are only a fad), perhaps including it in the Demographics of Poland article might be an option, then again, why not just use a traditional population map like this one [17]. But, as noted before, the Poland article contains a high level overview of each topic, and having two population charts is a bit much in this case. --E-960 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Why are 2 non-photos too much? A site or a reader will be overloaded and will break down??? This a cartogram - a map which doesn't show a physical dimension but, in this case, populations to make easy to see and compare .... populations: which regions, cities and counties are big, medium and small comparing to the whole country and among each other without analysing a 396 row table - 1 image is worth 1,000s words. Grasping difficulty and a fad level of this map is equal to a tube map - distorted geographic shapes but preserved topology. PawełS (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't find the diagram's distortion of administrative areas problematic - it's a pictorial way of representing population distribution within administrative areas. However what I do find problematic is the overlaying of colour to represent real-life area. While area is being used diagrammatically to represent something else (in this case, population size), it is confusing to then use something other than area (in this case, colour) to diagrammatically represent area. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
What is confused with what? Despite there is a caption ,,The size of counties is approximately in proportion to their population" and a big square with 1 000 000? I can add or fill the squares with some head icon/ font. It is less confusing than an average paper map with dozens of symbols. I considered a colour to code population density but I rejected it because to make it wholly effective at conveying this information it would require dividing to about 5 classes and adding more data to .shp probably manually. So there would be many counties with the same shade what would require more pronounced borders what would make the whole less readable. Now if I were making a new cartogram I would give a try, probably. PawełS (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, this chat is not a must have, the section is not that big, we are starting to clutter the text. Also, these cartograms that distort the actual shape of a country look ridiculous and are more of a novelty then an accurate depiction of information (with some charts like that you can't even figure out what nation it is, they are so convoluted, example: [18]). The population density has nothing to do with the boundaries of a country, what's the point of distorting the them? It looks like some cartoon make-believe nation. Sorry, but there are better ways to show population density, in a more accurate and realistic way. --E-960 (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a population density map. I'm writing this 5th time: this is a population cartogram... [[19]] Yeah, a novelty ...from mid-1800s. Time to get modernised. PawełS (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version. Only now it can be also called a population density map. Now it is even more loaded with information what increases risk of overloading and breaking down especially among those who are not able to get that a map doesn't have to show a real area. PawełS (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Map of the Holocaust

Such map should be in Germany. Now it's only here, supporting anti-Polish steretypes: Germany - the land of successes versus Poland, the land of the Holocaust. Xx236 (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"Metropoles"

'Metropoles' is not the plural of metropolis. 'Metropolises' is. And in my judgement, the only metropolises in Europe are Istanbul, Moscow and London. Some might argue that Warsaw is one, but I'd disagree. Szczecin certainly is not a metropolis. This is the reason for my last two edits. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Omissions in WWII section

Shockingly, Enigma wasn't even mentioned so I just added it. Churchill himself said breaking Enigma shortened the war by two years, and the Brits would not have done that so quickly without the Poles. Reading on, there is not a single mention of Jewish deaths at the hands of Poles either. This does nothing to undermine the anti-Polish stereotypes that (i) Poles are generally in denial that this happened and that (ii) the country of Poland was generally complicit in the Holocaust. For encyclopedic purposes it needs a mention; that mention itself will do something to undermine the stereotypes, because it is generally agreed among historians that less than 2% of Jews killed in the Holocaust were killed by Poles, and those killings were illegal murders according to the Polish Secret State and the Polish Government in Exile, who themselves alerted the Allies to the Holocaust. By the way, before we get into some DIGWUREN-type flame war about the Holocaust, it was actually me, many years ago on Wikipedia, who authored the phrase used below: "Grouped by nationality, Poles represent the largest number of people who rescued Jews during the Holocaust." Here is the passage in question:

During the war, German forces under direct order from Adolf Hitler set up six major extermination camps, all of which operated in the heart of Poland. They included the notorious Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz killing centers. This allowed the Germans to transport the condemned Jews under the guise of resettlement from the Third Reich and across occupied Europe, and systematically murder them in the death camps set up in the Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. The Nazi crimes against the Polish nation claimed the lives of 2.9 million Polish Jews,[71] and 2.8 million ethnic Poles,[72] including Polish academics, doctors, lawyers, nobility, priests and numerous others. Since 3.5 million Jews lived in pre-war Poland, Jewish victims make up the largest percentage of all victims of the Nazis' extermination program. It is estimated that, of pre-war Poland's Jewry, approximately 90% were killed. Throughout the occupation, many members of the Armia Krajowa, supported by the Polish government in exile, and millions of ordinary Poles – at great risk to themselves and their families – engaged in rescuing Jews from the Nazi Germans. Grouped by nationality, Poles represent the largest number of people who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. To date, 6,620 Poles have been awarded the title of Righteous Among the Nations by the State of Israel–more than any other nation.[73] Some estimates put the number of Poles involved in rescue efforts at up to 3 million, and credit Poles with sheltering up to 450,000 Jews. Also, some 150,000 Polish civilians were killed by Soviet Communists between 1939 and 1941 during the Soviet Union's occupation of eastern Poland (Kresy), and another estimated 100,000 Poles were killed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in the regions of Wołyń and Eastern Galicia between 1943 and 1944 in what became known as the Wołyń Massacres. The massacres were part of a vicious ethnic clensing campaign waged by Ukrainian nationalists against the local Polish population in the German-occupied territories of eastern Poland.[74][75]

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My take on this addition is that it's just way too much at this point, WWII section is the longest in the article has 4 pictures, yet it only cover about 5 years. Recently, another editor added images of Irena Sendler (taken down since then), and now this new paragraph. We can't just endlessly add more and more to the longest section in this article. Not criticizing the content, but we need to keep WWII section in proportion to the rest of the article. --E-960 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:PRESERVE, please work towards WP:CONS editing rather than constantly reverting, which is what leads to edit wars. Nobody owns this article. The WWII section can stay the same length because it contains some lines that can go. It's unreasonable for it to go into as much detail as to include the 'Uhlans' while completely omitting Poland's Enigma-codebreaking at the Polish Cipher Bureau. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we get a bit more input form other editors, this is a big change to the section—as with some other issues such as the cartogram picture (discussion above) and so on, there is more stuff being added to the article all the time, reasonably speaking this can't go on forever. --E-960 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If we can't resolves this here I'd be happy to post this topic on history discussion pages to have more people chime in. I certainly want input from other editors because it's also dubious that the reason for omitting any mention of Jewish deaths at the hands of Poles in the Holocaust is because we don't have enough space for it. That's even though there are plenty of really irrelevant lines that can be cut for space. As it happens, cutting any mention of infamous events that we wish hadn't happened just feeds today's anti-Polish stereotypes. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a difficult topic no doubt, but if you notice, you have references in the WWII section to 100,000 Poles killed by Ukrainians, 2.7 million Poles killed by Germans, another 100,000 Poles killed by the Soviets, and finally over 3 million Polish Jews killed by the Germans. I'm not sure the culmination of individual incidents such as Jedwabne, Kielce, etc. match the scope of the earlier listed atrocities, again with the topic of WWII in Poland (as with your Enigma reference) you can drill down endlessly to include more and more detail, the same way you could add more and more stuff about Polish efforts to save Jews (as with Irene Sandler picture). --E-960 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Chumchum7, also if you want to get that specific, we could include Poles fighting in North Africa, Jewish soldiers in Anders' Army, collaborationist Jewish Ghetto Police, Cursed Soldiers, etc. the list of WWII topics about Poland could go on and on. Btw, in German media there are instances where the Polish Home Army (AK) is depicted as complicit in the deaths of the Jews ("Our Mothers, Our Fathers" TV series), and it's nothing more than a lie " Joseph Rothschild saying "The Polish Home Army was by and large untainted by collaboration" and adds that "the honor of AK as a whole is beyond reproach"" [1] --E-960 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
E-960 Take it easy. I've been on Wikipedia for nearly 8 years and have worked on very many Poland-related articles without once having been sanctioned. (The veteran Poland-interest community still here will remember this included many hours of my life dealing with an anti-Polish troll who was later banned.) You're not going to get very far on this article if you keep reverting my good-faith edits without making more effort to achieve consensus (I note that you were once blocked for revert-warring). Also, you (i) falsely alleged that I used a "political slogan" in an edit summary and (ii) cast aspersions that I'm making "accusations" and I quote: "do not accuse other editors of trying to hold back information from being included"[20] right after you stated for the record exactly why you don't want the said information being included.[21] Rather than perceiving me as an adversary, step back for a moment and let some others chime in; I'm starting by inviting editors from Talk:History of Poland (1939–45). -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Chumchum7, Pls refrain from endlessly listing past accomplishments (no offense, but what was the point of that in a simple content discussion?). Also, I'm not sure what's up with your exaggerated rant directed against me, all just because I reverted your edits, that were rather significant and not discussed. But, just to close your argument, I'm not sure if you noticed over the past year, but I've spent a very significant amount of time re-editing every part of the Poland article, fixing grammar, punctuation, taking out outdated stats, wording fixes, matching images to text, and re-writing incoherent sentences. You can look through all of it, but let me summarize the effort, before that the text was in deplorable condition. --E-960 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'd like highlight at least some of the reasons why your recent edits in the WWII section are just too much:

  • First point, the WWII section is the longest in this article (by far), Poland is not WWII-land, we don't need to keep adding more and more detail to this section.
  • Second point, as a practical comparison the Germany article has less about WWII than the Poland article and Germany started the war, perpetrated the Holocaust and occupied all of Europe, also that text (in the Germany article) does not go into a details analysis of what every German did during the war or their prejudices or good deeds, as you are trying to do here, in the Poland article.
  • Final point, please keep in mind this is a general overview article, you are trying to take a specific issues and significantly expand it, again the WWII section is by far the longest, can't just keep adding stuff endlessly, just the basics. --E-960 (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, McFarland & Company, 1997, ISBN 0-7864-0371-3. Google Print, p.88, p.89, p.90

Disruptive editing/info. dump by Chumchum7

Chumchum7, please curb your enthusiasm, and please stop going on a blitz adding all these minute facts to the Poland articles. Your edits are starting to become disruptive. Recent additions you made regarding the Enigma machine, WWII intelligence, Polish/Jewish relations during the war, traffic deaths in Poland, Poland's public sector vs. other countries, unfriendly Polish tax system, and who is/was gay in Poland are beyond the scope of a high-level article such as this one. And, in the case of the WWII section you are adding even more detail to an already over-blown section, which is by far the longest in the entire article. So, pls stop. --E-960 (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

E-960 and WP:OWN

There are two sides to every story. Take a look at WP:KETTLE and WP:OWN. What could have been a civilized discussion about the relative notability of the WWII Polish intelligence achievements versus say the five vessels of the Polish navy, has got way out of hand and personal. E-960's responses to my contributions have included (i) early assumptions of bad faith (the alleged "accusations" and "political slogans" above), (ii) revert-warring including the removal of sourced content [22] (iii) incivility, calling my addition of Enigma as well as other sourced content, "dumb" [23] and (iv) adversarial, characterizing my contributions of content they don't like as 'disruptive' with a threat to request me being blocked.[24] This stops now. For the record, I no longer assume E-960's good faith. Per WP:SHUN I'm hereby disengaging from the disruptive editor. Nobody gets to own articles and attempt to intimidate new contributors to them in this community; I will review and consider raising behavioral issues at the appropriate noticeboard. Obviously, I'm now not going to respond further here and others can have the last word. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Pls review the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, as I've mentioned before the Poland article has been inundated with random facts and trivia that are being continually added, every editor has a pet topic that they want to expand further on this page, unfortunately as with the WWII section (by far the longest section) as an example, you simply can't keep adding more and more details. Pls keep in mind that this is a general purpose article, that should contain only high-level information. --E-960 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is silly, just to respond to your antics, I did not call your content "dumb" but said your edits amount to a "data dump" meaning you packed the article with a lot of detailed information. Seriously, not every wacky detail has to get added in to the article — like this statement "As of 2015, 3931 people are killed per year on Poland's roads"... really?? Is this statement a must in an already overloaded country article? --E-960 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Port of Gdynia

@Oliszydlowski, greetings, just wanted to raise a couple points regarding the new image selection in the Economy section. I would suggest that perhaps we should revert back to this image of the Port of Szczecin [25] for two reasons: First, the current image [26] is of the Sea Towers apartment high-rise overlooking the Port of Gdynia, and not quite of the actual port itself (if you look on a map, they are actually in two separate parts of town), which somewhat misses the point, while the original picture showed an actual shipyard in Szczecin. Second, there is no image that represents the area of Szczcin, while the Gdansk-Spopt-Gdynia area has an image of the medical university building. So, perhaps to highlight the West Pomeranian Voivodeship, and keep the image relevant to the economic activity of the maritime industry, we should return to the previous image. --E-960 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

-I was considering making a talk discussion about the picture and ask whether it is suitable but since no one reverted my edit I thought it is ideal. I haven't noticed that Gdynia is mentioned twice so I think that going back to the previous image is alright. I would actually consider incorporating a new image of the Port of Szczecin into the article. Best Regards as always - Oliszydlowski 12:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we can do a double image frame with both Szczecin and Gdynia, if you are able to find a Port of Gdynia image that is horizontal? This could solve the issue of which port is more noteworthy since both are actually pretty significant, one in the east the other in the west on the Baltic coast. --E-960 (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski, I included a double image of both port of Szczecin and Gdynia, perhaps this is a workable solution to highlight both ports, and not have to decide which one is more noteworthy. --E-960 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

-Excellent idea with both images. Best Regards. Oliszydlowski 21:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I agree with this. Michael Mrygas — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMrygas (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Max Factor

Hello Oliszydlowski, just wanted to raise a discussion on the Max Factor picture, after a bit of consideration, I'm not sure that MF quite fits the profile of a person who's image should be highlighted on the Poland article. Usually, persons that get that distinction are Polish Kings, the Pope, Piłsudski, Chopin, Koścuszko, etc. Even if they were abroad they identified themselves with Poland like Curie, Conrad or Rubinstein. In the Case of MF, once he left, that was it, and the business empire he started are part of an American experience. So, it's fine to have a statement about him in the text as someone who originated in Poland and achieved a lot, but to include a picture — I'm not sure he has the merits for that. --E-960 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been replaced :) User:Oliszydlowski, 01:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I still think you addition of Arthur Rubinstein image was an excellent choice, that was overlook and under appreciated. Here is a quick note on Rubinstein: Throughout his life, Rubinstein was deeply attached to Poland. At the inauguration of the United Nations in 1945, Rubinstein showed his Polish patriotism at a concert for the delegates. He began the concert by stating his deep disappointment that the conference did not have a delegation from Poland. Rubinstein later described becoming overwhelmed by a blind fury and angrily pointing out to the public the absence of the Polish flag. --E-960 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Eastern vs. Central Europe

Some reverts have been happening. I have warned two participants about WP:3RR. Past discussions here on talk have not been able to reach a clear answer about Eastern versus Central. Take a look at Talk:Poland/Archive 7 and search for the word 'central'. In particular, notice Talk:Poland/Archive 7#RfC: Should Poland be described as existing in "Central and Eastern Europe"?. The prior RfC's ruling still stands: "Until or unless decided elsewhere, "Central Europe" and "Eastern Europe" can be used interchangeably to describe Poland." (found at Talk:Poland/Archive 6#RfC: Eastern vs. Central Europe). If you want to make any further article changes on this issue you should consider getting consensus first on the talk page. Erasing either 'Eastern' or 'Central' will probably be opposed, if we go by past discussions. You might guess that people will try to come up with compromise language. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Christian Evangelical

There's a sentence:

Members of Protestant churches include about 77,500 Lutherans in the Evangelical-Augsburg Church,[7] 23,000 Pentecostals in the Pentecostal Church in Poland, 10,000 Adventists in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and others in smaller Christian Evangelical churches.

There's a discussion on the boldened text. Now, in the article, Christian Evangelical redirects to Evangelicalism. If you click Evangelicalism, you see: Evangelicalism (/ˌiːvænˈdʒɛlɪkəlˌɪzəm/, /ˌɛvən/-), Evangelical Christianity, or Evangelical Protestantism[a] is a worldwide, transdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity which maintains the belief that the essence of the gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ's atonement. These are very small denominations, popular in the United States where 30% of the country are Evangelical Protestants/evangelicals and now common in the 21st century worldwide and it also applies to Poland. The "raw" Christian Evangelical has no redirect as no one names evangelical churches that way. A reasonable thing to do would be to change it to evangelical churches or Evangelical Protestant churches.Ernio48 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep sentence as is — others in smaller Christian Evangelical churches. this is in reference to Baptist Union of Poland (see external article: "Why Baptists are not Protestants" [27]), and other evangelical churches, which do not consider themselves as protestant. In Poland you have freedom of religion, and unlike in modern Germany you can be something else than Catholic or Lutheran. --E-960 (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Simple formula to understand the concept, as the terms are not interchangeable with each other: All Protestants are Evangelicals, not all Evangelicals are Protestants. --E-960 (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a case of individual denominations, but generally speaking, these churches are put under a common shild of "Protestant". If you're insisting on this, we can agree on replacing "Christian Evangelical" with simply "Christian". Plus, that's a very untrue about Germany. "All Protestants are Evangelicals, not all Evangelicals are Protestants." - this is totally untrue in the English language; for distinctions made in the English language read: Evangelicalism#Usage or Protestantism#Terminology. Actually: All Evangelicals are Protestants (hence the term "Evangelical Protestant"), not all Protestants are Evangelicals (for example mainline Protestants that include most of Lutherans, Calvinists, etc.).Ernio48 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This is where you run into problems Ernio48, churches such as the Baptists did not "protest" against Rome, and did not breakaway like the Lutherans, Anglicants or Calvinists. Baptist are more inline with other Christian denominations that only followed the Bible and started out organically from the ground up (not top down). You are simply throwing in a German view of the matter, because that's how in Germany the government views the situation you are either Catholic or Protestant, this is not the view held in the US and Poland among Evangelical Christians. --E-960 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
So how about replacing it with Christian?Ernio48 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

..."others in smaller Christian denominations" is fine. --E-960 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing protests, constitutional crisis, judicial reform controversy

A lot has been happening in Poland, yet I see no mention of it in the article.Ernio48 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Third polish rebublic

That is a real name of the country after 1989 Barybar19 (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement on future power status

I don't think that we should include future projections in the Intro. paragraph. It's like projecting the future of a company stock. For sure Poland is a regional power in Europe, and there is clear evidence that its influence is on the rise as with the 3 Seas Initiative. But, that is a few years away. --E-960 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, I'm familiar with George Friedman and Stratfor (source of the statement), I do agree with the projections, but here are a few things to consider... when they say "world power", they do not mean a 'global' power such as the US or China, but new powers in the world — Turkey, Poland, Japan — Poland will definitely be a regional hegemon in Central Europe and extend its cooperative influence further east and south, but it's not going to be a 'global' power. So, that fact that we are including statements about the future, and confusing semantics on what is meant by "world power" we should perhaps take out that particular note. --E-960 (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, however, there are other numerous sources claiming that Poland is an "emerging economic world power", the earliest dating back to 2003 I believe. This makes Poland an emerging power for over a decade, which is a long process therefore it should have a slight mention in the lead. Additionally, I can include the sources. I think it is ethical and appropriate to include this and, because of the numerous sources, economic output, growth rate, improving life quality/living standards and other aspects of 21st century Poland, it would be considered more fact than puffery. Oliszydlowski, 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2017

Please, change the URL linked for the official country website. It's linked to "https://www.poland.pl/", but it works only with no "www". So, the correct URL is "https://poland.pl/" Caiobrentano (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Łódź

There is no name of Łódź in the last sentence after the first paragraph. I think it should be 'Poland's capital and largest city is Warsaw. Other cities include Kraków, Łódź, Wrocław, Poznań, Gdańsk and Szczecin'.WIKIP(E)&55 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

While Łódź is one of the largest cities, it is not a metropolis and remains in heavy economic, demographic and social decline. The sentence states "Other cities" not "Other largest cities" therefore I don't think Łódź deserves to be in the lead as other well-known and publicized cities, which actually contribute to the country's economy. Oliszydlowski, 09:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Of all the ways of justifying this, the argument given here strikes me as particularly misinformed. You may be right with the demographics, but where did you get the idea of economic and social decline? Press materials from the 1990s, I guess. What you wrote here was absolutely true in the 1990s, after the fall of communism, and to a large degree in the next few years as well, but it's 2017 now. The city does not contribute to the economy? The construction of Łódź Fabryczna rail station cost 1.75 billion PLN, the East-West transit road - another 766 million PLN. Add to that two new stadiums, several woonerfs, a new transit road (Trasa Górna) that cost 400 million PLN, and much more. And I’m talking only about investments finished in the last three years (2014-2017). Where do you think all this money went if not into the Polish economy? Not to mention several factories (Gilette, Dell) and accounting centers (Infosys, Nordea) for multinational companies. 2 more billion PLN will be injected into the local economy when the EU-funded revitalization of downtown programme begins this year. Łódź lagged behind other cities and not much happened there until around 2011-12, but to argue that it’s still the case is just to perpetuate this biased perspective. Another thing is that the list at the end of the first paragraph is effectively (even if it doesn’t say so) a list of the largest cities in Poland (in descending order), minus Łódź. If this is supposed to be something else, let’s make sure it looks like something else - why not include Toruń, say, instead of Szczecin (is Szczecin a metropolis by the way?), if this to be a list of major historical cities. Or let's just add Łódź. I have no idea how this would hurt the information value of the article - and I think that's what we should be considering here, not whether a city 'deserves' it. This should be about facts, not subjective criteria of merit. Imagine any other encyclopedia - if I came across an entry on a country that failed to mention its 3rd largest city in a list of major cities, I wouldn't feel I can really trust the source. Pearlmaster1212 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for note after lead sentence

Hello,

I'm sorry to bring up this issue again, but since there has never been a clear consensus, and since there continues to be significant disagreement in regards to this issue, I would like to discuss the positioning of Poland in Europe in the lead sentence. My proposal is one that should be fairly inoffensive and simple: leave the lead as "Poland [...] is a country in Europe" and then a note saying "Poland is variably defined as part of: *Eastern Europe *Central Europe *East-Central Europe *or Central and Eastern Europe". There are clearly numerous reliable sources for all of these, but as it stands, "Central Europe" is currently the only geographical placement mentioned. As for editors that maintain that Poland is Central Europe and only Central Europe...listen, I very much understand that there are significant political, economic, historical, and cultural reasons as to why the placement of Poland in Eastern Europe is disagreeable to you. I completely understand how it would offend certain editors to place Poland in the same region as Russia. Maybe I'm out of line and making inappropriate assumptions as to other editors' motives, but I think it's clear by now that there is at least somewhat of a political impetus (as well as more legitimate historical and cultural concerns) behind the removal of "Eastern Europe" from the article, and I don't think it's helpful at this point to pretend otherwise. Again, I understand and empathize with any concerns that editors might have in regard the "Eastern European" label.

All of that said, however, it is still not appropriate to remove well-sourced references to "Eastern Europe" just because you disagree with the label. Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased encyclopedia. Even if the motive for removing such content is not personal or political, it remains inappropriate in this case to remove references to Eastern Europe, as the content is well-sourced and certainly not a fringe opinion. And if the motives for removal are political, and even if one were to disregard the fact that removing content for political purposes is a violation of POV neutrality, I STILL do not see how it should be so controversial to simply add a note acknowledging the different regional categories into which Poland has been placed. There must be some compromise when numerous people edit a page. In this case, I personally believe that adding a note is the best compromise. Madreterra (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Max Factor and other items

I my opinion we should omit highlighting the Max Factor brand, it's an American company (yes, Max Factor was born in Poland, but the brand and everything he accomplished was done in the US, and unlike Artur Rubenstein he was not an advocate or promoter for the the Polish cause). I'm starting to notice, that we are adding more things that have a loose connection to Poland, but are not quintessentially Polish. We, changed out the Wooden tserkva (that is unique to the Carpathian region) and replaced it with a Norwegian church that was moved to Silesia at the time when the region was not part of Poland. We replaced Matejko with DaVinci. Also, earlier, someone replaced a coronation painting of Stanislaw August that's in the Royal Castle in Warsaw with a more casual portrait that's in the Louvre. We need to bring back the focus on Poland, not things connected with Poland. --E-960 (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

True and thank you for clarifying. I have two certain arguments however. The first one is regarding Zamość and Toruń. Zamość is hardly a major tourist site or even a popular destination, whereas Toruń is. But you are right about being more diverse with the tourism. I was thinking of placing Malbork in the history section and leaving Toruń with Wrocław in the tourist section. Or maybe another place which is more significant. Secondly, in regards to Narcyza Żmichowska, she is unknown both in Poland and abroad. She is clearly an unnecessary image. I think that the law section is a bit overflowing with pictures for its size. I'd exclude Żmichowska and the one about the march. There should be 2 or 3 at max for each part. The same goes for history. Any proposals? Oliszydlowski, 19:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Zamość is a classic example of Polish Renaissance. I'm almost getting the sense that we are completely omitting stuff from Wielkopolska and Małopolska. As for Malbork Castle it's fine in the Tourism section, but the castle itself is secondary in Polish history most certainly it should not replace the drawing of the Battle of Grunwald. --E-960 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is an example of Polish Renaissance but now you're exemplifying and supporting its architectural significance and not a tourist site. You can also say exactly the same about the Renaissance architecture in Kazimierz Dolny yet it's not a top tourist destination (within Poland) either. There are also other inner details about why Toruń should replace Zamość partially due to its statistics in tourism and even size. Zamość is a historically important city which would either belong better in history or architecture sections, which are already filled and overflowing with images. If you say that Malbork is secondary in Polish history, why couldn't we replace it with Toruń which was a centre of commerce under Poland-Lithuania and is currently, together with Gdańsk, the hotspot of Polish tourism in northern Poland. Oliszydlowski, 21:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

To explain edit reverts, re-added an image of Giewont to the Geology section (most famous mountain in Poland); the image of Narcyza Żmichowska is something that editor Poeticbent added to highlight liberal causes (and to be fair it should stay); lets keep the original Foreign Affairs section as before simply because there is no more room for images there; in the Arts section I added the Warsaw National Museum because I think we are starting to overemphasize Sląsk and Pomorze as regions, thus also Zamość should stay — perhaps we should emphasize places like Kazimierz Dolny, Sandomierz, Wieliczka or Łańcut in the Tourist section. --E-960 (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Also, if we don't diversify be region, than for example Warsaw and Kraków will take almost everything in terms of tourism, so let's not just look at the numbers. --E-960 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the Museum of Warsaw. It is Warsaw that's overused in this article with almost every caption saying "in Warsaw". Secondly the Museum in Wrocław has the largest collection so that settles this. Again the entire law section has only one image whereas the one above with Żmichowska has 4. She is honestly and truly unnecessary. As of your statement about Kraków and Warsaw it is true....it would be nice to see maybe Olsztyn in the article. I mean it's Warmia and Masuria nearby the famous lakes and it is also a high quality city and a centre of commerce in north eastern Poland. Oliszydlowski, 23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC).
I think the Tourism section is fine the way it is. Zamość is for Małopolska, Wrocław is for Sląsk, and Malbork is for Pomorze - we have an image of the Mazuria Lakes in the Water section. Btw, I personally always wanted to add Kazimierz Dolny. But, there simply is no room to add individual favorites, so we should just leave it be. --E-960 (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The architecture section is already full. Doesn't need new pictures as it contains two most recognizable landmarks. Oliszydlowski, 10:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Understandable, in this case I added a sub-category of Folk Archtecture to expand on the topic (which is what I intended to do initially. I think that Polish folk culture and art is extremely underrepresented, yet for centuries it represented and symbolized the majority of the Polish population, and in the case of Zalipie it has received wider recognition — all you have to do is google the name to see all the English Language articles about the location. --E-960 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It is underrepresented because it is not necessary or significant and should stay that way. It existed for centuries but became only popularised more and more under Communism to link us with the east and Soviet Union. It did not represent the majority...maybe in the country in eastern Poland. Moreover folk architecture is dying out so kind of pointless of putting this in a representative/informative article. I understand where you are coming from but this kind of "culture" that you mentioned in that folk section is so unnecessary as it can be added into other parts. Other country articles don't have these sections because they are not vital look at Germany, France, Lithuania, Belarus etc. These buildings can be found in thin layers in eastern or south-eastern Poland. Not all parts of Poland paint flowers on their houses just as a reminder. Mentioning Slavic gród you are simply repeating what's in the history sections and even the very first image. Also sections like "famous people" I'd cut out as these are simply trashing the place and being repetitive. Before your next edit maybe create a vote on talk to see how it goes. Honestly this article does not require any more trashy trivia about folk culture which can be mentioned elsewhere. Actually this article does not require any changes unless it's cutting the lengthy information in history or other sections. Maybe create a separate article on Polish folk culture. I understand you're trying to point out the "east" but maybe focus on something that is found exclusively in Poland and is actually Polish. The information you have added resembles Ukrainian customs. Similarly with painting eggs and Borscht, which did not originate in Poland. As you said before let's focus on things found exclusively in Poland. And I have been to Zalipie. A primitive small village of 700 people like that does not deserve recognition. It's like placing a separate section for Chernobyl tourism in Ukraine article. Completely pointless and unworthy.Oliszydlowski, 20:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, I'm taken aback by how you describe polish folk culture as "backwards". I'm also perplexed why you were so pushy in tying to insert images of Hanseatic cities into the article, or took out a paining by Matejko, or added a church that to moved from Norway (that has some Runic writing on it).

If you think that other country articles don't include folk elements in it Please see Ukraine, Slovakia and Estonia (they inlude images of folk dress and/or building. Just to give a well deserved highlight to the traditional culture. --E-960 (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Never described as the folk tradition as backward. The additional information is simply not necessary. You can summarise your information in one sentence in the architecture section. And do not add Zalipie as it's not significant enough. Maybe something from Łowicz? Zalipie can be a bit confusing due to the Lemko influence. I'd suggest you do the voting. Major countries and good articles don't have that section. Oliszydlowski, 22:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes I can see. Can we make the Poland article a bit more independent. These folk traditions don't differ. Plus you are mentioning countries east of Poland. This does not entail the entire country. Please enter the voting template so other users can express their opinion. I suggest you just summarise the information in two sentences and place it in architecture section. Oliszydlowski, 22:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

Your behaviors raises some questions, as to why such a strong reaction to this type of content? This is a legitimate item related to Poland, you can't just block that entry. It is legitimate… sorry. If you have a problem I'll request a RfC. This is ridiculous! --E-960 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You deleted chunks of RELATED information. YOU HAVE THIS AREA TO DISCUSS THIS. Please do or I'll report you. The da Vinci was fine. Matejko's Constitution can be added. Oliszydlowski, 23:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

No one challenged you when you significantly expand section such as Fashion with material that's only vaguely related to Poland, but somehow you simply decided that we won't have anything related to Folk culture in the Poland article and block others from including text on the subject. --E-960 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Zalipie

Wouldn't it be better to replace Zalipie. It is not significant enough. Maybe a typical Polish Dwór (manor house) and a small mention about dworeks in the section? Zalipie houses are not found everywhere in Poland. Or removal of the image since its breaking the title of the lower section.Oliszydlowski, 23:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think they are nice images, but I wanted to show something related to the common folk (original pic). We always highlight nobility and the church… and ignore how the majority of simple people lived for centuries in Poland. I know its not refined, but its how peasants lived. One reference to that culture in the article is only fair to acknowledge that way of life. --E-960 (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand and it would fit perfectly in an article about Polish architecture. Simple people or petty nobility also lived in dworeks or dwory. I'm not sure if peasants would suit an article about modern Poland. Showing a dilapidated house might create some stereotyping and prejudice. Even Ukraine, Russia, Belarus etc. don't use any image references like that. The image I included is actually so perfect...you have both the simplicity from one side and veranda on the other with visible wooden components and other part plastered. As if it shows both peasants and nobility in one house. Houses in Zalipie don't date back to Poland-Lithuania only from the times of the Russian Empire hence my distaste for the village.

Also, just noticed there is nothing about contemporary architecture in the section. Oliszydlowski, 00:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC).

People are noticing folk art, just look at the articles in an English language magazines [28] it's nothing to be ashamed of — and here [29] titled: The Most Beautiful Village in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok I get it but Zalipie is honestly so insignificant compared to other places around Poland even with wooden architecture. Take for example the architecture in Podhale. Still not sure about Zalipie...I'd go for RfC vote. The chata image is not even good quality. Oliszydlowski, 00:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
It can't be that bad, that image is in at least two English language magazine articles, for unique places? --E-960 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

PolandBallKurwa (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

can I request to edit

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poland/Archive_7&oldid=1142774746"