Talk:Polish minority in the Czech Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pass GA

The article appears to be well referenced. The language is coherent. There are some illustrative images.

The article would probably benefit from having another paragraph to the lead section, per WP:LEAD. For further suggestions of improvement, the article should undergo peer review.

Fred-Chess 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Church in Guty?

Why do you consider wooden church in Guty to be one of the architectonical symbols of the Polish minority? There is no Polish inscription inside (on the contrary there are some in Czech and Latin), it was built in pre-nationalist era and as far as I know, there has not took place any event important for the history of the Polish minority in the Czech republic there. I think that Polish house in Cieszyn or something like this would fit better. --Qasinka 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

Parts of this article are mere repetition from Zaolzie. Please rework, or condense into blurb with link to 'main article'. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a repetition but just a repetition of some important and basic facts. Zaolzie article is now much longer which is not projected here. Reworking or condensing is thus obsolete. Also, this is a GA-class article. - Darwinek 15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Assimilation of Poles into Czech population at turn of century?

Why would mostly illiterate Galician Poles who immigrated to work in hard labour supposedly assimilate into the minority Czech population of mostly admin. clerks, instead of the usual numerical or cultural majority, who happened to be their fellow Poles with whom they shared language, culture, employment, numerical superiority? Their low national conciousness- (full) stomach over mind (nationalism)- which is mentioned in the article- would alone seem to continually make them passive (A-H/Galician) citizens with a local patriotism at best, ie. Polish Zaolzians, yet the article goes on to contradict itself that these passive labourers were in fact conciously active in their it would seem uphill choice of Czech assimilation.

Even Germanization seems more probable, not even owing to official policy -which was practically non-existant in Austria-Hungary, much unlike neighbouring German Prussia, clearly visible in the availability of Polish language of instruction in elementary and secondary education- but to an independently-motivated drive, on an individual basis, on the part of those seeking an advance in social rank/employment/etc. which Czech might not have guaranteed, logically dissecting.

Maybe this is a "blooper" and should be omitted altogether unless another source comes forward, assuming it's not an actual "freak of nature" and hence interesting fact indeed meriting mention? In that case, the reason should be given... my sceptical hypothesis being settlement in concentrated Czech areas due to some higher power or other factor and/or intermarriage? 83.5.206.55 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. As is stated in the article, most of them settled in Ostrava coal basin which is and was predominantly ethnic Czech. Several Polish schools and organisations were established in Ostrava at that time but their life was short as all immigrants in the course of the time assimilated. Today, ethnographers found some 25,000 Polish surnames in Ostrava alone, during recent research. And to be a "Galician Pole" is still used by some older local people as a description of someone totally simple or dumb (Polish word ciemnota is better). - Darwinek (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. So puzzle solved. I was automatically equating Zaolzie Poles with all Poles in this case Czech Silesia as a blanket term of sorts since there was no distinction in the article- now fixed. 83.5.206.55 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Polish and CS border was re-opened 1991?

Presumably this means just some particular section of the border (in Zaolzie, or specifically in Cieszyn?) and not the whole of the national border. Can this be clarified?--Kotniski (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the border with Poland was closed as a reaction of Czechoslovak authorities to "reactionary forces" = Solidarność in Poland. I do not know exact year when it was closed but I suppose it was somewhen after martial law in Poland had been declared. It is not just the case of Cieszyn, local people had some ties with the Polish part of Cieszyn Silesia. Closure of borders meant that you couldn't go 200 metres along the same street (in the case of Cieszyn) or that you couldn't visit your uncle living on the Polish side of the border. I also suppose the borders were closed during the Prague Spring of 1968. - Darwinek (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So can we say in the article what part of the border was actually re-opened in 1991? It's just that the way it's worded at the moment, it reads as if the whole PL/CS national border was closed at least between 1989 and 1991 (which I know from personal experience it wasn't). --Kotniski (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this border issue requires further research. From what I know the opening of the border between PL and CS occurred in several phases, which differed regionally. I do not know exact dates of these re-openings, hopefully I will be able to add them in the future. - Darwinek (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For now, then, I'll just edit the sentence to make it less categorical.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Workers and strikes

You are misrepresenting the source. It basically says the Polish workers of Poland protested in 1950s against the increasing workload, hence already in the 1950s Czechoslovak communist authorities feared that the social unrest could spread from Poland. As for the reports of strikes in the 1980s Ostrava, the source does not say they were Polish workers. "Country Data" is a nice source, because it collected information about all countries in the world in the Cold War era, however often their statements are unclear and need better source. - Darwinek (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the Ostrava workers of 1980s, I presume the ethnic Poles were meant there, as the chapter is on ethnic minorities and the respective paragraph concerns Poles, also considering that the same site notes elsewhere that “The mining area around Ostrava, which was close to the Polish border and inhabited by a sizable Polish minority, was of special concern, and some labor difficulty was reported in the area in late 1980”.
Regarding “when Poles led the way in resisting increased work demands” I probably really drew the wrong conclusion, that Poles in Czechoslovakia were meant, when the authors likely had the PPR in mind. That said, I agree that the two matters are better left out, until further sources can be found. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Polish-Czechoslovak treaty of April 23, 1925

I think there were provisions for minority rights in the Polish-Czechoslovak treaty of April 23, 1925, but I can't find it on the web. --Minorities observer (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

GA concerns

After reviewing the article, I am concerned that the article no longer meets the good article criteria. My concerns are listed below:

• There are several uncited paragraphs and sentences.
• The "Present day" section has no post-1999 information.
• There are several sources listed in the "Further reading" section. Can these be used in the article?

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns? If not, I may nominate it for WP:GAR. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)