Talk:Polish Armed Forces

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): National militaries task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Polish military history task force

Requested move (2005)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Voting closed.

• Rationale: while there are some armies in the world that are usually referred to in English under their native names (most notably the Wehrmacht), I believe it is not the case of the Polish Army. Halibutt 21:40, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Support —Michael Z. 2005-05-29 19:26 Z
• Oppose. Using the title of Polish Army is ambiguous in that it could refer to any of the different armies under Polish leadership (see History of the Polish Army), whereas the Wojsko Polskie article is only about the modern Armed Forces of Poland. BlankVerse ∅ 09:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the term wojsko polskie was in use at least since late Middle Ages and means, literally, Polish army. So, it can equally mean any armed force under Polish command. The only difference is that the English term is English. Halibutt 10:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: How about Military of Poland (the most common form for the military articles) or Polish Armed Forces? -- Joolz 16:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a better name given the names of most of the articles in Category:Militaries in which this article is included Philip Baird Shearer

I agree and will move it there soon, unless there are objections. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I like the idea. If we can have either the original name or its translation, themn why should we chose a descriptive name? Also, Polish Army is just as good as the Military of Poland, with the difference that it actually is the name of the armed force. Halibutt 20:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "Polish Army" is just as good. In english Army generally does not refer to the Navy, Air Force, and land forces, but *just* the land forces. Regardless of whether they themselves choose to call themselves "Polish Army" for english translations we should call them by a name which isn't so confusing. -- Joolz 23:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support. Should clearly be the "most common English language term"; am open to argument as to what that is, precisely. Alai 00:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The English version of the official website seems to call them the "Polish Armed Forces". Proteus (Talk) 22:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, you must've found the web page of the land forces only, or the English page of the Ministry, which tends to use all possible variants, depending on the mood of the translator, apparently. Check out this site. Also, why don't you reply to my questions you-know-where? Halibutt 20:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that Polish Armed Forces is the best place and will move this page there tomorrow, unless I can be persuaded otherwise. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't. Exactly why that name is better than the official name used by the force itself ([1])? Creating a new name solely for Wikipedia would probably fall under WP:NOR, especially that the name of Polish Army has been in use in English for ages. Halibutt 01:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wojsko Polskie is not appropriate because it is in the Polish language and (as far as I am aware) is not the commonly-used name in the English language - unless a name in a foreign language is common, the English name should be used. Although Polish Army may be the obvious translation, it would be misleading since the Wojsko Polskie comprises naval and air force units too. Polish Armed Forces is an obvious choice; alternatively, Military of Poland would suffice - see Category:Militaries. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think Wojsko Polskie is fine. Antares911 13:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Oppose. It should be moved to Military of Poland for consistency: Military of the United States, Military of Greece etc. "Polish Army," while literally correct, is misleading, because when English speakers hear "army" they immediately think "land forces." So it should look something like this: The Military of Poland (Polish Wojsko Polskie, literally translated as "Polish Army") is comprised of the...etc. Any redirect pages should make sure that people know that "Polish Army" can refer to more than just the present Land Forces of Poland. --Jpbrenna 1 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)

I hereby change my vote to Support. Halibutt has convinced me. I still think that little uppity Polak fish-out-of-water should be pickled like a herring and served up on a silver platter with a lemon wedge, but he has a point here. Military of Poland should redirect. The article should be entitled Polish Army with a note that because of its command structure, the entire military of Poland constitutes one large "Army" with land, air and naval components. (Like the Cypriot National Guard). --Jpbrenna 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Then why not

Polish Army (Polish Wojsko Polskie, by Jpbrenna called Military of Poland)?

The matter is pretty clear to me. We have several names here.

1. Wojsko Polskie - used officially, Polish
2. Polish Army - used officially, English, used in English since times immemorial, unambiguous
3. Polish Armed Forces - same pros as above, with the difference that it doesn't sound
4. Military of Poland - not used officially, not used in English outside of wikipedia, ambiguous

Halibutt July 1, 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Final vote

Right, well it's gone on for over a month and it really needs deciding. Please choose which of the following you would find acceptable (you can have more than one). Voting closes towards the end of the 9 July 2005. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Well it had to happen - a tie. I'll give it another two days to see which way it goes. If you haven't voted for either of the two leading choices I suggest you choose which is the lesser evil as it's not really likely that the other ones will win. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you count it "STVishly", or by any other method that takes multiple preferences into account, "Polish Armed Forces" is leading 10-8, as Pkmink and I both voted for both #2 and #3, and both of us indicated a preference for #3, so it's not right to simply count us having voted for both without distinction. Alai 03:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That may be a factor at some point, but it is currently just an approval vote and I'm not going to change that - it'd just be shouted down as bias. violet/riga (t) 10:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, subsidiary question: why on earth would anyone choose to use approval voting? Sequential preferences have been expressed in all manner of Wikipedia votes, and this is the first time I've heard anyone say they can't be counted as such. However, I shall adjust my 'threshold' to suit, and remove my third choice. Alai 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Voting closed.

Wojsko Polskie (current name)

1. Halibutt July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC) (Weak, though I still find it much better than Military of Poland.
2. Jpbrenna 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC) (Weak, because it's not as commonly known in English as Luftwaffe)
3. --Witkacy 5 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
4. Antares911 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
5. --Lysy (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC) (compare Heer, German Army)

Polish Army

1. Halibutt July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC)
2. Jpbrenna 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC) (Strong, Military of Poland should redirect.)
3. Michael Z. 2005-07-5 11:40 Z
4. --Witkacy 5 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
5. Antares911 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
6. Pibwl ←« 5 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
7. Przepla 6 July 2005 10:43 (UTC) Halibutt's arguments below are quite convincing.
8. Pkmink 6 July 2005 14:00 (UTC) (Weak, because it's ambiguous for non-Poles)
9. Reisio 2005 July 7 18:40 (UTC) (lose accuracy in translation, so may as well stick with what they use officially)

# Alai 8 July 2005 12:21 (UTC) Choice of last, rather desperate, resort. Removed to facilitate 'count', as above. Alai 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces

1. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
2. Proteus (Talk) 4 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
3. Joolz 4 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
4. Pkmink 6 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)
5. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 18:11 (UTC) It doesn't encompass just the Wojsko Lądowe (the real Polish army). Army means something more specific than "Armed Forces". Historical incarnations can be discussed in History of the Polish Military.
6. AlexR 7 July 2005 18:27 (UTC) seems to be the most reasonable one considering the "English names" rule
7. Mike H (Talking is hot) July 7, 2005 18:38 (UTC)
8. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)
9. Briangotts 7 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)
10. Alai 8 July 2005 12:21 (UTC) Weak second choice alternative.
11. --Lysy (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC) ("Polish Army" = "Polish Land Forces" only)

Military of Poland

1. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
2. Proteus (Talk) 4 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
3. Joolz 4 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
4. For sake of consistency. Wojsko Polskie is not English; Polish Army is misleading; Polish Armed Forces is also apparently misleading (see below). -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
5. Alai 8 July 2005 12:21 (UTC) Strongly preferred.
6. Grika 18:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Not only for Wiki-consistancy sake, but also because descriptors such as Polish, Grecian etc. can be used to designate similarity to, but not necessarily product of, the country of origin.

Voting closed.

Discussion regarding vote

The matter was already decided above. Why should we have this voting again? Halibutt July 5, 2005 05:48 (UTC)

I really don't think it was, and the best way is to have this vote. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty simple: 3 supports, 1 opposition. Halibutt July 5, 2005 09:00 (UTC)

Doesn't really look that way below though, does it? violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)

Well, after this voting is finished we can hold two more and the effects will differ as well. Nothing really strange in that. Halibutt July 5, 2005 11:48 (UTC)

There are too many variations in the pseudo-vote above. The only appropriate method of coming to a decision is through an approval vote. What appears above is not clear enough to make a choice. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

Its a bit late in the day to trounce in and say this, but "Wojsko Polskie" literally means "Polish Military" (not "Military of Poland", and certainly not "Polish Armed Forces"). Since the closest alternative, however, to "Polish Military", being offered is "Polish Armed Forces", I've gotta vote for that. It's too bad, however, that "Polish Military" was not offered as an option from the outset. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 18:53 (UTC)

That's true, but that name wasn't mentioned in the six-ish weeks of discussion prior to this final vote. violet/riga (t) 8 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

If you know it's true, and you were here at the time, you should have mentioned it. I just found out about this ongoing fracas a few days ago. Meanwhile, Polish Army has been redirected here again, instead of to Land Forces of Poland. Apparently some people still think "Army" is a byword for "Military". Incidentally, those of you who are voting for Polish Army, think for a moment about the opening of the article: it sounds really ridiculous to say "The Polish Army is the military forces of Poland, including the Army, Navy, ..." Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 16:43 (UTC)

"That's true" meant that it was a possible name, but clearly nobody thought of it before you came along. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

How about a new vote, with Polish Military as an option? Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, although logistically others may. Meanwhile, why has Alai voted thrice? Granted, it's a "pick the least crappy title", but how many votes does one person get?! :-p Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 17:58 (UTC)

It could be voted for later on, but it's a bit late now. As for the number of votes, well you can vote for as many as you want - Alai clearly doesn't like the current name. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Decision

The Wojsko Polskie name was clearly unfavoured in the final approval vote, so the article was going to be moved to one of the other name proposals. As Polish Armed Forces has a small lead it has therefore been moved there. violet/riga (t) 10:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

::The matter is pretty clear to me. We have several names here.

1. Wojsko Polskie - used officially, Polish
2. Polish Army - used officially, English, used in English since times immemorial, unambiguous
3. Polish Armed Forces - same pros as above, with the difference that it doesn't sound
4. Military of Poland - not used officially, not used in English outside of wikipedia, ambiguous

User:Halibutt July 1, 2005 11:23 (UTC)

But #2 is ambiguous, because "Army" in English means a primarily land-based force --- which is historically what most military forces were. If we're talking about medieval, Wojciech Kossak subject matter, then it's pretty clear what "Polish Army" means. Poland didn't have an air force, blue-water capable navy etc. in that era. Now it's a bit more prolematic. A literal translation of Wojsko Polskie leads to a confusing situation in English. Aside from that, there are consistency issues. Every other article (except Canada) is titled "Military of X." I can't find any official Iranian websites using the term Military of Iran (which the Iranians call Artesh in Persian), and ditto for Military of Greece, but maybe that's because their staff have better things to do than write Wikipedia articles.

What this issue really boils down to is the problem of literality in translation. If I were to translate the native name for the Greek language (η Ελληνική Γλώσσα) liteally, it would be "The Greek Tongue." If I translated the colloquial name for the language, the neuter plural Ελληνικά, it would translate as "Greeks." Both look bizarre to a native English speaker, which is why we translate it as "Greek language" instead.

Slippery slope: Calling the armed forces of Poland together the "Polish Army" will lead lead to a perception of cluelessness and, inevitably, to dumb Polak jokes. Suppose there is a Wikimeet and someone brings this up, saying "Can you believe those dumb Polaks?" I, being partly of Polish descent, will be forced to demand satisfaction for this insult, and could be drawn into a fistfight or duel over the issue, which could lead to mine or another's death or a prison sentence. Is that what you want Halibutt? No, of course not. So change your vote! --Jpbrenna 4 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Well, I definitely do not want you to be forced to defend the honour of the land of your ancestors (though if you needed any help, just let me know).

As to the matter itself - there is one serious flaw in your reasoning. In the Anglo-Saxon world (notably the US of A and the UK), the armed forces indeed consist of several almost separate branches. Technically speaking, the US (for instance) have five completely different military forces, often even conflicted with each other. They are all subordinate solely to the Secretary of Defence and the President, but have separate logistics, separate commands, separate tasks, equipment, scientific institutes and so on.

In Poland it's a tad different. All the branches of the military are subordinate to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, who in turn is subordinate to the Ministry of Defense, the President and the Sejm. However, all three branches have one joint military commander (currently Czesław Piątas), who controls the commanders of the three branches. So, in other terms, in Poland we have a single military force consisting of several branches.

Anyway, I don't really see the problem here. The Polish Army is the term used both in Poland and in the English-speaking countries for ages. I still do not see why the hell should we invent a new name when there already is a perfect name in use. Of course, we can move the article to Military of Poland and promote such a descriptive term over the actual name, but then we should also move Richard Nixon to Thirty-seventh President of the United States and the article on Queen Victoria to That Fatty Old Lady Who Ruled the UK Prior to 1901. Bizarre? Yup...

If we were to use your example with languages: most of them have their proper names in English and those are used in Wikipedia. For instance język polski (lit. Polish tongue) is called Polish language here. Similarily, some military forces have their proper names in English and those should be used. Royal Navy is not called Navy of the United Kingdom, eventhough such a name would be much less ambiguous (what about navies of Holland or Spain?) and much more correct. Luftwaffe is not called German Air Force. Ditto for Aeronautica Militare Italiana, Botswana Defence Force Air Wing and many more articles in English wiki. Why should we break that rule in case of the Polish Army? Halibutt July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

As to the term Polish Armed Forces - there is a slight problem: in Polish it is Polskie Siły Zbrojne and is used in 90% of cases to denote the Polish Army units fighting alongside the Western Allies in World War II. It has little usage for earlier periods and is rarely used for later periods.

It would be like calling the article on a 1000-years old town with the name used by those, who occupied it for 5 years. Halibutt July 5, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Well, the english language wikipedia is mostly read by non-Poles and for the them the main connotation with the Polish military is in fact the PSZ fighting during WW2, if any connotation at all. Pkmink 6 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

Halibutt July 5, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Definetly, Wojsko Polskie is problematic as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states: Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.. Polish Army indeed is more general, and should describe the Polish Armies through our history - from Piasts to present. Then it can have subarticles about armies in that period. Now we need to check if Wojsko Polskie (and Wojsko Ludowe, etc.) is more often used in English then its translation or not (see Talk:Voivodships of Poland ad User:Wahwah page for how this can be done). An example of Polish army that should not be translated would be wojsko kwarciane. What do you think about Chorągiew and Poczet? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 5 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

So what is the official name of the Polish Land Forces branch? —Michael Z. 2005-07-5 11:37 Z

Wojska Lądowe Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, or The Land Forces of the Republic of Poland. In short it's Wojska Lądowe (lit. Land Forces) or Wojska Lądowe RP. The commander of that branch of the Polish Army is Edward Pietrzyk. Similarily, the Polish Navy is called Marynarka Wojenna Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej or MW RP in short. Halibutt July 5, 2005 11:58 (UTC)

I vote for Polish Armed Forces. Not really new reasons other then the ones mentioned already earlier in this page, mainly ambiguity. Well, my granddad was in the Polish Navy, so perhaps I'm not completely objective :-) Also, I think at various times the Polish Armed Forces were called "Polskie Sily Zbrojne", like during WW2. Finally, if I'm correct, since Poland's membership to NATO, the structure and organization of the Polish military have been adapted considerably to a NATO style organization, incl. making all the 3 services equal in status, so for example the head of the defense staff (the highest military commander) can also be now an admiral or an Air Force general, much like in other NATO countries. In fact, wasn't some years ago an admiral the chief of staff? Pkmink 6 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)

Army means only land forces, as opposed to Navy and Air Force. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Great. This article is clearly about all the Polish military forces. "Wojsko Polskie" literally means "Polish Military". There should be no question. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Wrong, Jayjg. Or not 100% right. What about the US Navy that has its own aviation and infantry? Or what about the People's Liberation Army, whose structure is somehow similar to the Polish one? Should we rename it to People's Liberation Military? Or perhaps Military of People's Liberation?

Whichever way we turn the cat... the name is still the same - and it is used both in Polish and in English. And much more frequently. Compare 74 400 for Polish Army with 1 070 for Military of Poland, 532 for Armed Forces of Poland and 14 700 for Polish Armed Forces. Halibutt July 7, 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Oh, and yet another example: why don't we move the article on Red Army to Red Military Forces or Red Armed Forces. Alternatively, we could move it to Military of the Soviet Union or Armed Forces of the Soviet Union. After all the "Red Army" name is wrong since, as we all know, an Army is land-only.... Those darn Russkies simply did not speak English well enough to name their armed forces properly... Halibutt July 7, 2005 19:40 (UTC)

You're preaching to the Red Army Choir ;) --Jpbrenna 7 July 2005 20:33 (UTC) P.S. Something smells fishy in here...

You mean the Red Armed Forces Choir, obviously. Halibutt July 7, 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Using google to find out which term is more popular is flawed unless you're prepared to view those 100,000 websites and see in what context the term is being employed. -- Joolz 8 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

This actually a really small thing but concerning the 1 million men strong during the outbreak of the war there where only half a million moblized. this is dur to england telling poland not to mobilizes all her force because this would be seen as an act of war

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Timeline of the Polish Army

Zapraszam do wypelniania Timeline of the Polish Army--Witkacy 11:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what?

Long discussion, voting, and... nothing. The current name Wojsko Polskie has no majority and I defintely agree it is wrong. What are we going to do? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Since currently the title is misinforming, I suggest the following: move the info on Polish Army of the past to Polish Army and leave here only the info on the actual "Polish Armed Forces" (that is 1940-1945). If there are no objections I'll perform such a split later today. Halibutt 08:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The proposed stub content would be sth like that:

Polish Armed Forces (Polish Polskie Siły Zbrojne) was the official name of the Polish Army formed in exile in France and United Kingdom during the World War II.

==See also==

• Polish contribution to World War II

{{mil-stub}} {{poland-stub}}

[[Category:Polish Army|*]]

We need first to agree on structure and names of the related subarticles. We need 1) the name for a historical overview article on entire Polish military, from Mieszko tribe warriors to today's army - which I think should be Military history of Poland 2) the name for current, post 98 Polish military 3) the names for Polish militaries in the past. Then we need to fix some redirects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest to use the following:

1. Polish Army (for both current and historical uses, as well as the main page of the project)
2. Military history of Poland as a sub-article of this one (the one linked through {{main| }})
3. Articles on branches (as they are)
4. (stub-like) articles on specific military forces of the past, like for instance the article on Polish Armed Forces, Polish Army in France, Polnische Wehrmacht, Army of the Duchy of Warsaw, Polish Legions in Hungary, Polish Legions in Italy, Polish Legions, Polish Legion, Polish Army in the USSR, Polish Army in the East, KBW and so on
5. the rest of articles not necessarily linked from the main site of the project but surely included in Category:Military of Poland or one of its sub-categories.

How about that? Halibutt 15:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I support it. It may not be perfect, but if you are going to take care of those articles, then it's fine with me. Anything is better then the current mess :) Let me know if I need to delete some redirect for move. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

We could simply expand the Template:Polish Army to include the list of armed forces. For instance:

What do you think? Halibutt 07:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I knew then when you finally got some time to work on it, it would be great :) Btw, does this means your comp is fixed now? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope, both of my computers are still in ruin (my laptop has the converter and the matrix broken, no idea where to get the money to fix it...). My dad simply left his computer at home. Anyway, I'm still not satisfied with the Historical units section, it looks a tad clumsy. Especially that the list is still incomplete. Any ideas as how to fix it? Halibutt 10:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Polish version of this template: pl:Szablon:WP.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Shall we proceed? Halibutt 14:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections. For poland-mil-stub, see discussion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless there are any more comments (RfC anybody) I'll do what was agreed upon here soon. Can somebody summarize what I as an admin need to do for reference?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Be Bold :) Though perhaps there are some other necessary steps here. Halibutt 14:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures dont work 130.111.98.131 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What pictures?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Military age annually

The 2003 figure is blown way high (demographic surge), any newer and more accurate ones? Ksenon 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Graphic of the Army Structure

I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of the most important Armies. i.e. French Army; German Army; Italian Army I also want to make a graphic of the structure of the Polish Land Forces, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as there is no information how the units are structured (i.e. What Regiments/Batallions belong to which Divisions/Brigades, what type the units are; and so on) Does anyone have this information- and also the Regiments/Battalions names and/or numbers and where they are based? Thanks noclador

there's basic information on this page: http://www.army.mil.pl/eng/eng.html. Maybe you could try emailing them for details.87.207.175.246 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. A wikipedia user from Slovakia is translating the ORBAT of the Polish Army and sending it to me in the next days- when i have it, I will make the graphic. noclador 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I found more info if you need it:

each of four divisions has article on polish wikipedia http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Lubuska_Dywizja_Kawalerii_Pancernej#Struktura_11_DKPanc http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Warszawska_Dywizja_Zmechanizowana http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Pomorska_Dywizja_Zmechanizowana http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Dywizja_Zmechanizowana

This site also has some information about organisation, including territorial defence forces: http://www.wp.mil.pl/strona.php?idstrona=9&idn=1_3_2_1 unfortunately, the english version of this page is screwed, and i could find this info in english 87.207.175.246 19:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please consider registering, and also posting a request for information on WP:PWNB and WP:MILHIST.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to 4 Polish Divisions on the Polish Wikipedia. I had a look and made a quick sketch for myself of the data I found there, but I do not understand Polish and so 80% of the unit designations are undecipherable for me. Therefore I left a note on each of the 4 division’s talkpages asking for help in translating the already known data and also help in looking for the little bits that are still missing (i.e. the units of the "1 Warszawska" Tank Brigade). I also joined some of the Military History workgroups. Thanks for all your help. noclador 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The requests for assistance I left on the talkpages of the 4 Polish division have been blanked by pl:Wikipedysta:Lajsikonik. This is an extremely rude and counterproductive behaviour. As he seems to speak only rudimentary English, could a Polish speaker try to explain to him what my request was and that his behaviour is unacceptable and destructive? thanks, noclador 10:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem has been solved- user pl:Wikipedysta:Lajsikonik has restored the requests and excused himself noclador 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PZA Loara.jpg

Image:PZA Loara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nangar Khel

Feel free to expand the Nangar Khel incident article. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Poland First To Fight.jpg

The image File:Poland First To Fight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

fixing

this article needs fixing and i shall be conducting this in the near future with accordance to MoD websites and NATO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barciur (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New edit.

Issues with the latest edit.

The new edits done on 11:34, 22 October 2010 are creating an impression as if the wiki page on the Polish Armed Forces was an advertisement. If I'm correct this "WP" logo is used more for public relations than to represent the actual armed forces. Also, regarding the new photo that was added... to follow the template of other wiki pages on polish military branches we try to avoid adding pictures in the "Infobox".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.242.110 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up edit

Please note that the reason for the clean-up edit was due to a number of new entries on the page that are not up to Wiki standards.

These edits have cluttered the page, and created duplicate entries such as the "History" section which in detail describes the history of the Polish Armed Forces, and in the process totally disregards the fact that there is an entire wiki page devoted to this subject (History of the Polish Army, and Polish contribution to World War II). (On a page such as Polish Armed Forces only short general sections should be created that in turn link with other pages that cover a specific subject in greater detail.)

Also, not only is the page full of duplicate material it is also poorly edited, and has numerous factual errors. This in turn has created an unfriendly overall impression of the subject matter making it difficult for the reader to get a clear understanding of the material covered. In the "Modernization" section military equipment that has not even been purchased by the military is now listed as being part of the new inventory. Also, the poor choice of pictures included in the new section does not depict the Polish military in a proper light, and only invites negative perceptions.

In the end, the recent edits seem very amateurish and lack clear structure. As one of the original contributors to the page I ask that the recent editors reconsider their entries and refocus their contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop blind reverting. Surely you realise that, despite what views you have on the proper structure of the page, a great amount of additional information has been added. Would you kindly please lay out how you think the page should be structured, and we can negotiate a way forward from there. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments need to be made. First, this article does not belong to anyone -- being one of the "original contributors" does not carry any special weight in determining an article's structure over the life of the article. Once established, the content of an article may change very much, and if an editor does not agree with changes that are made, then the issues should be worked out on the talk page. Second, removing photographs because one believes they may invite "negative perceptions" is just a way of pushing propaganda, that is, it is to say "we only want to look GOOD on Wikipedia!" The purpose of this article is to present a balanced look at the Polish Armed Forces and not simply a view that certain people can feel comfortable with; and, frankly, there were no photographs that mocked or otherwise made the Polish Armed Forces look bad -- that was a perception the IP editor had that could certainly stand some discussion on the talk page before any deletion of material is made. As to the overall set of articles for the Polish military on this Wikipedia, it is a mess -- there are too many articles, and some of them present strong biases. Contributors to these articles would do far better to work on removing bias from the articles than to delete material without discussing the changes first : in other words, try working in a spirit of partnership and cooperation rather than assuming the role of a schoolmaster who is lecturing an errant student. W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Image

It seems that this image is causing a bit of an issue. Can editors explain why it should/shouldn't be removed? At this point I am not seeing much problem with it... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Parade of personnel of the 72nd Mechanised Regiment, People's Army of Poland.

A couple of comments. The image is really neither here nor there. As an image of either the Polish marshal or Eisenhower, it would be highly relevant to articles on either of those men, or as a photograph documenting the destruction of Warsaw. As a photograph about the Polish Armed Forces, I don't think the photograph is particularly relevant. If the object is show a photo of the Marshal, then this photo would be a far better choice.

The second comment is that I find more troubling the approach of the IP editor visiting from Massachusetts (76-dot-etc.). This person needs to strongly review his/her approach to editing articles in Wikipedia. Buckshot06 is an outstanding editor who contributes an immense amount of well-documented content to this project. To imply that he removed this photograph because of communist sympathies (see this diff) is both absurd and vile -- AND an extraordinarily poor start to contributing to Wikipedia. This editor has already been blocked once and seems to have learned nothing from the first incident -- not good. W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr Wilson has summarised better than I have previously why the photo in question doesn't add much. To compare, the photo I'm about to add to the right side of this section is the photo that I moved into the article as People's Army of Poland was merged in. It shows smiling soldiers in PPA uniforms, and 76.. .. .. took great exception to this photo. I am still not sure why. I would personally like to include it, as it shows actual soldiers with weapons, and covers an uncovered period; otherwise there are no PPA era photos in the article. What do people think? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The photo is not a problem. It is a typical unit group shot. Interesting in that it appears to document a sub machine-gun platoon. W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I find the photo problematic for two reasons. It has no real link to the text... you can add a million-and-one pics of a bunch of soldiers just standing there why does it really have to be that one? Yet, you are trying to delete a picture of Marian Spychalski the first Marshal of Poland (mentioned in the text) who is shown performing his duties, during the critical setting of post war Poland. My Second issue is that of "quality"... we are not trying to make propaganda here at Wikipedia, but at the same time we are not trying to discredit anyone... showing a picture of a bunch of kids who just became soldiers is not well representative of the Polish military as a whole... and it's really strange that you are so insistent on adding it to the page? Anyone who is media savvy can tell a difference between a good and bad picture, a propaganda pic or one that is used to discredit.

Also, I find it very unusual that you are so insistent on deleting pictures... you removed about five photos of equipment form one of the below sections, but I did not object. Then you removed the NATO Response Force logo by claiming that it was not in the text (it is), I did not object... and now you are trying to remove another picture, yet you are accusing others of being disruptive? So, I am sorry to bring this up again... but you remove pictures of western equipment, used by Poland's armed forces, you removed the Nato Logo, and now you are trying to remove a picture that happens to include Eisenhower in it? Why those pictures in particular? I think that it is noteworthy to highlight that Poland is part of Nato, it is westernizing it's forces, and it has always seen itself as part of the western alliances. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My changes are in line with those needed to reach Featured Article status. Please try and imagine that I'm being as objective as I possibly can, given my background as a New Zealander, and my wish to promote a balanced picture of the armed forces. That includes their communist-era service; if you wish to nominate any other photo of Polish soldiers during the LWP period, please do so. My main view regarding pictures for this article is there are far too many considering the amount of text: take a look at Australian Defence Force or Military of the Democratic Republic of Congo to see what I mean. I removed the NRF logo because I checked the text and the NRF was not mentioned; you substituted the POLUKRBAT photo which is mentioned, and in that sense that's fine. But overall I would wish to remove photos because the ratio is completely wrong. This was the reason why the Spychalsky/Eisenhower photo went: it had the least to do with the Armed Forces of all of them. Again, please, stop questioning my motives and WP:Assume Good Faith!! I am getting exceedingly annoyed at your insinuations, and, as I said before, this may result in blocks should you continue. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well in this case can I recommend this picture Ludowe Wojsko Polskie.jpg shown above, but I still prefer the Marian Spychalski image since it perfectly illustrates the state of Poland after the war, and Martial Spychalski's efforts to present the utter state of destruction to the West. And, I ask that the picture remain on the page... since it speaks volumes. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Microedt, that is an interesting photograph. Very nice -- too nice, to probably be a genuine photograph of the LWP. 99% of the ones I've seen are not in full color, do not have such excellent resolution, and don't have logos like "SERG" in the corners. It appears you (Microedt) just loaded it onto the commons today and then spread it around several Wikipedias. Where is this photograph from? W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Microedt/76.118.227.161, would you please stop trying to censor things? You've deliberately and systematically suppressed the use of the other photo, which had some licensing information, and introduced this new one instead. HISTORY ISN'T CLEAR-CUT, BLACK OR WHITE!! There are ignoble aspects in all our histories.. from mine, the oppression of the Maori, from Mr Wilson's, various nasty things done to, for example, the American Indians or the people of Guatemala, or many others, and from yours, sometimes, less honourable periods of history. Wikipedia is not about presenting a rosy version of history, it's about presenting the WP:Verifiable truth. Please stop these censoring actions. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also this notice on the commons page for the photograph - "To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published." -- it has not been provided in this case and the photo may be a future copyright-vio minefield. I am particularly wary of the "SERG" logo in the lower left corner. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No one is censoring anything, but I really question your choice of pictures used. So here is a picture from Wiki Commons that you can use. this image. Again, this is not propaganda, but we are not trying to show things in a bad light either. Also, I'm not sure why Buckshot06 is trying to add another picture, yet he complains that there are too many already? Is this an argument about the Eisenhower/Spychalski photo, or are you trying to add another one in?--76.118.227.161 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

One is free to question but not to unilaterally impose their own point of view. Notions of "bad light" etc. rest entirely in the eye of the one who perceives it -- that is, in this case -- YOU, and you only. As for images, I really don't care which LWP image gets used as long as it is not a stolen copyrighted image -- Wikipedia doesn't need the hassles that brings, and you, Microedt, need to fully grasp and understand that. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Having read the above, I would opt for an image that shows a group, rather than one person. Spychalski can be illustrated in his own article. I see nothing wrong or problematic with the image that is currently used in this section. (File:Defilada ulicami miasta 72 pz.jpg). If you want me to look at any other images, please link them clearly. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the current one. Microedt has swapped the images in same place on the talk page which is why the discussion may appear confusing in light of the current photograph. The photograph I would be wary of using was the one that suggested before by Microedt -- [[File:Ludowe Wojsko Polskie.jpg]]. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to use the current one of (Defilada ulicami miasta 72 pz.jpg) that's fine... I earlier proposed the (File:Ludowe Wojsko Polskie.jpg), and if you are worried about copyright issues, than point taken we don't have to use it. --Microedt (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for consideration of the copyright issue. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus for your suggestion. Could you translate the caption about whatever (72nd REgiment?) the picture depicts? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Done on Commons. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Polish troops, 1951
(Disputed photo)

Microedt, do not remove this image from the talk page -- you are censoring AGAIN. I do not agree with your edit summary stating that the only image in dispute was the photograph of the two generals in Warsaw. The photo of Polish troops in 1951 is also under dispute, since you insist that somehow its purpose is to defame the Polish military. That is your assumption only -- and there are others who do not agree with your assumption. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The only problem I might have with that image is that one could say that the soldiers are grinning somewhat... stupidly. It is quite subjective, though. Anyway, I find the anon's (Microedt's?) removal of other posts very worrisome. This is disruptive editing bordering on vandalism and I will request that he is blocked if this censorship is repeated again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on experience with the military, it looks to be a photo where the soldiers were told to smile for the cameraman to show how much "fun" military service is. Every military gets these kinds of photos. The "smiling heroic armed proletariat" look of the photo is not genunine, but then, neither are the grim visages of the marching troops in the other photo. It would be nice if we had a "middle ground" photograph of LWP troops of the 50s or 60s -- men on military exercises in the field, something like that. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

who uploaded this image: File:Ludowe Wojsko Polskie.jpg it was taken from this site: [2] where a woman says she colored it! and that she took it from this Russian site: [3]. So, whoever uploaded it added the SERG watermark and then uploaded it a second time! File:Ludowe Wojsko Polskie (LWP).jpg... I will have them both deleted now for copyright violation. noclador (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Noclador, wow, great work in finding the original image. Is there a tool on the internet you used to search for similar images? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

better image

junior medical officers graduation, 1974

oath ceremony, 2007

June 1974, Oath taking ceremony of junior medical officers noclador (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• It was not oath taking ceremony, it was junior medical officer's promotion (graduation, accolade) after six years course in military medical university.
  The oath ceremony in Polish army you can see below. Julo (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hiding images

I'm not sure why user SojerPL, hid a couple of the equipment images on this page... so, the file text still showed-up on the edit page, but the pictures themselves were not displaying on the actual article page. In the future please refrain from hiding images, or article text. --192.250.112.200 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)