Talk:Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

bananas eat monkeys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.73.191 (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Poland (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Eastern Europe (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Eastern Europe[edit]

Such changes should be discussed here.Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, check out the definition of Eastern Europe here: Eastern_Europe#Political_and_cultural. Why someone is trying to make Poland "pass" as Central European? Us Poles belong to the Eastern European geographical area, we have Eastern European culture and Eastern European genetic stock. If I had to describe my country in one sentence, I'd say it's a Slavic, Eastern European, Roman Catholic, post-Communist country with wonderful lands, beautiful struggle during its history and friendly people who have much pain and love in their genes, a nation that during its history was brutally attacked so many times from every side, but never was on its knees, always fought against injustice. This is Poland. Yatzhek (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yatzhek, I'm afraid you won't be able to make much progress with this. All the way back in February I tried to change this to East-Central Europe (as a sort of compromise between Eastern and Central Europe)... it carried on for months and I achieved nothing - only wasted my time and got frustrated unnecessarily. Have a look at the old discussion if you want to, it's very long and I provide countless arguments for the change, but my edits were continually reverted even though others agreed with me at the talk page; the whole thing is archived now at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland/Archive_5#Central.2FEastern_edit_war
Nevertheless, if you wish to pursue this further, I wish you the best of luck. You're welcome to recycle any useful sources you may find at the link I gave you. I agree with you completely that Poland is in Eastern Europe. It's established all around the world and that's what almost everyone will tell you, except for a growing minority of business owners who fool the population that attracting Western capital is the solution to all of Poland's problems, when in reality it just makes their own wallets fatter. Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic have a growing number of such people as well, unfortunately. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Samotny Wędrowiec! I will try to contribute one more time, as I see countries like Serbia or Croatia have a phrase "country at the crossroads of...", which in my opinion perfectly fits the article about Poland. I will edit the article and put it there like this:

Poland Listeni/ˈplənd/ (Polish: Polska; pronounced [ˈpɔlska]), officially the Republic of Poland (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Polska; pronounced [ʐɛt͡ʂˈpɔspɔʎit̪a ˈpɔlska]), is a country at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe, bordered by Germany to the west; the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the south; Ukraine and Belarus to the east; and the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad Oblast (a Russian exclave) and Lithuania to the north.

If someone reverts this contribution, he must give us a good reason and explain why i.e. Serbia is "at the crossroads" and Poland isn't. Yatzhek (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is your original research, I am afraid. Can you list here the reliable sources (encyclopedias, peer revieved articles, etc.) where Poland is described an Eastern European country? Also, any changes should be made after the consensus is reached, not before. With regret, but I am reverting your contribution. Boston9 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/1976379/Eastern_Central_or_East-Central_Europe_Identity_Dilemmas_in_Contemporary_Poland Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Boston9, please, don't tell me you never heard about Poland as an Eastern European country. It's ALWAYS called "Eastern European", everywhere in the media. Moreover, I did NOT change "Central Europe" to "Eastern Europe" in the text, all I did is adding a phrase "at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe", just like in the article about Serbia. OK, so now, Boston9, explain us, how come Croatia is "at the crossriads of ... South-Eastern Europe" while it is placed more to the west than Poland? And how come Serbia's article states "Southeastern Europe" while Serbia is placed STRAIGHT TO THE SOUTH of Poland? How come it suddenly become SouthEASTERN? Tell us, from which meridian does the "east" begin? Please tell us. Explain it precisely and give reliable sources. If you won't, I'm editing Serbia as "Southern Europe". Yatzhek (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

They will keep telling you that you need to achieve consensus and revert all of your edits because of this. Even when I managed to get most of the people who were involved in that previous discussion to agree with me, others who didn't even bother looking at the talk page still kept reverting my contributions with no penalties. So, for whatever it's worth, you have my support in this matter. I doubt we'll see Boston9 citing many sources against categorizing Poland as an Eastern European country, because there are way too many others that say Poland is in Eastern Europe (because that's simply the case). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Still no answer provided by Boston9. We're still waiting. Please answer to ALL my doubts expressed in my previous post in this thread. Yatzhek (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you guys just let go of it. This is a rehash of the old Cold War political meme about the so-called East (i.e. the Warsaw Pact countries) and the West (with Nato membership) with nothing in between. Things change. Stop WP:SOAPBOXING please. Poeticbent talk 22:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want us to "just let go of it"? Afraid of polemics? Lack of arguments? Can't you simply answer to all my questions precisely and try to persuade me to your point of view, instead of telling me to let it go? OK, Poeticbent, so can I edit Serbia as a country "at the crossroads of Central and Southern Europe"? Why is Serbia Southeastern? Explain it. And no, we will not let it go. THE VAST MAJORITY OF POLES AS WELL AS ALL OF THE NEIGHBOURS OF POLAND CLAIM POLAND IS EASTERN EUROPEAN and Poland is called "Eastern European" in the vast majority of the media across the globe. You can not deny it. Only a person who doesn't pay attention to information about Poland would deny it. WHERE does the EASTERN EUROPE begin then? Which meridian? Tell us and then I will check all the countries placed to the west of that meridian and will check their description on Wikipedia. I take the challenge. Yatzhek (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's OR what you demand. We should use existing sources, current ones. Poland was moved geographically to the West in 1945 and politically since 1989. Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting phenomenon, that everytime I ask a simple question addressed to some particular user, the user doesn't respond, but instead, some other user responds and takes the false "central European" theory in defense, having no arguments and avoiding to give specific answers to my questions. Poland was "moved geographically to the West"? What do you mean? How come the country's geographical location "move" just like that? It's like I'd say "China is in Central Asia, and Northern Sudan is in Central Africa. They moved geographically and politically more to the West". So now, explain it to me, how come Serbia is South-EASTERN EUROPE, while its eastern border is MUCH MORE TO THE WEST, than the eastern border of Poland? I need a good explanation. And one more thing - You non-Polish people or Polish-cosmopolitical minority that claims Poland is "Central Europe" are all wrong to me. Me, as well as the majority of Polish people, the majority of historians, and all the media across the world claim Poland is "Eastern Europe". So now we have our different statements here. The consensus would be that Poland is in between the Central and Eastern Europe, so I'd suggest correcting the article, and writing that Poland "is a country at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe". Yatzhek (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't get it how these people come up with such rubbish arguments and STILL get their way on this encyclopedia. Such disgusting bias and inaction from those with authority. If any of you arguing against Yatzhek's edits have ever set foot outside of Poland, you should know that practically everywhere - especially in the West (for example: England) - the overwhelming majority of the media see Poland as an Eastern European country. There is practically no discussion against it. In Poland this discussion is starting to take place, where a minority of people claiming that the country is in Central Europe are trying to change the generally accepted view. However, they remain a minority, even smaller than this group is in Slovakia and Czech Republic. Sure, Poland is politically aligned with Western Europe and North America, but that doesn't change the fact it is culturally, linguistically and geographically in Eastern Europe. Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia are all members of EU and NATO - they are politically aligned with the West, yet I don't see any of you going to such great lengths to rewrite history and create a new category just for them. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not a forum. Please read basic information about the Wikipedia and stop your teachings.Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's right. It's not a forum. It's a TALK PAGE. That's why I'VE ASKED YOR SOME QUESTIONS and I'm AWAITING YOUR ANSWERS Xx236, Poeticbent, and Boston9. Answer to all my questions, give sources. The consensus between your and our point of view would be "between Central and Eastern Europe", and until you won't give me answers, do not touch the article. Yatzhek (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding any consensus on other articles in Wikipedia either. Central and Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe. We all know why it would be "nice" for Poland to be in Central Europe in the minds of everyone and no longer in Eastern Europe. Neither Wikipedia editors nor the United Nations can establish the "fact" of their location. It is political rather than geographic. If we stuck to geography, it might be easier, but that isn't going to happen. I suggest sticking with both CEE and Eastern Europe and not try to pin it down. It doesn't really accomplish anything IMO. Poland isn't going to actually move in either direction! Student7 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Poland moved twice - geographically and ethnically (in 1945) and politically (1989-2005). Taking into account that some people describe Poland using Britannica of 1911 we have to wait 100 years to be accepted.Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the shouting.Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Poland Emerges as a Central European PowerhouseXx236 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
CENTRAL EUROPE is a European Union programme that encourages cooperation among regions of nine central European countriesXx236 (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)]
My apologies for delay in responding. @Yatzhek The first thing you should have done is to have checked Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN, which is the seminal and ultimate reference source for all articles about Poland in Wikipedia. On page 341 (Volume 21) it clearly states: Rzeczpospolita Polska: państwo w środkowej Europie, nad M. Bałtyckim (...). With regret, but I am reverting your changes with strong suggestion to stop this discussion and concentrate on more value-adding edits in Poland-related articles. Boston9 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all, not all organizations in Poland classify the country as Central European. Secondly, I'm afraid this isn't the Polish Wikipedia. The English language Wikipedia is the largest of them all and it aims to show things from an international perspective. The Polish Wikipedia should in theory be aiming to do this too, but it's understandable why this is not the case as Polish is not an international language. Anyway, so I think sources from larger (transnational) organizations are much more appropriate, such as:
All of these sources say that Poland is in Eastern Europe. Now I'm sure you'll find plenty of other sources from Czech Republic, Slovakia or Germany that claim Poland is in Central Europe, but for every one of these there are tens of others from various countries saying otherwise. You know why I'm not using any of them as sources even though I could? Simply because most if not all of them are not written from an international perspective, whilst organizations like the UN and EU are multilingual and are a collaboration of many nations. EuroVoc comes in 23 languages... the Polish version of that page also says that the country is in Eastern Europe (Europa Wschodnia), see for yourself: http://eurovoc.europa.eu/drupal/?q=pl/request&uri=http%3A//eurovoc.europa.eu/100277 --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
If the Urals are at one end of Europe, and Spain at the other, Europe extends from 19 degrees west longitude to 60 degrees east longitude. Dividing these into three divisions yields a western group at 19 degrees west to about 7 degrees east. Central from 7 degrees east to 33 degrees east. And East from 33 degrees east to 60 degrees east. Poland at 14 degrees east to 25 degrees east seems to lie, longitudinally, in Central Europe. I'm sure this misplaces some other country, but "central" seems geographically reasonable for Poland. Student7 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

People who want Poland as Central Europe are in fact offending the Polish culture and trying to diminish the Polish historical struggles. Everyone who knows the history of the region of Eastern Europe knows that the main victims of the Holocaust were Jews, Romani, and ... "Eastern Europeans". That's right. In case you didn't know, it's the Poles who were the main non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, and they were always called "Eastern Europeans" back then. This "moving" of Poland and labelling it as "Central Europe" distorts the historical struggle of people from this part of the world. Someone who hears "a Central European nation" doesn't feels like this nation could come through such a struggle, and still does. "Central European" means "wealthy", "econimically stable", "responsible for the Holocaust" etc. Yes... Now, Poland is one of the poorest countries in Europe. We have a few rich politicians and buisnessmen, and A LOT of poverty around. But of course, we should be "proud" "central Europeans", huh? No way. Poles are EASTERN EUROPEAN SLAVS from a POST-COMMUNIST EASTERN EUROPEAN country. Yatzhek (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yatzhek: Well said. :)
@Student7: What about Azores? Are they not in Europe? If you look here, Azores is clearly highlighted as part of Europe. If we go by that map, which seems to be the most representative according to Wikipedia and has more accurate proportions than many others (as most maps are simplified and disregard the fact that the Earth is not flat), it clearly looks as though the centre of Europe is closer to Denmark than anywhere else. Anyway, it's not only about geography - every category carries certain political, historical, and cultural connotations along with it. Right now, politically Poland is in Western Europe. Geographically it is East-central. Historically and culturally it is in Eastern Europe.
--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was persuaded by my "geographic only" suggestion. I think I can still differ with including the Azores in Europe. Or Rhodes! Student7 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Haha, I know, I was just using Azores to prove my point that where the geographical centre lands varies greatly as to where the borders of Europe are drawn. I really appreciate it that you're the only person here who tries to form an actual counter-argument against Yatzhek's and my point. Everyone else involved is just trying to silence us without any sort of discussion. So thanks for actually taking part in the discussion and not breaking the rules of Wikipedia like all these other folks are.--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SHOUTING et cetera[edit]

Response: Yatzhek changed the content of the article to say that Poland is in Eastern Europe (instead of the current Central Europe). His edit was reverted and Boston9 said the reason for this was a lack of sources. Yatzhek provided numerous arguments on this talk page, whilst I gave you sources from the likes of the United Nations and the European Union. You haven't responded to this at all and have only tried to silence us in various ways. As it stands, all content on the English Wikipedia that says Poland is in Central Europe uses sources from a minority of individual opinions that reflect this view (experts or not) or organizations specific to certain countries (such as the CIA World Factbook). I've already provided more reliable and less biased sources from international organizations like UN and EU, which should be more than enough to end this silly charade and warrant Yatzhek's proposed change in the Poland article. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
These "arguments" is his original research, I am afraid. I think that Wikipedia needs reliable sources, not emotions. Can you give us a least one source which is equal to Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna? Please list encyclopedias only. Also, I do not think that term "at a crossroads" is an encyclopedic one. Boston9 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Boston9 - "at the crossroads" unencyclopedic? Ok. see - Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina etc. (both more "western" countries than Poland, Bosnia especially). And they are labelled as South-Eastern European. Why? Yatzhek (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your answer Boston9. And hey, Samotny Wędrowiec, I agree with most of your views. I see that all of the people that want Poland as "Central Europe" feel helpless to discuss this with us, as they have no arguments. Poland was always classified as Eastern European until the mid-2000s. Poland is historically and culturally an Eastern European country; always classified as Eastern Europe in the context of the World War II and Post-communism. You can not deny it. If you know the history of Eastern Europe, then you know, that Poland is called "Central Europe" only since 2004, so since the time it was connected to the European Union. Until that time, Poland was always seen as an Eastern European country. Moreover, I get mad when I see i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, or Albania as "South-EASTERN European", while these countries are located more to the west than Poland! Poland extends far more to the east than all western-Balkan countries, so why Poland can't be "at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe"?! It's insane how a few American and western-European politicians can change the country's geographical placement. Anyway, Poland was ALWAYS called "Eastern Europe" by the German nazis during the WWII, by the communist occupants, and by the whole "Western world". Yatzhek (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of answer do you expect from me? IMHO Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna settles this thing. If you have stronger encyclopedic sources, please list them all here, and then we will continue our discussion and reach consensus. With regret, but again your comment with at odds with our No original research principle. Boston9 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of answer? Well, I can repost the simple questions: "at the crossroads" unencyclopedic? Ok. see - Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina etc. (both more "western" countries than Poland, Bosnia especially). And they are labelled as South-Eastern European. Why? I see you're referring to one particular source like some kind of a 'holy grail'. I'm sure there is a lot of sources that can prove, that Poland is in fact Eastern Europe, I will put them here soon, however, I could agree if we made a consensus that Poland is a country at the crossroads of Central Europe and Eastern Europe. I also know that Samotny Wędrowiec has very big knowledge on this topic and is willing to help in improving the article. Yatzhek (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Boston9, I find it hard to take what you have said seriously. Previously I gave you sources from three different agencies of the United Nations and one from the European Union. Are these supranational organizations not stronger encyclopedic sources, as you put it? I will link you to them again, for your convenience, as you have asked - but this time I am also adding a few more sources that categorize Poland as a country in Eastern Europe:
--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I have contacted one of EU agencies and they didn't support their opinion. They don't care.
Many people still believe in Prussian/Russian propaganda of the 18 century, not mentioning Nazi/Soviet one. Xx234 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2010/01/eastern-europe-doesnt-exist.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/eastern-europe-vladimir-putin-107094.html#.VGMymmdh4cs Xx234 (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I referenced sources from worldwide organizations, encyclopedias and established websites... you post links to two opinion pieces in response? I'm not sure if you know what you're doing. Also, you are bold in saying that the likes of the UN, EU, Ethnologue, etc. are repeating Nazi propaganda, but such a claim is baseless and ridiculous. Anyway, I am still waiting for a response from the person who was so keen on discussion and accepting changes provided we have the sources. Of course, it seems that they are trying to sweep this under the carpet again. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you know what you're doing. is ad personam, please respect me even if you don't like my opinions. Xx234 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that you meant ad hominem, which is simply incorrect. I am attacking your arguments - which are incredibly silly - not your person. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Boston9 - Where are you now? Why won't you discuss the problems? I still think you don't have any arguments but one source that you glorify. @ Xx234 - What do you mean by Soviet and Nazi propaganda? One of your links says "Eastern Europe doesn't exist". Man, this is one of the funniest things I've heard for a while. It's like saying "Eastern Asia doesn't exist" or "West Africa doesn't exist". How come "Eastern Europe not exist" while you hardly support the "South-Eastern Europe" theory when it comes to countries like bosnia and Herzegovina or Croatia which are more western that Poland? Also, Poles are mentally more "Eastern European" while we, as Slavic people, have totally DIFFERENT culture than this Western European and American one. Moreover, Poland is one of the poorest countries in Europe. 20% of Poles are unemployed, hundreds thousands of people live on the edge of poverty, and the Polish public debt is now +/- 30000 ZŁ (9100 USD) per one citizen! Just to inform you, an average monthly salary in Poland is 2200 ZŁ (665 USD) GROSS, which gives 1560 ZŁ (470 USD) NET per MONTH of course. Taxes are way higher than in other countries, prices for MOST products are way higher, while salaries are hardcore low. I personally, finished a college, have a masters degree, and I earn net 1200 ZŁ (360 USD) per month. If not the help of my family, I wouldn't be able to live with dignity, but that's just how it is in Poland. Therefore this massive emmigration from Poland and immigration to England, Ireland, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. Poles would probably also immigrate to the USA, but Polish people have no rights to travel there without a Visa, and it's extremely hard for a Polish person to get it, while nearly all other European countries are "visa-free". That's why Poles are called "the Mexicans of Europe" and Poland is "the European Mexico". Now tell me that Poland is a rich Central European country, and you'll make me laugh. We are proud Eastern Europeans. Nobody and nothing will change that. Yatzhek (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they cant answer you and Samotny Wędrowiec because your arguments are too strong and numerous. 78.8.201.154 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yatzhek - We are proud Eastern Europeans. Nobody and nothing will change that , My opinion - Maybe you are but certainly NOT ME! ;) Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No answers to my questions and no will of discussion to "reach the consensus" means lack of arguments and fear that the truth might be included on Wikipedia. The truth is, that Poland is a country at the crossroads of Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Why do all non-Poles and all Polish liberals deny it so fiercely? Yatzhek (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Funny how people avoid answering to Yatzhek's and Wedrowiec's questions. Poland is Eastern Europe and it's a fact, not a myth. Poles as Slavs originate from the deep East. Good point Yatzhek - a question to all "Central European theory" supporters - why Bosniaks and their country Bosnia and Herzegovina is Southeastern Europe, while Poland which extends far more to the East can't be Eastern Europe? Poles and Bosniaks are genetically really close. You all say, that "lately Poland became more western". Bull.. Poland is a poor country, totally different culture and mentality, lower standards of life and the hidden trauma of always being a victim (ethnic cleansings, partitions, nazism, communist regime, modern persecutions and racial antipolonism etc.). Of course, there are a few rich Poles, who would probably like to kill me for my logical arguments and who'd like to view Poland as a rich, central European country. They want the world to look at Poland and say "why are you people crying? what are you angry about? we see that you have everything and your country is rich." Now listen, apart from that, call any department of any big American company which is situated in Poland, wait for English version and you will hear "Hello, this is (the name of the company), Eastern Europe. Please enter the extension number or wait for the operator". Nevertheless, as I see, only the western left-wing political supporters and a few rich Poles of interesting ethnic background want and need Poland as Central Europe to make it more integrated with the European Union (modern-day III Reich), and to have the future ability to blame the innocent Poles for the crimes performed in the past by the Western civilization, which is steered by Germany, the U.S.A, Israel and the whole West of Europe. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)~

So, after all this drama, still no change? Also, I'm not going to say much about the post above mine because it's a bit strange to say the least... -Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Powertranz - who is vandalizing? I see that the man who added "Eastern Europe" is totally right! Poland is in fact at the crossroads of CE and EE. Don't you think? Take part in the discussion instead of reverting for no reason. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

He will not listen, and those with the power to penalise the people who keep reverting these changes are evidently not interested - just like last time. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny how Western Europeans want us Eastern European Polish people to belong to Central Europe. I guess no matter how many arguments we would have, no matter how many sources we would provide, they will still be stronger. you know why? from one reason - because they are not Polish! And a Polish person cant talk about his own damn country! We have no rights on Wikipedia, and i learn about it every single day. Antipolonism among Wikipedians is remarkable. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You do have a point, however there are some Poles and Polish Americans who are supporting these views as well. No one is suppressing their right to express their opinion, but the problem is that they are suppressing everyone else. Moreover, those arguing for the usage of "Central Europe" in regards to Poland seem to be contributing only their views, whilst those arguing for "Eastern Europe" have provided plenty of links and sources. Poland is in Eastern Europe according to the vast majority of the world; Wikipedia, as an objective online encyclopedia, should reflect that within its articles instead of catering to a loud fervent minority that do not listen to reason and refuse to accept facts. I doubt we will manage to achieve anything here, unless this page was flooded with supporters and the issue would become too large for them to keep ignoring... even then, the audacity of these people is immense, so perhaps that would not work either. They have too many individuals on their side among the admins, moderators and experienced Wikipedians - this is corruption at its worst. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response to this... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately we will NEVER get the answer from the people who are afraid of discussion! That's why I will edit the article again. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also awaiting some further discussion from the supporters of this fake "Central-European" theory made up by the western world. Yatzhek (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I just realised that for all this time the entire article has been a part of WikiProject Eastern Europe! And it has always been so, right at the top of this talk page. As if we have not provided enough sources and arguments already, even Wikipedia's editing structures categorise Poland in Eastern Europe. Now can we end this charade and just accept that for the absolute majority of people in the world this country is in Eastern Europe? We all know that Poland being in Central Europe is a very unpopular concept that exists only among the minority on a world scale and does not deserve the spotlight it has received on this page for so long. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Poland is in Central and Eastern Europe. Both. There are too many sources, in too much balance, for us to make any other conclusion. This should be archived as a dead horse. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. "There are too many sources, in too much balance, for us to make any other conclusion" is the exact reason why Yatzhek and I have been arguing for the usage of the term "East-Central Europe" instead. Anyway, for now I've changed the article to say Central and Eastern Europe. I still personally think that East-Central or just Eastern Europe is better and more accurate, but I'm glad we've achieved some sort of compromise. I trust you will aid us in reverting the imminent vandalism of the Poland page that will surely come after this change, as many of the fervent defenders of "Central Europe" on Wikipedia have previously caused a lot of commotion and edit wars without adding anything constructive to the discussion. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Just like I thought... only 12 minutes after I made the edit, Powertranz is already back to start another edit war. How am I supposed to react to these trolls? If I revert their vandalism, they just revert it back and it continues, so in theory I'm taking part in an edit war. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

This section reads: "Of all the countries involved in the war, Poland lost the highest percentage of its citizens: over 6 million perished – nearly one-fifth of Poland's population — half of them Polish Jews." Since the other half killed were just Catholics, including POWs, the Polish officer corps, and thousands of priests and nuns, it would be better not to mention it. The holocaust belongs to the Jews. We mustn't take away their stick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.162.4 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dead or wrong links[edit]

There are many of them. Xx234 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm slowly trying to update them where in instances where they have been archived or can be found elsewhere. Unfortunately, a number of them really seem to have gone. Nevertheless, they should be retained per WP:KDL as we work on the good faith assumption that the information was cite checked for veracity and reliability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

GDP per capita in English version is outdated.[edit]

Correct values can be found on IMF website. Can someone fix that?

Correct values are as follows:

GDP per capita - 13 453 US dollars GDP per capita (PPP)- 24 429 US dollars

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=73&pr.y=6&sy=2012&ey=2019&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=964&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolko84 (talkcontribs) 10:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talkcontribs) 20:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sports[edit]

Strange selection of disciplines and facts - neither history (Janusz Kusociński, Wunderteam (athletics), amateur boxing) nor recent (ski jumping, voleyball). Xx234 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Formation date[edit]

Using 966 as the first formation date for Poland is incorrect. If by the founding of Poland you're understanding the unification of the Slavic tribes that lived on the lands equivalent to present-day Poland, then you should know that this event began happening several decades before the Baptism of Poland. The ancestors of Mieszko I started unifying the Slavic societies living in that part of Eastern Europe much earlier and a number of almost identical gród settlements where built several years before the Baptism of Poland. Besides, it is common knowledge that there was an early state structure on these lands before Christianity was accepted, as it would have been impossible to begin the conversion process without securing real control over Poland. And for those who believe in fairy tales that when Mieszko accepted Christianity all of his people followed, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but it took decades of coercion and inducements for the early Poles to finally accept the new religion; a large fraction of Polish society remained pagan well into the 1030s as evidenced by the Pagan reaction. Mieszko's conversion to Christianity was an immensely important event in the history of Poland, as it ensured that the Germanic invaders finally accepted the borders of this young country, but the state apparatus was created earlier.

However, if we want to be more accurate and use the date when the name Poland actually came into use, we must go several decades later. The first time this name appears in written sources is between 997 and 1003. Moreover, the country became officially known as Poland only in 1025 - its full name being the Kingdom of Poland. Before the coronation of Bolesław I Chrobry, the Polish lands (according to written sources) were officially known as Civitas Schinesghe. It is unknown what Poland was called by the Poles in their mother tongue as at this time, although having existed for at least a hundred years, the Old Polish language did not have a standard written form and was only spoken. Poland's original name may have been Lechia (pronounced Lehya), but we may never know.

Anyway, so my point is that the genesis of the Polish state began between a few years to a few decades before the Baptism of Poland, but Poland did not receive its current name until the early 11th century. Therefore, under no circumstances is using 966 as the formation date of Poland sensible. It can only be either earlier or later. Of course, the date should remain as a key event on the article, but it should not be the first one listed because that is simply incorrect. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I can agree that the creation of Poland was an organic process, so there is no hard date or event that can mark the beginning of the nation. Btw, that's why I included the link to Civitas Schinesghe. But, from a practical and even legal point of view, the 966 date is significant, because that's when the Polish state became recognized by the "outside world" (Roman Church). Also, that's when Poland started to build a legal basis for itself. You could think of it in today's terms like a modern day territory, which is not recognized by the world; then the UN, EU or the US recognize its statehood and all of a sudden the nation shows up on maps, is invited to international meetings and a flood of advisors come it to advise the new government on how to setup everything according to their traditions/laws. So, in this case I think that using 966 as the start date is legitimate. --E-960 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about the significance of the date, and the comparison you made to the present day is really good, but I still think that it shouldn't be the first date listed there. Especially if we compare it to the formation date used by, for example, the article for Russia (the name Russia itself was not used before the 16th century, I believe). The same can be said about the start date for Germany. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Another interesting fact that is worth pointing out is that even the Polish Wikipedia doesn't list 966 as the first date for Poland. The formation date on the Polish article is listed as "ok. 870 – ok. 930" (approx. 870 – approx. 930) under the label "Zjednoczenie ziem polskich" (Unification of Polish lands). This serves well to show that early state apparatus was present in Poland before Christianisation and that the unification of Lekhitic tribal societies into a single country was a process rather than something that happened supposedly overnight with the adoption of a new religion. I think a similar solution would be best for the English page as well. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
In Poland the 966 is universally accepted as the "start" date, even during Communism the authorities in 1966 staged the Millennium parade to commemorate 1,000 years of history of Poland (you can watch it on YouTube, hehe...) Anyway, as for Russia and Germany it's a bit different in my opinion. The Holy Roman Empire was for a good part of its history called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (First Reich) followed by the Second Reich and Third Reich. So, when you present German history from that perspective it's understandable why you don't just start from 1871. Similar case can be made for Russia with the Kievan Rus. I know some historians may downplay the role of Christianity in politics, but in the case of Poland it really played a significant role in the formation of the state; before that it's prehistory, since no written records exist from Poland. --E-960 (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but we have to remember that we are looking at the Christian version of history since when each country was converted, everything in the Church's power was done to present the times before Christianity as primitive and barbaric (but that was not always true). As for the 1966 millennium parade, that was mostly due to populist reasons. 966 is a date popularly accepted as the formation of Poland so it would be unreasonable for an already unpopular government to upset the average Pole's version of reality even more, but academically it would be a bit ignorant to rule out any alternatives when the evidence is obviously there. Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia, should mention not only what is popular but also various historical perspectives. Returning to the examples of the Holy Roman Empire and the Kievan Rus, all I wanted to point out is that just like with Poland - Germany and Russia were created much later in truth, and these two ancient countries can only be listed as part of their genesis rather than their creation per se. I think the example of the Kievan Rus is best in this case; the Kievan Rus was "a loose federation of East Slavic tribes" (as described on Wikipedia) and Christianity was not introduced until the 10th century. However, this means that pagan Poland resembled a unitary state even more than the Kievan Rus... sure, it was significantly smaller to begin with, but power was much more centralised. Just to clarify, I am not calling for the removal of 966 from the list and I still think that the disclaimer about its significance should remain - I just don't believe that it should be listed as the first date, not from a populist point of view but from an academic one. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Will anyone else share their views on this or will it just be swept under the carpet like every other issue that makes the people who haunt this page feel uncomfortable? Because we all know that I can list as many good arguments as I like and provide various reliable sources (as was the case with the Eastern Europe "discussion"), yet as soon as I try to change the content of the article based on what has been agreed at the talk page, the edits will be reverted by numerous others who have not even taken part in any of this. Admins and experienced Wikipedians, you do know what happens when you ignore problems over a long period of time? They start to pile up... and then they blow up. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want more people to discuss this, you should announce the discussion at WT:POLAND and WP:RFC. You haven't done either, so don't complain that nobody answers, when you are asking a question in a room that rarely somebody passes by (I check this talk page once every few months, for example). Now, of course formation is a fluid process. I presume you want to change the entry in the infobox. Well, we do have a footnote that explains why this date was chosen. Your arguments, while interesting, seem ORish. You say you can present sources to support them: do it. Please show us RS that state that formation of Poland/Polish history as a state/etc. begins with another date. Ideally, a discussion of this by some academics would be great to see. @Orczar, Volunteer Marek, Poeticbent, Nihil novi, and Tymek: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will share my views on the formation date, and the synergy of Christianity and state making. The formation date is merely a milestone in the development of these lands. The claim that Poland suddenly appeared and suddenly chose Christianity in a completely isolated homogenized pagan land is not entirely true and is mostly false. It creates the sense that Poland is entirely unique and exceptional in its culture, tongue and embrace of Christianity when compared to its Slavic neighbors during this time and context of 966. It took time for Poland to develop it's unique and exceptional culture. It didn't just suddenly appear. Christianity was already flourishing in Southern Poland at around this time in the Old Church Slavonic. The old Polish language that someone is referring to was actually a variation of the Western recension of Old Slavonic. Even the St. Florian Psalter (ca 1400's), when it is read in Polish has elements of the Slavonic still left in it. The blindness in this article are tremendous and create a nationalistic diversion to true history. Poland did not suddenly appear and did not suddenly speak the refined Polish it speaks today. True, that the foundations of formation should be understood from the perspective of synergy between state and Christianity, but not necessarily 100% with Mieszko I. Mieszko I merely erected the geopolitical structures that enabled him to engage Rome directly and chauvinistically without the foreseeable intrusions by the Holy Roman Empire and Germanic Bishops. In a sense, this was a pragmatic chauvinism by a Polish noble (probably derived from some profound understanding of the Geopolitical Christian Slavonic suppression in Moravia 113 years earlier) to solve the growing threat of this much larger and potentially treacherous pro-Latin neighbor to the West. The real foundations of Christianity in Poland should be attributed in at least some way to the labors of Saints Cyril and Methodius under the Moravian King Rastislav of Moravia. Pope John Paul II gives credit and attributes these foundations in his "Slavorum Apostoli" encyclical. Doubravka of Bohemia (wife of Mieszko I) probably also does not get enough credit or exploration as a mother of Christian Poland. She was derived from the Přemyslid dynasty that were subordinated to Great Moravia - where Christianity in the Slav lands in Czech, Slovakia and Southern Poland were already firmly established by the time of Mieszko I. I agree mostly with Samotny Wedrowiec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.213.24.41 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Poland article clean-up[edit]

I'd like to propose a clean-up effort and invite any interested editors to participate in the process. I think that collectively we can greatly improve the article by tackling a few minor issues. We would not try to re-write the text (something that can be very controversial), but focus on simple grammar fixes and improve the image selection (directly match images to the text, considering context and placement). If you don't agree with any of the changes, please do not revert "en masse", but instead re-add the items you feel should stay exactly as they were. --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Just want to add a clarification regarding image updates in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth section of the article, because they may be a bit significant. I went ahead and replaced the image of the Sigismund's Chapel (not mentioned in the text) with that of the Warsaw Confederation document which is mentioned in the section and is very important in the history of Poland. Also, replaced the image of Kind Jan III Sobieski by Matejko from 1880 to a contemporary paining from 1686 just three years after the battle (I think it's best if we try to use contemporarily images first). Also, changed the map of the Commonwealth replacing the earlier version which had the boundaries superimposed over current nations (I don't think we should be highlighting that). Finally, replaced the Matejko painting from 1891 of the Constitution of 3 May 1791, with an actual photo of the Senate Chamber where the constitution was ratified. --E-960 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just think you did a great job with the Early history and the Middle Ages sections, however, I would like ot point out that the Jagiellonian section is somewhat "incomplete." Maybe replace the Copernicus drawing with a color image or painting of King Władysław II Jagiełło, the founder of the Jagiellonian dynasty or maybe someone else? Also, don't you think color images and photos would be better than some insignificant paper documents, like the Warsaw Confederation and the Copernicus sketch? Anyway thanks for contributing ;)

User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 13:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi User:Oliszydlowski, My thinking is that we should use the images available from that "time period" first. One example of this are the Matejko painting, which have great illustrative power, but are not contemporary of that time period and since every major event in Poland was painted by him, I would like to stey away from the theme "Polish History according to Matejko", perhaps we can find contemporary alternatives first. Any thoughts? --E-960 (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe you're right. Matejko's portrait of Sobieski and the victory at Vienna doesn't work. It is somewhat comical, but Matejko's Rejtan-The fall of Poland is the only painting depicting that event and it is vital in the "Age of partitions section." I don't know about the Constitution of 3rd May image, I'll have to discuss that with other contributors. Feel free to replace the Sobieski image with Copernicus' sketch. ;)

User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 21:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • You input is greatly appreciated, here are the images that I'm proposing. Replace the Matejko's painting of Battle of Vienna [1] with a contemporary painting of Sobieski form 1686 [2]. Also, replace Matejko's Rejtan - The fall of Poland [3] with this famous Allegory of the Three Partitioning Powers or a map of the partitions [4]. Also, regarding Matejko's Constitution of 3rd May we have two images [5] and [6] the second image is significant, because it actually dates to 1791 (possibly it was sketched from memory of the person who was at the event). --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding the image showing Poland's borders in the 18th century. I couldn't have added a better image showing the difference across the centuries. The only painting by Matejko that's necessary is the Battle of Grunwald, but that's in a different section. ;) User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 10:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought about it many times, but each time the immensity of this task puts me off. That and the fact that the government of Poland, rather than wasting money or various low visibility cultural initiatives, should just sponsor a grant and get this improved. (Through this can be said about any other country, too). For now I have decided to help Orczar finish History of Poland, and then we will replace the current history section with the summary of that article. Anything else... no promises. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015[edit]

Please update the GDP indicators:

GDP (PPP) 2015 estimate

-  Total   $990.568 billion[5] (21st)
-       Per capita      $25,703 (49th)

GDP (nominal) 2015 estimate

-  Total   $593.758 billion (23rd)
-       Per capita      $15,406 (54th)

Source: IMF WEO report October 2014: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=64&pr.y=5&sy=2012&ey=2019&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=964&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a= Dominicx1983 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -Thank you for the improvement suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups Infobox[edit]

Question for the community regarding the Ethnic Groups section in the Infobox. Do we really need this category, it's very apparent that any ethnic minorities in Poland are minuscule. I think that such a category is more appropriate in countries like Spain, Romania or Belgium where you have significant amounts of ethnic minorities. I would recommend we take out this section, any thoughts? --E-960 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this section is standard for pages of most if not all countries on Wikipedia. Moreover, regardless of how small a minority is, it's still important to recognise it. So I personally think it should stay. By the way, can you share your thoughts on the formation date used in the article? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ida film poster[edit]

One editor included an image poster of the film Ida, which just won an Oscar. For the moment I removed the selection for the following reasons that I would like to bring to the attention of other editors. First, any such image should perhaps be included in the "Media" section and not in the "Culture" section as one film is not representative of the wider Polish culture. Also, this film did receive wide critical acclaim, but it's impact in the long run is yet to be seen. So, for the moment I think that it may be too early to add such an image to the Poland article which highlight the most significant subject matter related to Poland. Please share your thoughts. --E-960 (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Perhaps there should be a film section to highlight Poland's film industry, but as of yet there is no text connection to the image of the film Ida. --E-960 (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the film has definitely garnered enough attention both within the country and abroad to warrant its inclusion, but you are right that perhaps the image should go in a different section. The text that would accompany it could be about the controversy surrounding it in Poland, which would finally be one part of the article where we could talk about bigotry and anti-Semitism among Poles. It would improve the quality of the page substantially, because right now most of it reads much more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedic article. If Wikipedia content was to be accepted without questioning, one might think that Poland is (from a Western liberal point of view) an incredibly progressive and economically advanced country, while in truth the situation is much more complicated; the country has been suffering from increased poverty and more & more xenophobic far-right ideas entering the mainstream ever since the 1990s. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I just want to add... that a new "Film" section would have to be created. But, that would need to encompass the entire movie history of Poland. Not just center around one film. Important fact: the "Best Foreign Language Film" Oscar category is given out every year to a country, and that's why I don't think that this honor is that special in itself. Also, the film's impact is on Polish Media and Culture is yet to be seen... cutting away current media hype. That's why, I have strong reservations about including this film. Also, I would strongly object to your statement about "bigotry and anti-Semitism among Poles". Though, this is something that occurred, this issue is greatly overstated in case of Poland. Since, in the greater context of European history, in other countries or nations this problem was much more pronounced: Germany, Russia or the Ukraine come to mind on a scale incomparable to Poland, even France today has issues of anti-semitism greater than in Poland and you have the German anti-islamic Pegida. I would also point out that ethnic strife and conflict was also very strong between Poles and Ukrainians, so the problems among Poles and Jews are simply just one dimension of ethnic relations in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I never said that other countries don't have problems with anti-Semitism and you are correct in saying that some countries may have larger issues with it than Poland does, but this does not change the fact that Poland does have such problems and a balanced encyclopedic article about the country should mention them as well - not ignore them along with the rest of the nation's issues. Unfortunately, that is currently the case on the English Wikipedia.
As for what you have said regarding Ida, I can also agree. The article could use a section about Polish cinema, but until one such section is created then the Ida film poster doesn't really need to be included as there is nowhere it could be included if images are to remain relevant and consistent with the text. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If we have room, I have no objection; but if another image was to be removed, we should discuss them both. It would probably be better to add it to and discuss at Cinema of Poland which is pretty out of date and doesn't discuss any Poland Oscar winners or nominees. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2015[edit]

the southern Karkonosze Katarzyna Kakietek (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Please change "the southern Karkonosze" to: "the northern Karkonosze" in Tourism section.

@Katarzyna Kakietek: Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. User:Gparyani (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gparyani: Please consider location of Krkonose/Karkonosze Mountains

Czech: 50°35' to 50°49'N; Poland: 50°45' to 50°55'N. [[7]]

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Katarzyna Kakietek, that would constitute WP:OR which is disallowed. Please provide reliable sources to back this request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Which source supports southern?Xx234 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
http://www.polskie-gory.pl/karkonosze-karkonoski-park-krajobrazowy.php północne stoki.Xx234 (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
http://www.kpnmab.pl/en/karkonosze-national-park,82 northern slopes Xx234 (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Law section image[edit]

I went ahead and re-added the image: March for Life and Family [8]. No argument was provided for it's removal, and because initially no image was taken out and replaced, the new picture did not disturb old content. Also, as suggested by another user an image like this shows the reality, contrast and divisions between "right" and the "left" political views currently playing out in the country; as the article text itself states that "Rzeczpospolita reported that in a 2008 study three-quarters of Poles were against gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples in accordance with the Catholic teachings. The same study revealed that 66% of respondents were opposed to Pride parade as the demonstration of a way of life". So the two images of a Pride parade an March for Life work well together to illustrate the current cultural clash in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. It's definitely one step closer to showing a more realistic image of Poland than what has been going in this article thus far. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

St. Mary's Church, Gdańsk, is characteristic for the Polish Brick Gothic[edit]

Gdańsk's architecture wasn't exactly Polish. Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Polish by geography if not heritage. I've changed the wording back to "in Poland". Cedris (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Eastern vs. Central Europe[edit]

Evidently the issue concerning whether Poland is part of Eastern or Central Europe has been dealt with in the past and now it's back to an edit war with unproductive discussion on this talk page. Moonboy54 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I came here via a discussion that is taking place at Talk:Peterborough about how best to describe the group of A8 countries in the context of migration to the UK. There are clearly sources that can be used to support the classification of Poland (and other countries in the region) as being in Eastern Europe, and others that classify it as Central European. Can't we just reflect this in the wording, and say something like "Poland is variously described as a Central European or Eastern European country..."? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My preferred version is to link to Central and Eastern Europe. In a footnote, we can explain that sources vary, and note it is can be a controversial issue (if there are RS for such a claim; I can look for them if the footnote is created). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If there is no obvious answer, no preponderance of evidence, then it seems best to not include a statement claiming Poland is Eastern or Central, but to instead just say Europe. Or perhaps Central/Eastern Europe. Unless there is massive evidence for one answer, this seems the correct solution. OnlyInYourMind(talk) 07:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear gods, really?! If this is genuinely a discussion, then just link to Central and Eastern Europe. What a waste of everyone's time. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC) via the Feedback request service
  • Most of the changes proposed here are variations of things I have been talking about since last year, but every single time - no matter how many sources I linked to and how many valid arguments I used - all of my suggestions were ignored by the vast majority of users involved, most of whom would just revert any edits made. I'm glad this has finally been brought to other people's attention, because without help from you this place just becomes stagnated. Although I personally prefer Eastern Europe and seemingly so does most of the world, I think the best and most neutral solution would be to use East-Central Europe or East-Central Europe. In addition to that, I agree with Piotrus that we could just add a footnote with something as simple as: "Historians, journalists and supranational organisations variously categorise Poland as a country in Eastern and/or Central Europe" - with perhaps two or four sources representing each point of view in equal numbers. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. There has been a previous discussion concerning that topic, you can read it all here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland#Eastern_Europe
If I had to tell my point of view, as a Polish person - to me my country is at the crossroads of two huge regions - Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Geographically we are in the eastern part of Central Europe, however ethnically and culturally we are Eastern European without a doubt. Countries which are located more to the west than Poland - like Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia etc - all have a phrase "at the crossroads of..." in their description, including the phrase "eastern" (Southeastern). Therefore I think that in case of Poland, the main sentence should look like this:
Poland Listeni/ˈplənd/ (Polish: Polska; pronounced [ˈpɔlska]), officially the Republic of Poland (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Polska; pronounced [ʐɛt͡ʂˈpɔspɔʎit̪a ˈpɔlska]), is a country at the crossroads of Central Europe and Eastern Europe, bordered by Germany to the west; the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the south; Ukraine and Belarus to the east; and the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad Oblast (a Russian exclave) and Lithuania to the north.
Your views? Yatzhek (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion is very reasonable as a compromise, similar to my idea of East-Central Europe. However, I still think Eastern Europe is the best and most accurate option.--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Eastern Europe according to how most established and trustworthy sources have it. It is quite possible that many of those sources reflect the political divide we inherited from the Cold War rather than some geographical "objective" notion. But that is how they have it! Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Poland lies within Eastern Europe. We're not here to promote personal viewpoints or even "patriotic ideas" but to offer what reliable sources contain about the subject in hand. We are not supposed to "compromise" in terms of wording for the sake of "peace and harmony" between editors, either. -The Gnome (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been trying to get this across for a long time now, but I gave up in favour of a compromise like East-Central Europe because these people just really want to push their POV and there are so many of them that I can't do anything about it. Yatzhek similarly was supportive of just Eastern Europe at first, but he also turned to compromises like me after he met the same trolls and provocateurs. However, the people who have been reverting all these changes simply won't accept a compromise anyway. So although I agree that we are not supposed to "compromise" in terms of wording for the sake of "peace and harmony" between editors, I haven't yet been able to make this happen for longer than a year now. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This would be unacceptable. We're not here to "negotiate" personal viewpoints. This is, actually, strictly forbidden by the rules of Wikipedia. Only a dialogue among parties offering reliable, third-party sources can be accepted. "Patriotic" considerations have no place in the encyclopaedia. I challenge anyone who supports the "Central Europe" version of Polish geography to submit reliable, and particularly non-political, third-party sources which cite Poland as situated in Central Europe. -The Gnome (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is something I've been challenging them to do as well, but like I said - most of them don't even get involved on the talk page. So far, the only noteworthy source they have been able to provide is Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN. However, one Polish source seems very weak in comparison to the many international sources that put Poland in Eastern Europe - such as various agencies of the UN and EU (1, 2, 3, 4). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)