Talk:Poland

Poor quality, filled with "weasel words"

I was very surprised at how badly written this article is. Poland is a large European country, and the article is likely to be visited by quite many people. Despite that, it seems to read more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopaedic article, as the whole text is filled with small 'weasel words' that convey subjective, un-encyclopaedic views. I give just a few examples below, the whole article is similar

• "Sigismund's Chapel of the Wawel Cathedral, one of the finest examples of the renaissance architecture North of the Alps"
• "Rising gently above these lowlands is a geographical region..."
• "Holidaymakers relax at the Lake Solina "
• "the Polish lakes provide an invaluable location for the pursuit of water sports"
• "Present day Poland is a country with great agricultural prospects"
• "This has led Poland to be described on occasion as the future 'bread basket of the European Union'"
• "This situation is likely to soon change for the better "
• "Poland is the most important breeding ground for European migratory birds" (might be true, but no source is given)
• "Poland is one of the most stable and peaceful countries." (Links to Global Peace Index where Poland comes in at 25th. Not bad, but only 15th in Europe so not that noteworthy either)
• "Elements of what is called now human rights may be found in early times of the Polish state." (unsourced again)
• "Unfortunately, the adoption of such a liberal constitution was treated as a grave threat by Poland's more autocratic neighbours."
  

These are only a few examples, the whole article is written in this way. It is quite frankly an embarassment for Wikipedia (and for Poland) that an article of such relative importance is this poorly written. I'm tagging it for POV, and it will take a major revision of the article to bring it up to encyclopaedic standards.Jeppiz (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is a high visibility article, but you're welcome to improve on it if you can. I suggest small, incremental edits first, with an ample amount of time to finish your work. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I know how Wikipedia works, thanks. And yes, I plan to help in improving the article. Your removal of the tag without commeting on any of the issues is problematic. I'm restoring the tag, further removal without solving the problems will be reported.Jeppiz (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that the wp:tag bombing is not helpful similar to flagging the entire article due to eg. Wikipedia:I just don't like it for whatever litte faults I can find. A single "cn" tag at the end of a paragraph should suffice... if there aren't any references there to begin with. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Would you stop assuming bad faith, please? This is not about WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's about the quality of the article. Articles on Wikipedia should be neutral in tone, not using subjective markers time and time again. A good article is a neutral, sourced encyclopaedic article, not an article that use subjective markers to make subjective points. At Wikipedia we report facts, we don't evaluate them. And placing tags directly after the unsourced claims is usually more helpful than tagging an entire paragraph that may have other, soruced facts.Jeppiz (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you (or someone) has fixed most of these. Thanks for pointing them out. Touristy stuff, flowery words, puffery, can be changed immediately by anyone IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The solid improvement of such big article requires a significant amount of work for a long time. Everyone interested in can do something good eg by improving style of a chosen piece of text. Native speakers are best for this work and therefore they are very welcome here. And so I strongly invite you to cooperate :) --Rewa (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The issues listed above aren't so much "POV" as style issues. I do agree that some portions of the article could use a good copy edit. And additional sourcing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

---It is easy to criticize the work of others, without making any worthy contribution - let us work together to make the necessary improvements to make this article as factual and unbiased as need be. IMHO it already looks good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieprus (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mention that homosexuality was never illegal in Poland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Decriminalization_of_Homosexuality_by_country_or_territory.svg--147.142.61.127 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that homosexuality was ever illegal anyplace. It was sodomy, the practice of homosexuality, that was illegal. Student7 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, before we get ourselves more confused, Student7, a sizeable portion of homosexuals do not engage in sodomy. As to whether homosexuality was never illegal, it would have to be supported by reliable sources, not assumptions. If there are no sources, there should be no related content in the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The correct way to address it is: never criminalised. Basically in no legal documents there is a mention of penalties for it: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nW5FAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=homosexuality+never+criminalised+poland&source=bl&ots=N0tsQv82K1&sig=3tiE8ADHX9oBiSSDcWydC-WaLEY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=welaVKz1EojdPdTlgOAG&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20never%20criminalised%20poland&f=false --86.3.200.81 (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Parada vs. Marsz

Certainly not two pictures of the Parada. This picture of the Marsz suggests that it's dominated by a small party - I doubt it very much. Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• There's nothing to compare:
  • parade - hundreds of people, virtually unknown in Poland
  • march - national day, a day off from work, 120,000 people

Globetrotter1918 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't like either of these celebrations, but I have to agree with Globetrotter1918 that the Independence March which takes place in Warsaw every November is certainly a much larger and known event than Schuman Parade. I think most Poles have probably never even heard of the Schuman Parade or at least don't give it much thought, whilst the Independence March is hard to not notice when tens of thousands of angry men march through the city shouting nationalist slogans. It makes top news every year and there is always plenty of stuff left behind after it. Whereas the Schuman Parade... it is practically unknown in comparison. This is an encyclopedia - not a tourist guide, so if you want to be as unbiased as possible then you all know which image should take the spot.

This is actually something I've noticed throughout Wikipedia: there is a large group of Polish editors who dedicate the vast majority of their time on this website to presenting Poland as a progressive, economically powerful, civilized, Eurocentric country in Central Europe where everyone loves the EU. Whether you like it or not, that simply isn't true. In truth it's a conservative, poverty-ridden, over-privatized country in Eastern Europe, with a government that loves the EU and a population that mostly hates it. I'm not a fan or hater of the EU, but I'm not going to take part in distorting the facts on here. The things that are going on in the Wikipedia pages related to Poland are pathetic to say the least. Instead of actually doing something to improve the situation at home, people are fixated on the idea of falsely advertising their country online. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

a population that mostly hates it? Any sources? Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• None. All the public opinion polls say the same: Poles are truly EU enthusiasts. Take for instance the most recent CBOS report: 89% in favour, 7% against. Boston9 (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The poll was regarding membership in EU. To like membership in EU and to like EU are not the same things. Likewise, our colleague SW does not like many things in Poland, but I doubt he wants to dissociate himself from Poland. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's all go on a diversion and look for sources regarding Polish satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the EU. Why on earth would you be wasting your time on that? Firstly, most Poles don't seem to care about sources at all when they're editing Wikipedia. Secondly, the nationwide degree of satisfaction with EU membership is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Thirdly, the marsz is bigger than this other thing and you know that unless you've never set foot in Poland during November. Last but not least, have a nice day all of you - I'm not going to stay here and argue for or against including a photograph of a bunch of racist idiots marching about my hometown, I just wanted to point out the sad facts. Antisemitism, EU-hating and the far-right are things I cannot tolerate... but my country is rife with them, so I cannot tolerate living in a fantasy world where everything is fine and dandy. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Many Poles prefer the Court of Justice of the European Union rather than Polish administration.Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

37.1 mln

According to Eurostat rules Poland has 37.1 mln of residents or 36.8 mln.Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

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 /ˈpoʊlənd/ (Template:Lang-pl; pronounced [ˈpɔlska]), officially the Republic of Poland (Template:Lang-pl; 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:

• United Nations Statistic Division (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe)
• United Nations Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldageing19502050/pdf/96annexii.pdf)
• Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/#d.en.52727)
• EuroVoc - thesaurus of the European Union (http://eurovoc.europa.eu/drupal/?q=request&uri=http://eurovoc.europa.eu/100277)

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

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:

• United Nations Statistic Division
• United Nations Population Division
• Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
• EuroVoc - thesaurus of the European Union
• Ethnologue - encyclopedia of languages
• About.com
• Atlas of Eastern Europe
• Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society
• Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations

--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)

Outdated information in Politics section

There is an outdated information visible in the Politics section of the article:

"The prime minister, Donald Tusk, was appointed in 2007 after his Civic Platform party made significant gains in that year's parliamentary elections. In 2011, Tusk was reelected."

Should be, exempli gratia:

"The prime minister, Ewa Kopacz, was appointed in 2014 after the resignation of Donald Tusk."

Kindly --Vyqe (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Boston9 (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

Please change the picture subtitle of the picture showing Mr. Tusk and Mr. Walesa in the politics/foreign affaird section to "President elect of the European Council Donald Tusk (right) arrives with former President and Nobel Peace Prize Lech Wałęsa for the EPP party congress in Warsaw." Mr. Tusk is not yet inaugurated as President of the European Council and thus it should be "President elect". Kind regards LutzSkywalker (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014

"Seaports exist all along Poland's Baltic coast, with most freight operations using Szczecin, Świnoujście, Gdynia and Gdańsk as well as Police, Kołobrzeg and Elbląg as their base."

Port of Elbląg became the fourth most important seaport in Poland. Please change the position of Port of Elbląg in the hierarchy. Paweł Sutkowski (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Furthermore, we do not have an article on Port of Elbląg, which would help your claim to notability, although we do have one on Elbląg - Arjayay (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Image Clean-up

I'd like to recommend an image clean up for the entire page to reduce clutter. Many of the pictures do not correlate directly to the text, also there is an abundance of Jan Matejko paintings that represent events in Polish history; ideally we should be using contemporary images dating to the time of the events shown. Finally, many of the images are not the best representation of a given item, with better quality images available in Wiki Commons. --E-960 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

For user Poeticbent's sake I'll restate my thoughts on the current choice of images, and why I think we can do better.

• Why do we have so many Jan Matejko paintings illustrating events in Poland's history? Images of contemporary sources should be used to highlight those events.
• Why is there so many images of Wroclaw, even when no mention of the city is present in a given text?
• Why so many images do not even correspond to the section? Example: Image of Copernicus in Jagiellon dynasty section… there is no mention of him there.
• Why do we have poor quality images for many of the sections? I think we can do better and pick an image that illustrates the subject matter.
• Why do some of the images are pointless? Example: the Sky Tower image in the Corporations section, a building is not a corporation… but, when I added a image of the Solaris Bus & Coach one of Poland's most successful manufactures user Poeticbent called the files crummy.

Some editors may not agree with my approach but, the images have so may issues, due to sloppy editing which breaks WP rules for proper image selection, it will take a painfully long time to fix the problem one item at a time. It appears that many of the image choices were just added with out any consideration for the text. Now, why should they stay if they completely disregard WP guidelines. --E-960 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, User:E-960. Indeed, some of the files you found at Commons are more captivating than others (F-16 Fighting Falcon, for example), and I would recommend to have them reinserted. But please, don't get me wrong. You opened a discussion about the overhaul of the entire article while performing your unilateral overhaul, not earlier; that's why your edit was reverted. No hard feelings please. The article needs work; there are way to many citation needed tags, not to mention the formatting errors. Matejko is the least of our worries. Most images of contemporary sources are better suited in child articles because they would not be interesting enough to look at. Poeticbent talk 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

But, what do you propose then… we can't just go one image at a time it will take forever. I would recommend we revert to my earlier edit, and then I can go in and start to fix some of the text. But, if we debate every detail this article will never get fixed. By the way, the F-16 is not that important how about the map of Mieszko's Poland, I changed the map to the one that says Civitas Schinesghe the first name of the country before the common Poland was adopted. That' the stuff we want to include. --E-960 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's no rush. In fact, our article on Poland is the broadest and most comprehensive overview of Poland anywhere on the internet, outside of the actual book monographs such as the ones in Google Books. You can show your genuine interest in improving it by replacing citation requests with references first, since you seem to know quite a bit about Poland if Civitas Schinesghe is any indication. However, Poland was not explicitly mentioned in it... If you look at the history of this page, you will notice the fierce fighting based on personal preferences. We don't want that. One master of puppets was not only blocked and indefed recently, but also locked out of the entire project as a result. His edits to this article have not been analyzed carefully enough yet. Poeticbent talk 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I can definitely help out in that respect, images were the easy part, since you did not have to look to outside sources to find then... they are all in Wiki Commons. So, I'll start to look for citations to for the highlighted statements. --E-960 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not only GG

Auschwitz and Chełmno extermination camp belonged to Reich, not GG.Xx234 (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. I will fix it in the next edit. Poeticbent talk 13:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

on 1 August 1944 they initiated Operation Tempest ?

Operation Tempest was initiated long before 1 August in the East. It's the day for Warsaw.Xx234 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WWII Section

Just want to add a bit of input on the WWII image choices… the section maybe a bit strong and all, with images of graves, a map of German extermination sites, tanks and expelled civilians. The section may come across as a bit too much. Any thoughts? --E-960 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd change the "Beginning of Lebensraum, the Nazi German expulsion of Poles from central. Poland, 1939" image to something else; it doesn't seem very interesting and is a bit hard to make out what's happening on the image from the thumb. File:Germans at Polish Border (1939-09-01).jpg I think is more iconic and interesting. Any objections to switch? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The image showing expulsion of Poles by Germans is better as it clearly shows what was happening TO THE POLES, while "Germans at the Polish border" is a bit too weird, as it's rather symbolic than realistic situation. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to describe WWII in Poland in four pictures, maybe in ten, but never in four. It was a series of wars fought around Europe and in North Africa, the Holocaust of Jews and Roma, the extermination of Poles, Sovietization supported by FDR.Xx234 (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer if we switched out the "grave" image or the map of "extermination camps" (which was added last week) the combination of the pictures just makes the section overly somber. We want to highlight the war atrocities. But, not in such a strong way in the country article. Lets not make Poland into WWII-land. I personally recommend these three images which are informative, but less dramatic, and to the point.

• [[1]] Map of Poland signed by Ribbentrop and Mołotow
• [[2]] 303 "Koscuszko" Squadron - Battle of Britain (mentioned in the text)
• [[3]] Poster announcing the death penalty for Jews and Poles who hid them

--E-960 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The pilots are fine, but the map and the poster, while significant, are not very "interesting", visual-wise, I feel. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• The File:Mapa 2 paktu Ribbentrop-Mołotow.gif is so completely unapealing visually, rough (size: 22 KB), and semantically empty that (based on that one example), I question the usefulness of this entire thread. Poeticbent talk 14:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For your information, the File:WW2-Holocaust-Poland.PNG is one of the more frequently visited images of the Holocaust in occupied Poland with the average of 30 hits per day, and up to over three hundred in 24 hours. Poeticbent talk 15:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well I'm getting a bit annoyed with the arrogance. Poland is not just Copernicus, Chopin, the Pope, and WWII. Try to emphasize something else in the article, would ya? --E-960 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What arrogance? Our illustrations should be both most relevant and most appealing - a compromise of those two factors. Where's arrogance in that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Economy section (2)

See also: Talk:Poland#Economy section (above)

The section about economy reads like agitprop. It is full of claims of Poland being very wealthy, its citizens rich and prosperous. It's also based on cherry picked statements that are obviously incorrect(like Polish banking sector larger than Germany's or Russia's).At the same time Polish economical woes like crippling and persistent unemployment, collapse of industry, massive debt,very high inequality(one of the highest in Europe), low wages and unprecedented population flight to the West in search of jobs is completely absent.This needs to be amended so that Poland's econmy is put in neutral light and not presented one sided--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop with this nonsense. Don't bring your edit-wars in here. With your prior wiki experience, even you can tell a difference between a disruptive fly-by edit and the attempts to improve the article. Section economy is one of the better referenced parts of this article, featuring almost thirty (30) inline citations. Don't make up things that aren't there, like the claim of (quote-unquote) "banking sector larger than Germany's or Russia's." Show some appreciation please. I just toned down the opening statement, with newly added citations. It used to read: "Polish banking sector is one of the largest in the world..." Now it reads: "The Polish banking market is the largest in East Central and Eastern European region..." which is a quote from the report by Thomas White International, posted in "Fast Facts", see: Poland’s banking sector is the biggest banking market in the central and eastern European region. This is a statement about "banking market" as such from the perspective of the foreign banks. This is not about the Russian "bundles" of oil-and-gas money. Please note the difference between apples and oranges here. Germany is not in "eastern European region". Poeticbent talk 19:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And I can give you 100 citations confirming what I stated, you are promoting a version of the section that is one sided and presents only Poland as a strong economy while neglecting its negative sides that are mention by ANY economic analysis of Poland by World Bank or IMF-such as structural unemployment or debt. I can give numerous citations for massive economic emigration from Poland in the last decade, which scholars have named as one of problems for Polish economy. And your claim that Germany is not in Eastern Europe is obvious, it is in Central Europe. And I am pretty sure that Russian and German banking sector is bigger than Polish one.At the current state the economy section is completely distorted and POV.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Poeticbent, this is POV pushing plain and simple, not based on sources. In fact, it contradicts what reliable sources say. If you want to argue with a reliable source, write them an email, but until they listen to you and change their stories, don't put it in here, or remove it from here. Volunteer Marek  22:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC) How many reliable sources do you want me to add about Polish economy facing structural unemployment and population flight problems, 20 or 30? I will be happy to oblige.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Falsification of sources

I am going through the sources used in the Economy section and I have already discovered that some have been falsified. There are cases where a sentence or a statement is attributed to a source, but the source speaks nothing like the sentence that was supposedly based on it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to make assertions like that you need to be specific, otherwise this is just empty (and potentially false) WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Looking at your edit, you removed text based on this reliable source [4] claiming the info was not in the source (it was) and replaced it with some junk from a clearly non-reliable source. Volunteer Marek  22:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no statement there about Poland having "healthiest economy" in the Central and Eastern Europe.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"'As EU leaders scramble to save the eurozone and cobble together policies to restore growth, Poland is solidifying its position as the union’s fastest growing economy." "If that comes true it will build on what has been a startling economic performance in recent years. Poland’s economy recorded a 15.8 per cent cumulative expansion from 2008 to 2011, a period during which the EU as a whole saw its GDP shrink by 0.5 per cent. Poland is now the most resilient of the ex-communist states that joined the EU between 2004 and 2007 – the Czech Republic has slumped into recession, while Hungary is negotiating a bailout with the IMF." "But unlike other parts of Europe there are no signs of recession and there are those who believe that Poland would avoid one even in the event of a collapse of the eurozone....In a recent study, analysts at Nomura, the investment bank, predicted that Poland would be the great survivor in any European recession that was prompted by a eurozone break-up."

It's called paraphrasing. By any stretch of imagination it certainly is not "falsification". Volunteer Marek  23:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Again there is no statement about Poland "being healthiest economy". Fastest growing doesn't mean healthy, and there are numerous reliable, scholarly sources that call Polish economy unhealthy due to its enormous unemployment problem, massive flight of population and debt. I will add these sources. But once again, there is no mention in the paragraph above about "most healthy economy". You can add about "fastest growing" but not about being "most healthy". If it is most healthy, why did over 2 million Poles flee it for supposedly less healthy economies? Like said, there is nothing about healthy in the paragraph above, and if the false claim remains I will add opposite views based on reliable sources. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if "healthiest" isn't equivalent to "fastest growing" you are way off the mark accusing others of "falsifying sources". If you feel that is an inadequate paraphrasing of the source, suggest a different way to do it, which still captures what the source is trying to say. Rest of your comment is unsourced speculation and personal opinion.

And the "healthiest" actually makes perfect sense. Other European economies are in a recession. The Polish economy is doing much better. Hence it is what is.

And really, quit it with the completely... false accusations that something is "false" here. When you're running around accusing others of "falsifying sources" or claiming that a particular piece of text is "false" when it's really not, it's just a matter of semantics, you only degrade your own credibility. Volunteer Marek  02:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Other European economies are in a recession. The Polish economy is doing much better.There are plenty of European economies not in recession and not with Polish levels of unemployment for over 20 years and Polish level of wages. If Poland is doing so well, why do so many Poles leave? In any case you will find plenty economists saying Polish economy isn't healthy.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The only 'agitprop' I'm seeing lies with MyMoloboaccount. In all seriousness, you wear your POV on your sleeve on every article you agitate on and are invariably WP:TEDIOUS about pushing it. If you wish to continue to parse the world economy, injustices and inequities according to the WP:BIASED sources you dig up, please do so by starting your own blog where you're welcome to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a discussion of Polish economy section, not a Harpy vs. Molobo fight. Xx234 (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

outdated recentism

This sentence " Between 2007 and 2010, the government plans to float twenty public companies on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, including parts of the coal industry. " needs to be updated. Volunteer Marek  22:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This too: "ccording to the Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski the country could join the eurozone before 2016." - based on the source this was obviously written in 2012 (source says "next four years"), but since then they've pushed it back some (hopefully, they'll keep on kicking that can on down the road). Volunteer Marek  23:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And that part does somewhat misrepresent the source. The "could" in "could join" was conditional on "if we're ready" and "if it serves our interests". Maybe just remove this part altogether?  Volunteer Marek  23:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

real vs nominal variables

The paragraph beginning with "Average salaries in the enterprise sector..." has some problems. First, what is the "enterprise sector"? Second, it quotes various figures for salaries but does not state whether these are in nominal currency units or in real, inflation adjusted, terms. It's also based on primary sources so is sort of original research. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"many workers, especially from rural regions, have left the country to seek a better wages abroad."

This is another false sentence. It implies that those migrating abroad were A-employed, B-are migrating because they want just better wages. The fact is that articles on the subject clearly state that large portion if not all of these people were unemployed in Poland, and emigrated in search of jobs. Hence the drop from almost 20% unemployment pre EU entry to around 14%(this is often quoted as the reason).The sentence is unsourced and should be changed and backed by sources showing clearly the reasons for mass flight from Poland of over 2 million people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  02:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out unsourced sentences with false information is hardly under WP:NOTAFORUM. It's part of normal fact-checking procedure on articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not pointing out that there is a sentence with false information. That would involve sources. What you are doing is using the talk page of the article to push your own personal opinions and feelings and giving vent to the latter. But that is not the appropriate use of an Encyclopedia article's talk page. Hence... WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  02:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I would really suggest cutting with the personal attacks and focusing on topic Marek, in any case I have already added sourced information on this and removed false sentence.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks. Please be aware that accusing others of making personal attacks can be a personal attack itself. Especially when it's used in an attempt of gaining an upper hand in a content dispute. Please discuss your changes, for reasons explained below. Volunteer Marek  02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What about writing about reasons of mass emigration? Xx234 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be another article per WP:TITLE altogether. It's not within the scope of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've started such article at 21st century economic migration of Poles. Please help expand it (with sources, of course). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Polish banking market is the largest in Central and Eastern European region,with 32.3 branches per 100,000 adults"-dubious

The sentence "The Polish banking market is the largest in East Central and Eastern European region,[116] with 32.3 branches per 100,000 adults" seems dubious. Why should we measure banking market by number of branches and not say, assets held by bank? Furthermore the number of branches per 100,000 adults is larger in Serbia(37,7), Slovenia(38,4), Bulgaria(61,2) and Russian Federation(38,2)[5]. I suggest to remove this sentence.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we stick to what sources say, rather than what may or may not seem "dubious" to you personally. Volunteer Marek  02:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well sources say that number of branches per capita is bigger in several countries.I will search for sources showing which banking sector in Eastern Europe is biggest.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait. Did I understand this correctly? First you say "sources say..." and then you say "I will search for sources showing...". In other words, you already have a certain conclusion in mind and now you will go out and try to find and cherry pick some sources (which may or may not exist) which support that conclusion. But in the meantime you think it's okay to claim that "sources" already support you. Are you even pretending to neutrality or was this some kind of an unintentional slip? Anyway, are you disputing that the source says this? Or just doing original research based on primary data?  Volunteer Marek  02:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian banking sector is obviously bigger than Polish one, as is German. It's just a matter of finding appropriate sources. I repeat my kind request for you to adopt a less confrontational tone.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's just a matter of finding appropriate sources." - lol. Again, what you are saying is that you know the "TRUTH" already and now you will go out and see if you can find some sources for it. Sources which agree with you are "appropriate" and those which don't are not. That's not how this is supposed to work. And you've been here long enough to be fully informed of how Wikipedia policies work, so cut it out. Are you disputing that the source makes the claim as presented? Or are you disputing that the source is "wrong" (because, perhaps, they use a different definition of "banking sector" or "Eastern Europe" than you want to use)? If the latter, sorry, no original research. Volunteer Marek  02:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(It also appears from your comment you're confusing per capita and absolute value. This is actually exactly the reason why we shouldn't have Wikipedia editors doing original research. Because they may not have the competency to understand basic definitions.)  Volunteer Marek  02:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Any sources that numbers of bank branches describe economy?

Polish media have recently discussed who owns Polish banks and how it influences Polish economy, not the number of branches http://wspieramrozwoj.pl/artykul/64/Analiza-rynku-bankow-w-Polsce , http://www.wprost.pl/ar/269239,1/Belka-polskie-banki-znow-powinny-byc-polskie/

Millions of Polish people don't have any contacs with banks because they are too poor so they are cheated outside the banking system.Xx234 (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That source is not reliable. Anyway, your second sentence may or may not be true but how does it relate to this article?  Volunteer Marek  04:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"That source is not reliable"-really? Could you point to WP:RSN discussion that determined Wprost to be a non-reliable source? Because per Wikipedia criteria Wprost is a reliable source that can be used in articles.Again-of you are naming a source as non-reliable because you don't personally agree with what is stating, that's not what reliability means.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please discuss these edits on talk first. Some of this is based on potentially unreliable sources. Some of this is cherry picking WP:FRINGE sources which contradict mainstream opinion and other reliable sources. Some of it - well, even the links don't work so they're not verifiable. Volunteer Marek  02:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The article needs improvement, but first please bring the most reliable sources in here and let's discuss them one by one instead of edit-warring in main space. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links need to be here. I can't stress this enough. For your information, they begin with http://. Without them, it's yadda yadda yadda about nothing. Poeticbent talk 01:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of persistent unemployment in Poland and mass emigration ?

Both are mentioned by numerous reliable sources as problems Poland's economy faces, World Bank, Polish Ministry of Labour, Warsaw Business Journal can be used as sources. Yet all information about these important issues Polish economy faces have been erased. Why? To full present the economy of Poland one can't erase its problems and just focus on cherry picked, often bombastic statements presenting it as economy without problems. Unemployment, low wages, rising inequality, flight of educated and young population due to lack of jobs and poverty have been quoted by serious economic publications about economy of Poland. But in this article they are constantly removed without any serious reason.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that unemployment in Poland is out of ordinary enough to be mentioned here; all countries have unemployment. Now, the post-90s migration patterns are interesting and significant and probably deserve a brief mention; do we have an article on them? The best solution would be to have a detailed article on this phenomenon, and a link to it from here (probably, recent history...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unemployment in Poland is exceptionally high since 1992 and has not been reduced, the lack of employment and connected poverty is one of the main reasons for massive emigration wave from Poland.This is noted by notable economists and institutions such as World Bank. Persistent, long term unemployment has been quoted by World Bank as one of the issues Polish economy faces[6]. As an issue affecting so severely Polish society it is one of the key topics that need to be noted in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I would support a link to the unemployment article as one of the reasons for the mass emigration, which should be noted. However, I think first we need to create an article on this phenomena. Also, it's worth noting that the mass emigration was triggered not only by the unemployment in the wake of the 2008 crisis, but already happened after 2004 entry to EU, as Poles started taking up better paying jobs across Western EU. As far as I can tell, pl wiki doesn't even have an article on that topic, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is heavy on rhetoric and anecdote and very sparse on actual analysis and data. It's essentially a polemical opinion piece. I'm not opposed to discussing this issue, but there are better sources out there. Volunteer Marek  02:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Which article are you criticizing here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The World Bank one. It's one of their PR pieces, not a serious study. Let's get a WB country report instead of some stories about some Ryszard. Volunteer Marek  04:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you believe World Bank is not reliable source, you are free to raise the issue on WP:RSN. Just because a source contradicts your views on the subject doesn't make it unreliable or "not serious".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that I am suggesting that WB Country reports be used, right there in my comment, don't you?  Volunteer Marek  07:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We should not be quoting Ryszard, but the piece is probably fine, until we can replace it with some data. But we need such editorializing pieces for some interpretations, too. Which assertion of this ref do we find controversial, guys? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Which assertion of this ref do we find controversial, guys? - the unemployment rate quoted for one. It's outdated. The current rate is 8.7%. Other than that I'm just not seeing much concrete info in the article that we can't get from a better source. Energy costs are high because winters are harsh and cold, I guess we could use that, if we think it's really important. I'm fine with the part about "junk contracts" being in the article. That's notable, but I'd want to see precise and up to date data. So a different source would be better. There's stuff on emigration. Again, we can get better info from better sources. There's a vague statement about "gap between rich and poor continued to wide". Ok. How big is it? How much did it widen? How does this gap compare to other countries? That's not in the article. Volunteer Marek  18:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Breslau sponsored article

It seems someone was paid to gloriffy Breslau. In the Tourism part there's a Centeniall Hall in Wrocław instead of Kraków monuments (like Teatr Słowackiego). Kraków is the most popular city in Poland and one of the most popular cities in Europe. The number of tourists visiting Kraków beats Wrocław by a very large margin (Gdańsk is also more popular). There's no mention Kraków has the biggest Medieval Market Square in Europe, but author says Wrocław has the largest City Hall in Poland. What's worse he mentions this in demographic part of the article. Author is really biased and unfair. PS. Why to be so shy about Wrocław bus station which remembers deep comunist times and is really awfull? It's probably an only non modernized bus station in Poland. — 193.25.0.13 (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is the work of master Globetrotter1918 from Wrocław and his sockpuppets Germania Breslau and Retrone ... all blocked now and/or still sleeping. I will get to this shortly. Poeticbent talk 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The number of Kraków tourists is high but their misbehaviour legendary.Xx234 (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

English Proficiency Index 2014

It needs updating: http://www.ef.co.uk/epi Well done, Poland!--86.3.200.81 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality

This was recently mentioned but I think this article still suffers from bad style and is far from being objective and having a neutral point of view.

• The Polish mountains are an ideal venue for hiking, climbing, skiing and mountain biking...

should be changed to sth like: Polish mountains are one of the tourist attractions of the country. Some of the resorts include: Zakopane...--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• A liked and popular beverage is wine... -unsourced

It seems most popular drink is difficult to identify - beer seems to appear in many places.--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• ...Poland became one of the most educated countries in Europe.

Sources making the claim: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/MedPol.html ; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02606755.1983.9525622?journalCode=rper20#.VGi_Rs9ybtQ While they were all about nobility, at the time, only European nobility could get education, which makes the claim justified--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• ...has a reputation as one of the greatest Polish kings -unsourced

No sources to upport it except popular culture (http://www.tekstowo.pl/piosenka,piotr_rubik,najwiekszy_z_krolow___kazimierz_wielki.html) and his nickname--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is believed that this tolerance allowed the country... -unsourced

It is common knowledge, but there are may sources, too: http://www.luc.edu/faculty/ldossey/17thcentury.htm , http://www.academia.edu/3009130/Tolerance_of_Cultural_Diversity_in_Poland_and_Its_Limitations --86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• One of the most famous...

"One of the most famous and successful attempts" should be "A successful attempt"--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Poland is one of the main countries pushing the European Union towards further economic, political and even military integration -unsourced

Common knowledge (Eastern Partnership is an example), but sources needed--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Eurosceptics criticize such moves as further unnecessary integration and a new major step towards a federalized European Union under one government. Military integration is judged to be the most significant step after a monetary union. -unsourced

• Present-day Poland is a country with favorable agricultural prospects -unsourced

• Poland greatly improved its image in the world -unsourced

It isn't reflected in nation brands index ()http://nation-branding.info/2008/10/01/anholts-nation-brand-index-2008-released/)--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Polish citizens have obtained a good reputation as hard workers in the EU -unsourced

Common knowledge but then - why there is so much racism against them? They probably work hard, but they don't have a good reputation, not always, at least--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Poland has a great, long standing tradition of tolerance towards minorities -unsourced

It's common knowledge and there are many sources about religious tolerance in Poland towards religious minorities, ethnic minorities and gay people (sexual orientation minority)--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Poland has a long and distinguished history of producing world-class poets -unsourced

Every country can claim that, and Poland has only a few literature writers to claim--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

These are just some examples, the article is full of this self congratulatory stuff, full of weasel words, full of editorializing. Frankly it makes this article sound rather biased and amateurish and I think it could use some major reworking. Preferably by a native English speaker since it also has lots of weird sentence constructions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.149.128 (talk • contribs) 18:12, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Definitely! Some of these claims are legitimate but some are not, or are general knowledge, but only in Poland or in Europe.--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is assessed as C, so - yes, those kind of problems are sadly to be expected. We would love for someone to volunteer their time and skills to help improve this further. Would you be able to help, dear anon? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please use my suggestions--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the false claims about Polish image being improved and about workers. Polish workers in EU face resentment racism and discrimination, not sympathyNew figures reveal dramatic increase in hate crimes against Polish people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly!--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE UPDATE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY INDEX TO 2014!--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)