Talk:Poland

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

I'm from Poland - (Polish) Jestem z Polski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.181.173 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1:
• Archive 2:
• Archive 3:

---

Homophobia

What about the rising homophobia in Poland? Fatlip90 23:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

1-Sign your comments.

2-What gives you the idea that it's rising?

3-If it is rising, what about it? JRWalko 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

chez bodes 2. New legislation, likened to the now scrapped section 28 introduced in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6596829.stm http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/politics/2005-1673.html

3. It's certainly worth mentioning. The government may be treading a grey area when it comes to EU anti-discrimination legislation. See above links. Fatlip90 23:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense and BS. It's a typical Factoid. Barry Kent 10:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of LGBT rights in Poland should be mentioned in the article. At the moment, this seems to be the single biggest social rights issue for which the country is known in the international media (and in Amnesty International reports), so it should be mentioned on notability grounds. Of course, the issue has to be dealt with objectively. It is obvious that official homophobia in Poland has risen, though less obvious what social attitudes are. I would say that in the past few months the situation may have eased, as can be seen by the successful Warsaw Pride a few days ago. Ronline ✉ 11:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the very concise nature of this article I don't think it belongs here. It should be noted in an article on Poland's politics or demographics but not here where the whole government gets two paragraphs. I am not saying it's not an important issue but keep it in perspective to the fact that Poland is still more tolerant than most of the world's countries where governments deny homosexuals even exist. Besides, what exactly would the statement say? I very much doubt Poland is more homophobic in 2007 than it was in 1987. JRWalko 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not a demographic one, though perhaps a political one. Interestingly, there is a link to the Feminism in Poland article under the Politics section. Maybe the same could be applied to the LGBT rights in Poland article. I agree with the part on perspective, but it's also important to note that Poland is among the main battlegrounds of the world when it comes to gay rights. Even though, on a world scale, we would say it is average, it has generated more gay rights debate and controversy than nearly any other country in the world in the past two years (for the record, I believe this is mostly unfair: Poland and Latvia are widely seen as the most problematic EU countries in gay rights, but other countries such as Bulgaria and Slovakia are not really even on the gay rights radar yet; extreme homophobia in Poland is more of a top-down, governmental thing). Ronline ✉ 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Poland becomes ultra-catholic country, polish gays are affraid not only that they lose their wokr, but even life, English The Guardian wrote about it (see section Homophobia in Poland)

It is not true and this information is wrongful for Poland. Gays dont affraid about theirs life. Homophopia is in Poland, that's right, but as rare event.

this information is true, gays in Poland are really afraid of they lifes, since ultra-nazi goverment raised some of polish gays were bitten by "unknown people", some were told to leave Poland if they want to stay alive (see LGBT_rights_in_Poland#Emigration)

if homophobia is mentioned be sure to link it to the Wikipedia article on homophobia, where, presumably, one will find scientific support for such a word.142.68.42.24 22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Has anyone else noticed that the Demographics and Culture sections are basically identical? What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.237 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I added some information to the Culture section. No major changes. --Thomaspca 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I added phones info

Telephones - mobile cellular: 25,3 million (Raport Telecom Team 2005)
Telephones - main lines in use: 12.5 million (Raport Telecom Team 2005)
source: http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1161177,10,item.html (in Polish)
The information CIA World Fact Book is often very outdated or simply ridiculous

Motto

There is no official motto. Neither in the Constitiution, nor in any other document. Please do not insert it again and again. Poszwa 02:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the motto not "Honor i Ojczyzna" (Honor and Fatherland)? I have this on many of my flags, both military and civilian.--Gpriest 15:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's not a national motto. "Honor i Ojczyzna" or "Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna" are slogans frequently featured on many (mostly military) banners and could be considered an (unofficial!) motto of the army, but not the state. Especially that the modern state is neutral when it comes to God's existence so it couldn't adopt such a motto anyway. Halibutt 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have cuted my changes until the end of discussion at polish wiki.MaLu 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from Poland and I wrote "God, Honour, Homeland" as motto. It is unofficial but believe me that it's always used as national motto. Poland was always catholic country and more than 90% of people in Poland are catholics, so word "God" isn't incorrect.

I've looked everywhere on the internet and I've found: Stand in your faith, For your freedom and ours, and Don't forget us. Are any of those right??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.246.160 (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no national motto. "God, Honour, Homeland" is definitely NOT "always used as national motto", because the country is neutral and such a motto is not defined in any law. Some people tend to use this as a slogan - mostly policians when the elections are near, but please note that a similar slogan "tak mi dopomóż Bóg" (a translation would be "so help me God") was not used by the former president Aleksander Kwaśniewski, after he got elected. Someone who writes that "90% of Polish population are catholic" is not a good source of any information on Poland as this claim is made on the basis of church statistics (it is very hard to become an apostate in Poland). "For your freedom" is probably a poor translation of "for your and our freedom" ("za wolność naszą i waszą") and was used during the Napoleonic era (e.g. when the Polish troops were send to Haiti by the French, where they slaughtered the Haitan rebels, who fought for their own freedom). Agameofchess (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The unofficial Polish motto is to be discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_mottos_of_Poland Agameofchess (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The most popular Polish web-portals

I removed this part because it is of no use to non-Polish-speaking readers and was constantly attracting spam links. Poszwa 13:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Halibutt 15:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Poland gdp is now around 1150 bilion zloty(gov.stat.pl), Rate of exchange for dollar is actually 2,28-2,30, so polish real gdp in dollars is 504,3. Polsih gdp (ppp) is in 2007 around 46500złoty so in dollars around 20300.

Poland's GDP =

Is Poland's GDP really $512.9 billion?

Yes, this is the 2005 GDP (PPP) value according to the International Monetary Fund. The estimation for 2006 is $546.5 billion. Here is the link:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/02/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2005&ED=2006&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=941-946-137-122-181-124-138-964-182-423-935-128-936-961-939-184-172-132-134-174-144-944-178-136-112&S=PPPWGT&CMP=0&x=80&y=8

History

• The history of the transition from "communism" to "democracy" is seriously flawed. It makes no mention of the fact that Solidarnosc had been an essentially different organization between its day as a radical labor movement in the early 1980s and when it won elections as a conservative, capitalist-inclined electoral force. Worse, it suggests that the shock therapy "during the early 1990s enabled the country to transform its economy into a robust market economy." In fact, it created enormous economic ruin and inequality (which is normal for a market economy, but not especially robust). Since the page is locked, I do not know how to fix these flaws.

• The "History" section of this article suffers from what I call the "exponential effect"--an increasing amount of space is devoted to events as the dicussion moves from Polish prehistory to the present. While it's true that we know more about recent events than past events, this is not an issue at this high level of detail. I think the section should be rewritten in a more uniform level of detail. I'll try to get around to it sometime if no one else does. Appleseed 17:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

is saying that poland was not controlled by jews but russia was controlled by jews for 2000 years very anti semitic it is probably vandalismBouse23 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• This horrible article does not mention one word about Polish collaberation with the Nazis in the Holocaust. Please refer to the book Neighbors!!!!! The article also doesn't mention that unlike any other nation in Europe the Holocaust continued in Poland even after Germany lost the war. Polish anti-semitism made possible genocide of Jews until at least 1950. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.27.83 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... why don't we mention about the collaboration of some Jews with the Nazis while we are at it, this happened as well. It doesn't matter who one was, what mattered was was he/she a good or a bad person, never mind the background. The Holocaust lasted during the war only and was run by the Nazi Germans, please do not spread those unfounded lies around. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and see this part of our history from a very specific point of view. Also - please sign your posts, show some respect to others discussing here. --Pitdog 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a lie. Don't know where you've read, don't really care. This is crap, especially when you consider that after IIWW Poland was under communist reign. What is more many Poles have helped the Jews during the Nazi occupation and circa 1/3 of the Israeli Yad Vashem (sp?) Institute medal receivees are from Poland. 212.76.37.152 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)prorok lebioda

• Nothing has been included about the declaration of Marshall Law in 1981! and Shock therpy caused many of the social problems that Poland sufferes from today whilst contributing to the formation of an elite corrupt class mainly composed of the ex-communists (CFRU) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.179.62.107 (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

fvbres

Recent 'President' Reverts

I cannot beleive how silly the recent reverts regarding the presidency have been. Kwasniewski will remain president until the end of the year when Kaczynski is sworn in. Kaczynski is the President (elect) until that time, and Kwasniewski is still the president. Encyclopedias are supposed to refect fact. - not fantasy. It seems obvious that the solution to this problem is to insert a line into the table to reflect that Kaczynski is President (elect) - (despite the fact that some may not like it). I'm not good with tables but I'll try to change it. If it doesn't work perhaps somebody with a mature approach to editing might want to make the change. Adz 12:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don’t think that adding ‘President-elect’ and 'Prime minister-designate' is necessary. This is a short and strict table and IMHO should only contain info about current officeholders.

--Myszodorn 15:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

why the map of border change after WWII shows Gdansk as the teritory which was a part of Germany? I thought it had been free town?

Vandalism

Well, I don't understand why some vandalism that I thought I'd reverted still persisted. Odd. Maybe I did click the wrong link. It's possible. But this is the second time this has happened. Oh well. I'll give the Wikipedia software the benefit of the doubt once more. --A bit iffy 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Geography

Could someone add a better map for this country? This seems to me to be a problem for most country and city entries throughout Wikipedia, there are no decent maps. The "administrative map" given here shows very few cities and no detail. Location maps for cities within Poland often show just a silhouette of the country with a dot giving an approximate location of the city. These lacks of detail make it difficult for anyone to get an idea on geography. DJProFusion

Since it is more diffucult to create a graphical image then to write text, we have fewer images then we would like. Feel free to create one or search for one that is available under open licencse (or ask owners of those which are not to change their license).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Llist of cities

I think the detailed list of 40+ cities is unnecessary and makes the article messy. Lets keep only the small table with the voivodships and their capitals and if someone wants to see a more complete list of cities, they can visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Poland

Any comments? MD

Just to clarify. Kaliningrad Oblast is NOT an enclave, its half-enclave, because it have a sea connection to Russia. It's a detail but it's really two diffrent things.

Not "half-enclave" but exclave Radomil talk 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

English City Names

Why are you using the Polish city forms in the English names, and reverting changes? I don't care for your blind Polish nationalism imposing things on the English language. Here is how I see it:

1, The English language lacks the special characters in use in the majority of those names.
2, The English language lacks the basic SOUNDS as in Szczecin, and we say it as 'Stettin'. English IS a Germanic language, you see.
3, I have never seen the Polish city forms used in English atlases, only German or English-modified German forms (IE, Dantsic).

So stop trying to impose your versions of city names on the English wiki. Antman 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

List:

Szczecin is pronounced 'Stettin' in English, and most Atlases use 'Stettin'.
Gdansk USED to be used as 'Danzig' in English, but after the Cold War we began to use Gdansk (no accent).
Wroclaw, we can't really make those sounds, most people I know who come from there who aren't Polish (German-ancestry or people referencing it) say Breslau.

We also don't use accented characters because our keyboards cannot easily make them. Antman 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well British Embassy in Warsaw and US Departament of State has different opinion about those names than You. I belive them. Radomil talk 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you even editing here; this is an English Wiki. Antman 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No arguments? Is it so painfull? Radomil talk 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I realise rationality may be misplaced here, but... Antman's argument that Standard German forms should be used, since English is a Germanic language, is so specious as to be frankly laughable; one point does not follow from the other. Suffice it to say that modern English doesn't even use the German forms for all German cities --- often it's anglicised French (Cologne for Köln, Vienna for Wien, Munich for München). As for the cities we're actually dealing with, I think it would be fairest to say that there are no English words for these cities, because people without some personal connection to them or the country they are in (unlike, say, Paris, Rome or even Warsaw) are unlikely to have even heard of them, much less know what to call them. There are two Polish cities which have clear, well-known English names: Warsaw and Cracow (and even the latter you see written more and more as "Kraków" nowadays). As for the rest, people who don't know anybody from the region will go by local usage, however hard it may be to pronounce. Incidentally, English speakers are perfectly capable of making every sound in the word "Szczecin" on its own, they're just not used to the spelling or order. Oh, and any claims along the lines of "most atlases use..." will be ignored without citations. ～J.K. 00:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No. It is more often "Krakow" than "Cracow", and more often "Cracow" than "Kraków", in English. But that's just part of a general getting away from changing K to C, in both personal names and place names, though nobody ever complains yet about noisy krikitts outside of Wikipedia. Both Cracow and Krakow deserve mention as English spellings; nothing is added by throwing in a Polish spelling. Krakov also has a fair amount of use, but Cracov and Krakóv are much rarer. Gene Nygaard 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this issue is resolved by the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. In the modern, post 1945, Szczecin is Szczecin, not Settin.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Questioning people's right to contribute to Wikipedia is not civil and doesn't help wikipedia. Anybody with any level of competency in English can, and should be encouraged, to contribute to the English Wikipedia. A diversity of sources provides a much richer diversity in information that can be contributed and shared. It also contributes to a greater number of perspectives. Apart from the fact that wikipedians in various parts of the world are able to contribute various types of information by virtue of the fact that they are located closer to alternative (non-English) information sources, and that they can translate those sources, wikipedians from non-English speaking backgrounds contribute to countering systemic bias, ethnocentrism, and consequently a less WP:POV Wikipedia. Wikipedians from various backgrounds are valued and are to be encouraged!

I don't support either side of nationalist disputes. I think they are embarrassing and there are often a simple NPOV solutions if only cool minds prevailed. It's unfortunate that on some issues it seems all too difficult for people to work together. I think it wouldn't hurt to read the WP:CIV and Wikipedia:Etiquette pages from time to time.

-- Adz 07:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Even many young Germans use the name Wroclaw instead of Breslau.

Xx236 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The translations of Polish province names into English! Good God! Where did we get these aberrations from? Cuiavian-Pomerania? Never heard of it in all my life! Let's just stick to the Polish names (minus the accented letters). Whatever next? The Boat's Voivodship or the Holy Cross Voivodship! It's like the Polish translator's passion for turning 'ul. Mickiewicza' into 'Mickiewicz Street'. Like one translates 'Bahnhofstrasse' into 'Bahnhof Street' or 'Rue de Paix' into 'Peace Road'. Or indeed 'Oxford Circus' into 'Cyrk Oksfordski' or 'Marlborough Street' into 'ul. Marlborough'a'

Michael Dembinski

Micheal, welcome to Wiki. You may want to create an account and raise this issue at our noticeboard. Also, note that there are the Holy Cross Mountains...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Piotr (the name is spelt 'Michael') I have signed up. I am keen to see the principle of reciprocity on Wikipedia. The Polish site does not attempt to translate British place names into Polish, other than London/Londyn. So why the attempts to translate Polish place names into English (other than Warszawa/Warsaw)?

(BTW I find it amusing that the very Poles who get upset by Australians' pronounciation of their highest peak as "Mount Koskee-usko" are also vehement that the northernmost stop on the Warsaw metro be pronounced "Plats Veelsona" rather than "Łylsona")

The names of Polish cities should remain as they are in Polish. Szczecin should remain as Szczecin. The term 'Stettin' is usually only found in older atlases and this is because of the Germanic connection - it should now be considered offensive to use the German name for this Polish city. The same obviously applies to Wrocław (Wroclaw, Breslau) and so on. I can, however, understand not using Polish characters because not all PCs are set up to show Central European characters but the correct Polish spelling should at least be put in brackets. Xania 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that capital city of Poland is Warsaw. Name should be use as it is in original language: Warszawa. Did you see italians call Rome a Rzym or Italy a Wlochy? If Antman cannot pronunounce Szczecin, it is his problem, we will not change name to make him happy. Jacek T. ( don't call me Jack, Altman ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.20 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It not is a real history of Poland. It is a sweet idyllic "syrup". What about polish serfdom?

"The citizens of Poland took pride in their ancient freedoms and parliamentary system, although the Szlachta monopolised most of the benefits. Since that time Poles have regarded freedom as their most important value. Poles often call themselves the nation of the free people."

Authors have overlooked that the most part of Poles since the middle of the fourteenth century were serfs. The serfdom was severe. Landowners gained almost unlimited ownership over serfs. The Polish expansion on the East, in ancient russian princedoms, carried the serfdom to the Ukrainians and Belorussians Ben-Velvel 13:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

read a bit before making comments. serfdom developed in second half odf XV and the begining of XVI century, while the countries (Poland and Lithuania) were bound already. Ukraininas and Belorussians were governed from Vilinus at that time.

Was Galich Rus' annexed by Poles or by Lithuanians in the 14th century? Also, I don't think that "The Polish expansion on the East, carried the serfdom to the Ukrainians and Belorussians." statement is correct, as Russian serfdom developed rather independently (the article cleary states The origins of serfdom in Russia are traced to Kievan Rus in the 11th century.). Besides, Serfdom came with feudalism, and spread through entire Europe, one nation carrying it to another, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In Kievan Rus' relations between the peasant and the landowner did not developed in the serfdom. There were only preconditions of strengthening of dependence of the peasant from the landowner. Then there was a destructive Mongol-Tatar invasion and as a result the serfdom in eastern Russia was generated in the beginning of 17th century only. However since Mongol-Tatar invasion the former western Russian princedoms went under rule of Poland and Lithuania and received the serfdom from Poland. In any case the medieval nation cannot be named the nation of the free people Ben-Velvel 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your specific points at the Talk:History of Poland. I do agree that the following fragment should be revised, as it is both POVed and unreferenced: Since that time Poles have regarded freedom as their most important value. Poles often call themselves the nation of the free people. I won't object to it's removal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Russian"????????

Xx236 12:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"went under rule of Poland and Lithuania and received the serfdom from Poland." Lithuania used to have its laws. When did Lithuania accept Polish laws regarding peasants? What was the name of the law? Xx236 13:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Polish National Government

Hello. I new user has just created Polish National Government. I cannot immediately verify whether or not the page is factual or has any merit. I notice that this new user has already been warned once today about alleged vandalism to a user page. I hope that someone here will check out the page. Please let me know if it should be deleted. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tnx. We added it to Portal:Poland/New article announcements. It is probably a good entry, if on a stub-level.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

read a bit before making comments. serfdom developed in the begining of XVI century, while the countries were bound already.

Mieszko I

Was Mieszko I only a prince his whole life or did he become a king later? Informationguy

AFAIK he was a prince only, it was his son Bolesław I Chrobry who was the first king of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mieszko I died shortly before his scheduled coronation.

Let's remove the History part

There is the text History of Poland. Why to keep an another text, containing errors - Russia (should be Rus or Halich) or Kazimierz Wielki. Xx236 12:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Every country article should have a history section. Correct the errors, instead of deleting the content.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very hard to manage two different coherent articles. Probably the only way is to make the article "History" the best possible and to write its shorter version for "Poland". Corrections make a text different but I'm not sure if better. Xx236 12:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Would it be possible to replace the pictures of Katowice with some nicer ones? The ones that are up now (all three of them!) really don't do the city any justice! MD 10:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There are more to chose from at Katowice, and note relevant picture categories both here and on Commons. Be bold and chose the ones you like - or go make some new photos :).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I put up a picture of Torun and changed the picture of Katowice with the reflection in the window (!) for a nicer one of the Spodek but someone reverted that and posted the old ugly pictures again! :( Come on: if you really want to include pictures of Katowice, why not some nicer ones? -- MD 12:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Spodek picture is much better. The one with reflection is pretty bad. Poszwa 17:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On a related sidenote, Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements#Images contains info on some Poland-related images which will soon be deleted, becaue uplodars didn't use image copyright tags or didn't link the images from any articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This picture situation is really getting out of hand. Is there any way to stop this nonsense, agree on a series of HIGH QUALITY NICE PICTURES and prevent users like the one that keeps putting up the picture with the reflection from sabotaging our article? -- MD 13:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused with the picture of the Third Reich flag put as a Polish flag... Is it intended or just vandalism? --Programming Hamster 18:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently something has to be done about Gagabrain because he put that 3rd reich flag here twice (just checked a few earlier revisions) - Programming Hamster 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Katowice photos

Any idea on how to handle these pictures ? This is not a picture gallery. The photos should be representative for the country. I don't think we need any photo from Katowice in this article, and definitely not 3 of them. Also it would be good to pay attention to the quality of the photos. --_Lysy^talk 19:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see one photo of Katowice - it's one of the major cities... and I was born there :) A nice picture of Spodek would probably be the best choice. Everything else should go to commons (remeber to add appopriate Category, like Category:Katowice, to the image, so it's not forgotten!).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But photo at teh begining desribed as "Highway DTS Katowice", was changed by A2 Higway photo which is IMHO better (not ideal, and waiting for succesor) as "highway". Then look at editions of LUCPOL and SZPANER (I suspect that this is this same user). LUCPOL is also known on pl:wiki for "actions" that could be called "Katowice or death!". I agree that we need here one good photo of Katowice. :) Radomil talk 23:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Katowice but I'm not quite sure if we need a photo of every major Polish city here. First let's think how many and what kind of pictures do we want to illustrate the article. I think something like 20 images would be fine for now, including maps, drawings etc. That would leave us more or less 15 photos. What should there be ? Sure some major cities both historic sights and modern centres, possibly some city landscape pictures featuring landmarks rather than focusing on individual objects. Then some countryside pictures, different landscapes, mountains, seaside, lakes, forests. A typical village architecture. Do not foget about the nature, which is one of the major assets of Poland. Do you agree ? Any ideas ? --_Lysy^talk 13:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think if there is no agreement which picture of Katowice to choose, I'd prefer having none. I think Spodek is acceptable but is not particularly nice and the blue one with the reflection is horrible. Poszwa 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The infamous pictures are back again!! Is there a way of blocking the IP of the person responsible for this vandalism?! --MD 14:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Dobra. Słuchajcie. Obserwując ostatnio artykuł o Polsce można wywnioskować tylko jedno. Najpierw było mało zdjęć. Później dołożone zostały 3 zdjęcia Katowic: jedno w kategorii o miastach (gdzie są zdjęcia rynku największych miast) i pozostałe 2 zdjęcia z wieżowcami w kategorii o ekonomii (obok zdjęć wieżowców w Warszawie). Później się nagle wszyscy obudzili i zaczeli tkać tam swoje zdjęcia kasując poprzednie!!! Trzeba pójść na ugodę. Sprawa jest następująca. Zdjęcie rynku w Katowicach może zostać tak jak inne zdjęcia rynku innych największych polskich miast. Jeśli chodzi o dział ekonomia to powinien znaleźć się tak zdjęcie Spodka. Te drugie zdjęcie Katowic (wieżowce nocą) można wycofać z artykułu (jeśli chcecie). I teraz druga sprawa. Czy warto zostawiać zdjęcia jakiś wioch? Przecież to wstyd dla Polski. Polska będzie się kojarzyła z wioskami, a nie z cywilizowaną Europą. Zastanówcie się nad tym. I jeszcze dajcie tylko zdjęcie bociana... do artykułu o Polsce. Hehehe. Pozdrawiam --LUCPOL 13:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Use English. This is English language wikipedia, not Polish, and most of users do not udnerstand our language
2. Stop using sock-puppets to avoid 3RR violation
3. Give your propositins of photos bleow

Radomil talk 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Na PL.Wiki nieraz teksty po rusku idą, a tu narzekają na Polski. Hehehe

Use English on talk pages - that's important. That said, I don't see what's the fuss about L/S actions is about, and some who call it vandalism seem to behaving pretty uncivil. I do think that 1 photo of Katowice (rynek to fit the series, as LUCPOL noted) is in order. To answer Lysy - my rule of thumb is that a picture can be added to the article as long as therere is one picture per line and the lenght of the 'picture' block is no longer then the text - so yes, we should hopefuly have a pic of every major Polish town, and some other things. Spodek is nice, but I don't see it's relevance to economy. If anything, it should have some factory or something more 'economic'. Finally, as for 'village' addition, see my comment here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't call him "a troll", I only wanted to take greater attention on him from our Polish sub-community. One user that push his POV too hard, using for this purpose sock-puppets can destroy this delicate balance between different POV on Cetral Europe related articles. As for length of "picture block" - it's proportions with text depends on display resolution of Your monitor... Radomil talk 23:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Photos

So let's try to make list of those 15 photos: Radomil talk 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Warsaw old town (as rebuilt from ruins )
2. Warsaw modern city centre (something like File:Wawka2.jpg, but maybe better)
3. Cracow (old town or the castle, or both, like here: File:Krakau05.jpg but better quality and license)
4. Poznań (town hall) or
5. Wrocław (town hall or Ostrów Tumski)
6. Katowice (or other town of GOP) or Łódź ?
7. Gdańsk (the crane, Neptune fountain or the cathedral ?)
8. Village1 (maybe Mazowsze architecture or landscape, or typical Polish manor house ?)
9. Village2 (maybe Podhale or Beskidy architecture ?) or maybe Biskupin? Radomil talk 21:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

   it could be difficult to get a good picture of Biskupin, that would not look like a cheap reconstruction. --_Lysy^talk 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

10. Small town (e.g. Lanckorona , Kazimierz  ?)
11. Baltic shore (Słowiński or or Woliński National Park?)
12. Lake districts (Masuria or other)
13. Plains (Masovia, Southern Greater Poland, Lower Silesia, maybe with view on Warta , Odra or Vistula ?)
14. Mountains (Tatra ?, there are many photos of those mountains)
15. Nature (White Stork , horses, wisent , Puszcza Białowieska ?)
16. A castle (Ogrodzieniec , Malbork , Książ, Nowy Wiśnicz ?)

    A couple of things to consider:

    • Polish or foreign (e.g. Teutonic) ?
    • original/rebuilt/ruins ?
    • medieval ?

    Maybe other element of material culture? or something like that?

Discussion

• Do we allow "portrait" form, or "landscape" only ? --_Lysy^talk 21:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• quality ?
• license ?
• maybe try to make them into featured pics, first ?

I'd suggest adding Łódź pic, if we want to have most major cities covered. Kraków is the most famous Polish city abroad, probably as famous as Warsaw, so I'd suggest 2 pics of it (especially if we want to pics of Wawa). In the case of Wawa, I'd suggest one of the pics to show the 'modern' city - the curren selection of castle+old town would be more suitable for Cracow, not our capital. Finally, on a related note: it's nice to see some activity here, and photos contribs are always welcome - please remember to use image copyright tags and put the image into Category:Images of Poland (or Category:Poland on commons), or into more specific city/region related subcategories.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Łódź is of course very important but not many pictureque (similarly to Katowice). What would be the representative picture of Łódź ? Piotrkowska ? On a photo it looks just like a street, not very intereting. Two pics for Warsaw would be justified if they are very different, therefore I suggested one of the old town and one of the modern centre. As for Cracow, I know it is an important city, but what different pictures again ? I guess both would be of the old town ? I think they should be rather exposing some diversity, therefore I suggested only one. --_Lysy^talk 04:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Łódź, but I am sure we can find something nice. Kraków gives us lots of choice - I'd suggest Rynek/Sukiennice, and Wawel. Wieliczka and Oświęcim are popular turist atractions that we may consider as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Oświęcim etc. This is not supposed to be a tourist guide, but a selection of pictures giving an impression of multiple aspects of the country. Ideally, the pictures should be not only good technically, but interesting, "eye-catching" and typical or characteristic for the country. I think that photos of interiors are appropriate for individual articles but not for this one, which is obviously a general one. Therefore it would be difficult to have a decent picture of Wieliczka. As for Oświęcim, hmm, is this a typical picture of Poland or what ? As for Wawel and Rynek, they are not very different thematically, in that they both would both be pictures of historic buildings. Maybe, if we have really good and appalling pictures of both ... I don't know. --_Lysy^talk 06:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As for Łódź, any picture of any palace at Piotrkowska would do. Poznański's palace (or here, with a rag of factory visible), Heinz's, Schweikert's, Jarisch' or the small Poznański's perhaps? Alternatively we could add some pretty industrial pic as it is also quite nice. Grohman's factory comes to mind... Halibutt 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, IMO GOP it is important part of Poland (mayby not from Tourstiv POV, but it is). Perhaps e should put Łódź picture in place of one of "Village photos"? Radomil talk 23:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

need

time line

There already is a Timeline of Polish history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There should be more pictures on this page...

In total, there are around 91,000 scientists in Poland today.

I believe that the Polish word "uczony" cannot be translated as "scientist", because "science" means "nauki scisłe". Xx236 11:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What about social scientists then?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A list of Poles

How about a list of Polish Americans, I would like to include my Wife randazzo562-28-06

Well, is your wife famous? We can't add all Polish-Americans, there are probably several million.Cameron Nedland 18:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Large credits?

"and the government had large credits" - does it sound OK? I mean, it's probably supposed to mean that the Gierek's government took large loans (which they did). "Credit" is ambiguous IMHO but I'd rather some native speaker spoke out. Zbihniew 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Debts, perhaps, will be the best solution?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

why it is not mentioned that Reymont has got Nobel prize? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.19.137 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2007

It may not have been added by other people. Feel free to add it if it can be confirmed. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Radio Maryja/Corrupt Church

Reported by the BBC, the church has abused their power. Churches are constantly being built, and priest buy luxury cars, while Poland suffers extreme poverty. THe Government has recently been criticized by the E.U. for their extremist religious views.

Certainly Radio Maryja deserves its own article. Whether it's important enough to be linked from this article, though, I am not sure. Btw, if BBC reported something, could you give us the link?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Separation of Church and state

The Polish government is a fundamentally catholic. The church has large say in affairs within the nation. The government forces children from as early as kindergarten (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/45622.stm) (as signed with the Vatican) to have Christian classes (in Public, state funded schools). But sectarianism is not the only issue.

Clarification - it is true that "religion" (in fact Christian clases) is thought in public schools but is not mendatory. One can opt-out from it. There is no "formal" pressure to attend such clases but for sure there may be "social" pressure to attend. (I did not have any citations if such "social" pressure is present or how widespread it is but personally I did not experienced such pressure but for me it was 4 last years of primary school and whole secondary school and I live in large city which may be significant factor ...). 83.25.80.206 22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Corrupt Church

The Polish church has been many time criticized corruption (although some can be jailed for this, as under polish law a person who criticizes the government can be jailed, and as the Polish church holds a tight grip on government, a person who criticizes the church may be jailed). Many Poles probably know a lot of the corruption allegations. One is that the church does not have to pay VAT (taxes). In the early 90s the church would purchase large trucks of beer, and other suppliers for large events and then sell them to make large profits. The church has also been criticized for its extravagance. In a nation were the unemployment/poverty I very large, priest/bishops buy themselves expensive cars, build many church, and build their living quarters with supplies such as marble. The church has also been involved with many enterprises and profiting from the no tax. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/363004.stm).

1) there is no law that sends to jail for cricicizing goverment, but there is controversial law that make defamation of certain people (incuding head of the state and heads of foreign states !!!) general offence pursued by public presecutor but it is rearly used and AFAIK no one have actually gone to jail because of it. 2) - AFAIK there is no law sentensing for jail for criticizing church. Mayby you are mentioning "offence against religious feelings" (this is direct translation of "obraza uczuc religijnych") law? The most notably case that i know (and basicaly only case) when it was used was in artist Dorota Nieznalska case - as an "artistic instalation" she put photo of man's penis on cross ... She was convicted for (i think ...) 2 years in probation (so she did not go to jail + there is appeal going on) 3) - the "thigh grip" you are talking about if one can say is real came from two sources - concordad (agreement between Poland and Vatican state) giving church relatively big priviliges (but still whitin european standards IMHO) and soft power over politicians (on the left wing - no one oppose church not to offend voters and on the right wing people actually support view of church and church hierarchy is natural political allay and role model -> but again it is not that simple as for example PiS and LPR follow o. Rydzyk not bp. Pieronek. 83.25.80.206 22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There is much speculation that the Polish church is trying to become a political power, rather than a religious institution.

I do not know if one can say about church as a whole but some part of it have such ambitions (like o. Rydzyk) 83.25.80.206 22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism

In 2000, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/692586.stm) the polish parliament wanted to implement a bill that banned all pornography (even soft core), with penalties of jail term up to two years (which would be the toughest law in Europe). Kwasniewski, President at the time, did not ratify it.

The church is highly vocal on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage. They have often persuaded the public to vote against candidates that support these issues (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3631707.stm). The church has criticized the EU for not allowing “God” to be mentioned in the constitution, having un-Christian morals, and not allowing the church to play a larger role in European affairs.

Abortion laws in Poland are the strictest of any nation in Poland. There has been a recent case where a women, that has three children already, would go blind if the abortion is not allowed. The government has not allowed her to go ahead with the abortion. This has sparked much criticism in the EU. The women receives state welfare, and is disabled as well. She would not be capable of supporting the next child as she is single (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4691192.stm).

The nation has seen a rise in radicalism as well (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1565094.stm), both in government and in the public. With the party “league of Christian families”, there have been many “skin head” groups that have risen.

Please do remember that there were always conservative (+ some rasist and xenophobes) people in Poland. For some time their voice was completely unrepresented and now is IMHO is overrepresented. After some time (probably) everything will go back to normal (after new elections?). Please do remember that current economic situation (uneployment and transitions of the last 16 years) also fuels conservative attitude but you are right that it seems that church fits into the trend of rise of the conservatism 83.25.80.206 22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the goverment is not responsible for everything that is happening in Poland. Nor is the Church. (Yes, there are some municipal authorities, NGOs, political parties, pressure groups, media, trade unions, and even individuals that exist in Poland).

Second, The Church is not a monolith. There are some priests that support Radio Maryja, but many other oppose it (including the primat and many bishops). You can be a catholic and disagree with RM policies.

There is a no "rise in skinhead groups". This is plain rubbish. The "Ligue of Polish Families" (which - BTW - is nationalistic, but quite moderately) support in the poles is currently at about 2 or 3%.

The only person sentenced for "offending religious feelings" was Dorota Nieznalska. She was sentenced to 6 months of community work (under appeal). The only person sentenced fot "offending a foreign head of state" was Jerzy Urban. He was sentenced to pay a fine.

The Church does have some tax privileges - as it does in many other states - including the US.

Some priests in the 1990s (not "The Church") have in fact discouraged their congregations of voting for certain candidates . But the effect was completly the opposite. So they ceased doing so.

The abortion laws in Poland are not "the strictest" that you can imagine. In the case of Alicja Tysiac (the woman that was supposed to go blind unless she had an abortion - actually it did not happened) it was her doctor (not "the goverment") that had not allowed an abortion.

P.S. The above quotations from the BBC are "a little" outdated. Furthermore, BBC is vary poorly informed about polish politics. --Barry Kent 00:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Radio Maryja

This radio station (which has a TV program as well) has come across much critics, even sometimes from the catholic church. It is blamed for fueling anti-Semitism, and xenophobic anger (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2758795.stm). The station has approximately 6 million listeners in Poland alone. -- GPRIEST --Gpriest 14:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Area of Poland

The correct territory of Poland: 322575 km²
include:

• land area (including inland waters: rivers and lakes) – 311889 km²
• territorial sea (internal sea watres) – 8682 km²

The total area of the country according to the administrative division amounts to 312683 km² and includes a land area (including inland waters) of 311889 km² as well as a part of internal sea waters — 794 km², i.e.: Wisła Bay, including ports, Szczecin Bay, including: Lake Nowowarpieńskie, Lake Wicko Wielkie, Kamieński Bay and ports as well as Gulf of Gdańsk ports and border ports.
Source: CONCISE STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF POLAND 2006
Aotearoa from Poland 22:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia Encarta 2006 (and all earlier versions), the total land area of Poland is 312,684 sq km (120,728 sq mi). I think that Encarta is very good in gathering correct data and it is very important to use an internationally verifiable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.65.82 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Central Statistical Office of Poland [1] the total land area of Poland is 312685 km². This is the most reliable source.--Thomaspca 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the reference [2] to the intro section. --Thomaspca 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The area of Poland is 312,685 km². There is no any Polish Law that states otherwise. This is factual data and no law can change it. According to the Central Statistical Office in Poland (See References) the total land are of Poland is 312,685 km². The text in bold below is copied directly from CONCISE STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF POLAND 2005 - PAGE 25 (Polish): "Powierzchnia ogólna kraju przyjęta według podziału administracyjnego wynosi 312685 km² i obejmuje obszar lądowy (łącznie z wodami śródlądowymi) - 311904 km² oraz część morskich wód wewnętrznych - 781 km²". So, the area including all inland waters (311904 km²/land/rivers/lakes + 781 km²/internal-sea-waters) is 312685 km² but not 322577 km²!

• Don't change information if you havn't got correct sources. If you look on Polish Wikipedia site pl:Polska, or on CONCISE STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF POLAND 2006 publised by Central Statistical Office, page 25 (see website: [3] - fool yearbook in PDF) you can find that area of Poland is 322,575 km² Aotearoa from Poland 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I see that User:Aotearoa / User talk:Aotearoa from Poland / User:Aotearoa from Poland continues to vandalize the English version of the introduction section of POLAND. The changes that he makes do not make any sense, they confuse people, and they do not look good! I redesigned the Introduction part and the Culture section of POLAND and now they still look good but I am not sure for how long the sections will stay that way. Unfortunately, due to the constant vandalism by User:Aotearoa from Poland and others, I decided that all of the improvements are not worth my valuable time that is why I wont do them anymore! --Thomaspca 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  So, in my opinion, edition by Thomaspca should be classified as vandalization. I have given actual and official sources in support my editions. Thomaspca has reverted my edition without any logical substantiations – he has changed because he “know better”. I see that Thomaspca is new user, and maybe he don’t know rules of Wikipedia. Aotearoa from Poland 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the total area of Polnad is 312,685 sq km => Link: [4]

Stop Changing the Land Area of POLAND

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the total area of Polnad is 312,685 sq km => Link: [5]

I agree with someone who posted the area of 312685 sq km earlier today. I went to see both sources mentioned by you User:Aotearoa and User talk:Aotearoa from Poland and User:Aotearoa from Poland as well as the TABLICE by Central Statistical Office of Poland (see references; Page 1)) and I have to conclude that we should consider the land are of Poland as 312685 sq km! Did you ever see any country's area posted in any media that would include external sea or ocean area! Please take a look around the internet and you will never see such things posted anywhere! Even though the area of Poland including the external sea is 322575 sq km, the land area including inland sea area in only 312685 sq km and this number should be posted to not confuse other users! Please come to Talk:Poland section to discuss this further. Once again, please do not confuse readers with your version of information (322575 sq km). The Central Statistical Office posted the total land area of POLAND on many of their documents as 312685 sq km. So, please stop damaging my work! Do not change the land area with your info! The area posted now, 312685 sq km, is the correct total land area referenced here by 3 sources and there are many more sources to support this fact out there! Thanks! --Thomaspca 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

322575 sq km is area of territory of Poland - land area (311 889 sq km) + internal waters (area of Gulf of Gdańsk, Gulf of Szczeciń and some harbours - 2004 sq km) + territorial sea (8682 sq km). 312683 sq km is administrative area of Poland (area of administrative divisions) - land area (311 889 sq km) + part of internal waters (794 sq km). So, if you need corret area of Poland, you must know witch are you want. If you want land area of Poland (corresponding to others country's area) - the correct value is 311889 sq km. But if you want area of land and internal waters - value is 313893 sq km. Administrative area (312683 sq km) is only statistic area and don't correpond with ares of others countries sown in Wikipedia. In remark: there are new values of area of land and area of internal waters in new official ststistic yearbook (by Central Statistical Office) - area was changed after new surveys by Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography. Aotearoa from Poland 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

PAX. Aotearoa is definitely right - we must know what we want. And what is enwiki standard for this? Total areas are included, covering land and inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, rivers). Marine internal waters, territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones are not included. See List of countries and outlying territories by total area, the areas are (and should be kept) consistent with this article. So the correct value here is 311889+794=312683. We may add info about teritorial waters somewhere with an explicit explanation, but it is evident that the "oficial area" should be set to 312683. --Beaumont (@) 12:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the 312685 standard has been accepted in other ecyclopedias: Britannica [6] or Polish PWN [7] (rounded). --Beaumont (@) 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote that “Total areas are included, covering land and inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, rivers). Marine internal waters, territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones are not included”. But administrative area of Poland include same of marine internal waters (39,6% of Polish internal waters (794 km²), i.e. Zalew Szczeciński and Zalew Wiślany; total area of Polish internal waters is 2004 km²). In my opinion this is a problem, because administrative area of Poland (312 685 km²) doesn’t correspond with areas of other countries (i.e. only land areas). And administrative area of Poland isn’t “official area” – it is just statistic area of Polish communes (see at Polish Wikipedia pl:Powierzchnia Polski). Aotearoa from Poland 17:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not just a statistical number. There are two issues to consider.

• The point is that your source defines explicitely the coast line. And according to this some waters are inland waters. This should be taken into account (and in the source you have detailed explanation what kind of waters is taken into accout: lakes, ports, rivers are a great part of it). Then you arrive at the number I have indicated.
• The problem is that we deal with a primary source, which is not recommended. Actually, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research (see WP:RS). IMHO, you isert your OR - the way you understand the primary source. If I objected on the same basis, this would be no better. But we are supposed to use secondary sources or tertiary sources. Another relevant quotation from WP:RS: Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. And virtually all secondary and tertiary sources give 312685, some links above (It is reasonable to correct it slightly according to the newest stat. survey). Now, in my version everything is consistent - the natural interpretaion of the primary source and what we see in the sencondary/teritiary sources.

I hope this clearly justifies the number (and some corrections that I make to the article). Best regards, --Beaumont (@) 13:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I completely agree with Beaumont and Thomaspca! Unfortunately, Aotearoa reads too much into his sources, which also state that the total area of Poland including internal waters is 312685 sq km. As Beaumont said (and I completely agree), there are many other sources that cite the area of Poland as 312685 sq km! Why Wikipedia should be differrent from other well known sources? This will make users feel as there are many errors at Wiki! I vote for the area of Poland as 312685 sq km!

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the total area of Polnad is 312,685 sq km => Link: [8]

It looks like this can of worms has been reopened, just read that Poland's area will now expand as a result of the Czech Republic returning some land because of border adjustment. [9] Good luck to anybody attempting to figure out what the area is now. JRWalko 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Economy

Is not the agricultural sector just 10% of the economy (and thus a problem)? This should be noted in the sentence about agriculture. Also, the figures from this article might be useful: http://www.ce-review.org/01/19/cave19.html --Vegalabs 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Due to continual vandalization, effective December 7, 2007, "Poland" has been granted semi-protection for 1 month. Also, a user has been blocked. Nihil novi (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unit sqkm

I just wanted to let everyone know that there exists a conversion template: Template:Unit sqkm for all those ugly-looking X km² (Y sq mi) mentions that everyone seems to be so fond of. Here's the basic usage:

{{unit sqkm|SQUARE KILOMETERS|PRECISION}}

For example: {{unit sqkm|400|2}} produces:

Template:Unit sqkm

You can also have it link to square kilometre and square mile; {{unit sqkm|4000|0|lk=on}} produces:

Template:Unit sqkm

See also: Template:Unit m (for meter <=> foot) → ɧʒЖχ (ГДĽК • КОИГЯІВ) 08:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Geography

Poland’s territory extends across the ocean and five geographical regions.

This has been in for days and I can't fix it. If you do semi-protection, you must proof read the whole thing.

Some statistics office's categorization

I just came across this article by accident, but I think the remark about some statistics office considering Poland to be part of Eastern Europe - it's in the very first intro sentence - makes this sentence awkward to read. Plus it does not seem relevant at all. Even if that statistics offfice happens to be part of the UN, it does not give any indication that it's categorization is any more relevant or binding than the code number (616) it assigns to Poland. I wanted to delete the remark straight away, but then I read the comment that asked me to discuss the matter first. Yaan (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GDP (PPP) per capita is 20 000 USD? SINCE WHEN?

According to CIA Factbook and IMF Poland has never reached 20 000 per capita GDP (PPP). I wonder how did it make up from 16 700 to 20 080? Strange a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.61.120.154 (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Percentage of Poles

I grouped the "Demographics" and "Ethnicity and Religion" sections together, since it made little sense for them to be apart, and reworded some sentences in them. But I did not know what to do with the two conflicting statistics on the percentage of ethnic Polish people in Poland - one sentence claims that it is 96.74%, while another claims that it is 99.3%. I presume these come from separate censuses, but it's not clear which one is the more current. Whichever one it is, that one should be retained and the other one deleted. Funnyhat (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"baptized"

I know this will get me in trouble with some of our numerous Polish friends, but in English it sounds very odd to say "the first Polish state was baptized in 966." In English, 'to baptize' always refers to an individual human being, never to a country. In English, it sounds almost comical — as if an entire country could step up to the baptismal font or down into the river.

Okay, so there's an English figure of speech, "baptism of fire," referring to an entity's first exposure to action — such a a military unit's first experience with combat. That doesn't have any bearing on the observation above.

Generally historical articles say something like, "XXX was first mentioned in the historical record in ...," or "The origin of XXX is thought to date from ...."

Sca (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at rephrasing the offending sentence. --Kotniski (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this reads much better in English. But it still strikes me as odd to begin the history of the country/nation with the first ruler to be baptized. Was there a 'Poland' before that date? Who were the 'Polans'? Is this pre-Christian history too shrouded in early-medieval obscurity to explain it in a more linear fashion? I note that the article on German history begins with the pre-history of the Germanic tribes. The Lithuania history article starts with the first mention of said country/duchy in recorded history, centuries before its Christianization.

Sca (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See also: baptism of Poland --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Photos are awful. Why nobody put here Krakow, Gdansk, Zamosc, Torun... or Morskie Oko pictures? Wisents and white storks are strictly boring and symblise nothing. Compare it to i.e. Slovakia page. IlluminatiX (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo

I'm resuming with the inclusion of independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that have recgonised it. Bardhylius (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)