Jump to content

Talk:Poland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.31.79.145 (talk) at 02:54, 3 June 2014 (→‎Thought about the WWII section and enigma: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article

Foreign Politicians

Many country pages (e.g. Uruguay, Egypt, Poland, Bulgaria, Mexico, North Korea) have images of the same foreign politicians e.g. Obama, Bush, Medvedev, Hillary Clinton, Putin, John Kerry etc present. I'm proposing such images should be moved to relevant US- or Russia- relations pages. For example it is more suitable to have two images of John Kerry on a page about US-Egypt relations than on the Egypt page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a relevant page for such a discussion - I don't see such an article here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current picture shows two Polish officials. At least one should be an eminent foreign politician, Russian, United States, or some other. Student7 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from showing bias

Whether Poland is in Central Europe or not is a debatable topic. There are many different POVs regarding this. Claiming that Poland is a Central European country, and stating it as a fact in the very first sentence of the article shows bias and suggests a political agenda. This violates Wikipedia's policy of writing from a neutral point of view. Thus I have modified the article appropriately.

Regards,

Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central/Eastern edit war

A few days ago I posted the following on this talk page: "Whether Poland is in Central Europe or not is a debatable topic. There are many different POVs regarding this. Claiming that Poland is a Central European country, and stating it as a fact in the very first sentence of the article shows bias and suggests a political agenda. This violates Wikipedia's policy of writing from a neutral point of view. Thus I have modified the article appropriately." My edit simply changed the first sentence to say that Poland is a European country, rather than in Central Europe.

No one seemed to have a problem with this until the user Powetranz came along and began reverting my edits. Since then, I've changed the content of the article to say that Poland is in East-Central Europe since this is the most accurate geographical categorization of Poland, and one that does not succumb to the bias and political agenda that come with the terms Eastern Europe or Central Europe. In theory, it should also satisfy both sides of the East vs Central argument as it mentions both. Unfortunately, Powertranz continued to revert this - determined to preserve his point of view in the very first sentence of the article.

I do not wish to continue this edit war with him (he has also been doing a similar thing on another article), so I'd appreciate it if someone with authority could step in, assess the situation fairly and take the appropriate course of action.

Regards,

Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing political in calling Poland a Central European country. That's a question of cultural identity I guess.-- Bosyantek (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most western (English) maps say "central Europe" as seen here. This is also used for travel guides as seen here or here. However when looking at history or political science books you are correct that "East Central Europe" is the term used to be more specific (the most famous is the Rothschild book that has maps Joseph Rothschild (1974). East Central Europe Between the Two World Wars. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-80364-7.). That said your edit is neutral and people can see themselves where its located. -- Moxy (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all the respect:) Rothschild's book refers to the interwar period, when Polish borders were different (much more eastward oriented). Anyway, the point is, that the term Central European describes the situation after 1989, when the Iron Curtain fell. Since than, Poland (plus other countries) is no longer part of the Eastern Block, thank God. -- Bosyantek (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, you see, that's part of the problem. The cultural and economical differences between what is considered East, West or Centre still exist - even if to a much lesser extent than they did during the times of the Iron Curtain. Whether this is good or bad is debatable, however that does not change the fact that these differences still exist. As for geography, the concept of a Central Europe is quite pointless to begin with. The centre is just a point that is used to describe what it located around it (e.g. north, east, south, west). Moreover, it is hard to decide where it is; people cannot agree on where Europe starts and ends, let alone where the centre is. Nevertheless, if we wish to remain neutral and go by geographical calculations only - then most of the points proposed, even those that land in Poland, usually place the larger chunk of the country to the east. Thus, it seems most appropriate to call it East-Central Europe.
Also, I would argue that it is not neutral to call Poland a Central European country. This is very popular among Polish businesses nowadays, as they would rather be associated with an economic power like Germany rather than the culturally closer Ukraine (for example). It is also widespread among Polish politicians, because they seek to have closer ties with Western European countries rather than those in Eastern Europe. Thus, the most neutral way to categorize Poland is simply East-Central Europe. It is also more specific. On the other hand, if you find that East-Central Europe carries more political connotations that Central or Eastern Europe does - then perhaps the best way of settling this would be to say that Poland is simply a European country? After all, the map is there so readers can see where Poland is on it.
Anyway, I am glad to see that there are others who are keen to discuss this, unlike Powertranz. I look forward to your replies. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's political science I'm afraid, everything is debatable. Things are happening, someone can see the pattern, writes a book about it. Someone else reads the book and writes an article "yes, but..." Because nothing can be described mathematically, there's no regularity and no axiom (certainty). Only thing you can't do is to confuse fact with opinion. Even if there is an aspiration as you say (in calling Poland Central European), that's an indicator (premise, circumstance) of growing identity (not the only one, and not the most important also). --Bosyantek (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I accept that there is a growing identity of Central Europeans. However, there are also plenty of people in Poland (and elsewhere) who would identify as Eastern European - heck, there are some Poles who would even say they're Western European - and others who refuse to be categorized. Moreover, the case with Poland is unique in that it is geographically fairly close to multiple calculations of the centre and not far in any direction. Thus there are various opinions as to which part it should belong to even among international organizations. So why should the very first sentence of the article about Poland be biased towards the view that this country is in Central Europe?
East-Central is geographically the most accurate category for Poland, as I have stated earlier. Therefore it is also the most neutral, as it does not have the connotations of the other categories. Furthermore, usage of the term "Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia" (East-Central Europe) among Poles is becoming more and more popular, often used by both sides of the West/Central/East argument. Is this not the ideal choice out of the ones available in this case? -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the geographical locations of many European countries are described with more detail in their Wikipedia articles. On Wikipedia it is stated that: the United Kingdom is "located off the north-western coast of continental Europe", not just in Northern Europe; many countries (such as Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, etc.) could be classified as either Eastern Europe or Southern Europe, so their Wikipedia articles appropriately use the term Southeastern Europe instead; yet Poland, as the easternmost of the (according to many, but not all points of view) "central" countries of Europe, is just stated to be in Central Europe. It doesn't seem right that an encyclopedia uses people's definitions of what is where, rather than the actual geographical location. Regardless, I think my argument is strong and links closely with Wikipedia's rule of NPOV. I hope we can come to an agreement soon. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, if everyone no longer wishes to discuss this and you've finally accepted my arguments then I am glad... just please help me with those who keep reverting my edit as this is getting ridiculous. I didn't know that the English Wikipedia had a "Polish Police" to ensure that everything reflects a businessman's point of view. However, I am glad you are not one of them and discussed this with me. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion no one is convinced. Again, please take a look at this and this and you will see that facts evaluation is against Wikipedia's policy. -- Bosyantek (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Only three people are involved in this discussion and Moxy clearly stated my edit is neutral, as well as saying that "East Central Europe is the term used to be more specific". Only you of us three seem to have a problem with this. However, so far you have not provided many arguments to support your stance on this matter, whereas I've provided plenty of in-depth explanations and that is something I believe we can both accept, is it not (whether you personally agree with me or not)? Also, you've referred me to these pages in order to make it appear as though I've broken the rules of Wikipedia, but aren't you breaking them by accepting one statement as fact (in an already controversial topic)? -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A generalized statement of the problem is that most people can agree on the extremities, East, West, North and South, few people can agree on "Central." I've been on another talk page where "central" was an issue, never really satisfactorily resolved. Probably best to avoid unless (uh) central to the issue of Poland. I don't think it really is, except, as one editor pointed out, political "pushing." A good reason to avoid it's use. Student7 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In an article published in the 1980s, Dave Barry observed, "...I always thought of vampires as evil, uncooperative persons of Central European descent who never even file income tax returns..." Poland seems to be a bit further north for this remark to apply. And given the nature of this remark, who would want to be in Central Europe anyway? Of course, Mr. Barry is perhaps more of a reliable source on vampires than on geography. So there's that. Student7 (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Hahaha, thank you for lightening up the mood around here. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting fact I'd like to point out (one that would fit within my fourth post on here) is that Germany - one of the countries that have been known for pushing the idea of a Central Europe so much - is categorized on this Wikipedia as a "western-central" European country in the first sentence of its article... why are you so reluctant to accept Poland as a country in East-Central Europe? With so many arguments for this, many of which I've listed here earlier, the reason as to why any Wikipedian would refuse just escapes me. If you have some sort of personal stake in this then I respect that, but it shouldn't interfere with the NPOV rule. -- Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If all of the arguments I have posted earlier (and the Wikipedians who have expressed acceptance and/or support of them) aren't enough, here is a list of notable sources - with links provided where possible - that describe Poland as being in East-Central Europe:
As you can see, all of these sources have some degree of notability and some are also from Poland. The concept of East-Central Europe is not alien... it has existed for many years, both within and outside of Poland, and I believe it is the most neutral (and practically the only) form of categorization that can serve as some kind of compromise between Central Europe/Eastern Europe. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at the recent history of this page, it looks like someone is really determined to be a prick about this... that means I'm obviously doing something right. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical midpoint of Europe - only one midpoint is situated in Germany, west to Poland, so Poland may be seen as "Eastern" to Western Europeans but geometrically it is situated in the Central or Western Europe.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated numerous times earlier: the geographical midpoint of Europe varies on who calculates it, the methods used, their agenda and where they believe Europe starts and ends. You'll find that many of the calculations that claim the point lies in Poland were carried out by Poles - everyone likes to be in the centre of attention. I don't think those are good sources for an encyclopedia (unless when used to express a specific point of view). Moreover, there is not just one point in Germany... there are many different theories placing the midpoint in various countries, so it is pointless to go off that as it is impossible to reach consensus and remain reasonably neutral. Even the article you linked to offers many more points of view than you claim. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop using Polish grammar when you post your replies? The language of this Wikipedia's edition is supposed to be English. Thanks in advance --Bosyantek (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by Polish grammar? I'm using English and I don't see what the problem is. You should understand that it is difficult to write correctly in English when it isn't your first language, since you are a Pole too. Besides, I really don't see any significant mistakes in my replies. If you're referring to the letter ę in my username, then I can't do anything about that as it is in my username and will always be a part of the generated signature... and I don't see what the problem is with that either. Anyway, how is this even related to the argument? It sounds more like something that belongs on a personal talk page rather than here. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article quotes one midpoint in the West, in Modern day Czech Republic/Bavaria. EU isn't Europe.Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many more calculations exist than the ones talked about in the article; Wikipedia is not the database of everything on this planet and it is still very young and lacking in information. But ok, let's say we'll only use the points shown in, for example, File:Centre of Europe.jpg. We will remove Kleinmaischeid from the options as that was indeed chosen as the midpoint of the EU... we are then still left with 3 out of 6 points that place the larger chunk of Poland to the east. This means we're back where we started and it doesn't really help us at all. Moreover - are Turkey, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Cyprus, Azerbaijan and Greenland in Europe? Are we going by geographical, political, cultural definitions or a combination (which one would be the most valid and why)? Are we to include the various islands that are far from the continent, but still under the control of European states? How would you then calculate the midpoint of Europe for every single variant? See, this is why I don't think your point adds anything to this discussion, though I do appreciate that you decided to get involved and contribute. Still, your point - although posted as a counterargument - doesn't really support or successfully debunk any side of the debate... all it does is start a somewhat unrelated discussion on where the centre of Europe is, and that is not the main focus of this discussion. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This debate reminds me a young adult book my daughter was reading: a new boy comes to school. "Hello, I am new in the town" - "Hi, when did you move here?" - "I didn't move, the town moved." - "Huh???" (the gist of the joke was that school district boundaries were changed). The same with Poland. If there is a debate here, then IMO it would be useful to have a paragraph or section which explains how Poland moved from the East to the Center by sitting dead on the same spot, as well as other descriptions throughout the history. Eg. How it was geographically described when Rzeczpospolita was od morza do morza ("from sea to sea")? IMO it would be better than wasting time in debates who is the Center of the World. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

by sitting dead on the same spot - eg. in 1944? Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind the most recent move, from Evil Empire into the Common Good. Anyway, can you comment on the essence of the suggestion rather than nitpicking on an example I thought cute but turned a bit imprecise? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Staszek Lem: I agree that arguing about who is in the centre is basically arguing for who is better; this is one of the reasons why I despise the concept of Central Europe so much. Also, as I have mentioned previously, the idea is pointless. The concept of Central Europe exists only for two reasons: one, German politicians want to put their state on a pedestal and two, the countries of the Visegrad Group want to tell everyone how much better they are than their cousins further east (when in reality just a few decades ago we were all on the same boat). Meanwhile, the politicians and businessmen of all other neighboring countries want to be included so they can sell culture off as a commodity more successfully and, after all, we're all brought up thinking that central means better. In truth, it's all about money.
In all honesty, I am sure Poland is in Eastern Europe. It's not just what I think or what my opinion is - I am certain that Poland is an Eastern European country. Poland was founded in the east and throughout the course of its history, it has always been spreading predominantly eastwards (we can see this at its largest extent during the times of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Even when it finally regained independence in 1918, it was clearly in the east. The geographically westernmost parts of Poland were acquired even later. Nevertheless, the majority (if not all) of the contemporary territory is still clearly in the eastern section of Europe. As a nation, Poland does have cultural ties with Western countries like Germany... but it has so much more in common with Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Slovakia etc.
However, I am not arguing for the usage of "Eastern Europe" in the article because achieving something like it is practically impossible nowadays - especially with this gang of Poles on Wikipedia who use this website as an opportunity to advertise their country. Many people can think only of the USSR and Russia when they hear the term "Eastern Europe", but that is a flaw on their part - not on those who use the term. Eastern Europe is a much larger area than just the European part of Russia. Anyway, since I know that there are many supporters of Eastern Europe and probably just as many supporting Central Europe, I wanted to push for a compromise of East-Central Europe. It is the best option available to give everyone at least a piece of the pie, whilst remaining valid.--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether you like it or not, the term "Eastern Europe" has become tainted. This happens all the time, to variuos degree and in different ways: towarzysz/tovarishch/comrade/Parteigenosse, "Ein Volk", swastika, red star etc. Like I suggested, wikipedia must explain what's happening, since it is not only "evil" intent of wikipedians who are arguing here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely why I suggested East-Central Europe in the first place. If the arguments I have provided in all of the posts above (since February) are not good enough, then I don't know what is. Perhaps I should just edit Poland's article again to say that it is in East-Central Europe, then refer those who choose to revert it to this page? That would be fair, both for me and them. It would also finally bring some change. After all, I would be acting within the rules of Wikipedia and being bold in my edits at the same time, which is encouraged around here. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Fuck all of this to hell. It's impossible to change anything around here - not on the English Wikipedia nor the Polish Wikipedia. Even when you start numerous sensible arguments and act like a civilized person, then those who disagree with you either completely ignore all of that or treat you like shit. The beauty of Wikipedia and the entire fucking internet. I'm not going to pick on anyone here, especially since most of the people who took part in this discussion did nothing wrong - as opposed to the majority of people I have come across during my time as a Wikipedia editor. It's just that here is where I've had absolutely enough of all this, and this shouldn't have gone on for months. I hope someone bans me permanently, so that I won't feel obliged to return to such stupid conflicts... easiest way to achieve that is:

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

Sincerely,

Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break - take some time rethink your approach and remember Wikipedia is not about winning. Look for scholarly publications over websites ([ https://www.google.ca/search?q=Poland+East+Central+Europe&oq=Poland+East+Central+Europe&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.3323j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=Poland+East+Central+Europe&safe=off&tbm=bks looks here]) need to establish that this is a term uses throughout the English world as this is English Wiki. Link after link to NON-English websites that your proponents cant read will not help your position. You also mention that people over at the other Wiki feel the same as here - this may indicate the topic is much more sensitive to the Polish identity the you believe - as in it may be clear cut to an outsider but not to those that have had to live with the sigma of being in the west or east. -- Moxy (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article Central Europe says it includes Poland. Maybe the war should be fought out in that article.
What countries, exactly, constitute Europe? If Russia is not included (!!), this does tend to shift the center somewhat west, I would think. If Russia is included, central Europe would be east of Moscow! :)
For purposed of geography, we know where the geographic center of a country is, why don't we know where the geographic center of an area is?
There should probably be an article somewhere describing the population center of Europe as well. These are both objective statements, not subjective ones. Student7 (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, I'm quite sure this user is Polish so he is not an outsider. ;) I personally always thought that Poland was in Eastern Europe... isn't that common knowledge? But I guess people like to complicate things. Anyway, if a significant group of people aren't willing to accept this, then I guess - for what it's worth - I support the OP's idea of using East-Central Europe instead. I personally think he shouldn't have lost his temper, though looking back at the dates of some of these posts I guess it's easy to understand why he became so frustrated. Perhaps he should have used the don't-give-a-fuck philosophy, yet it looks like he gave a bit too many there at the end. And there's always that rule, which the OP should have probably applied in this case.

A4 Motorway picture ?

Isn't the junction more interesting File:Wezelsosnicafromthesky.JPG ? Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism - an international beer festival

Unsourced connection between the festival and tourism in Poland. It's the task of the author to prove something.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you took this to the talk page, instead of starting an edit war (like most people do when they see something they disagree with). By including the sentence about this festival in the Tourism section, I was hoping to end the edit war between Partycja90 and everyone who kept reverting their edits on that. The article about the festival itself contains external links that give enough information to prove that it exists (though the article itself is still undersourced), so that's why I saw no point in referencing any sources for that sentence. However, you're right that it still should have a reference, so I have added one accordingly. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PLease don't impose your POV, the world isn't interested in a local beer festival. You have to prove not that the festival exists but that it's important, eg. has 100 000 guests from abroad every year. You have started the edit war, which I refuse to fight.Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what you're talking about, mate... How can I be imposing my point of view when it was not even my decision to include this in the article? And how the hell did I start an edit war? I was not part of the edit war between Partycja90 and those who kept reverting that person's edits. I only tried to help very recently... and if you are referring to what happened recently as an "edit war", then you are deluded. I edited something, you reverted my edit without stating a reason, I reverted it back. You were dissatisfied with the result, so you took the matter to the talk page. This is normal Wikipedia procedure. If it went beyond that with the reverting and continued, only then could we consider it an edit war. I was kind and polite in my reply, acting accordingly to the instructions given by you (you were not clear in your initial post, simply saying that the statement was unsourced - I cannot read your mind and know from that little sentence what you wanted exactly), yet away you went with your bizarre accusations. Show some respect please, unless you want others to disrespect you as well.
Now - squabbling aside - the Wikipedia article for Festiwal Dobrego Piwa claims that 20 000 people attended in 2012 and that it is the largest beer festival in Poland. If this is true, then it's obvious that it is a good place for tourists as well. The article here describes 2011's festival as a large event too: http://www.gazetawroclawska.pl/artykul/400923,ii-wroclawski-festiwal-dobrego-piwa-zdjecia,id,t.html I am not really that interested in looking for evidence as to how many people attended in 2013, or before 2011, how many tourists were there, etc. If you want to improve the article, you can look for evidence yourself and provide the sources (or you can remove the statement from the subsection if no such sources can be found). You could also ask Partycja90 to do this, as they were the person who kept adding the link to that article. Either way, this isn't my fight so I'm backing out before you come up with something even more ridiculous regarding my involvement. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources to confirm all-Polish significance of the festival to put it on the main page about Poland. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lots of stuff in the article about booze - the article leads me to believe the population has an alcohol problem. -- Moxy (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, perhaps it does. By the way, thanks for looking into this, Staszek. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Polish People's Republic was proclaimed

Obviously false, the name was introduced in 1952.Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously sloppy text. I've tried to fix this and another sloppery in the intro. Please review, boss. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remeber the Polish government wasn't Marxist-Leninist. I understand that I should find sources.
About 50% of UNESCO sites in Poland aren't Polish and Lwów is listed as Ukrainian.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a military government in Poland since 1981 based on Soviet Army. There were two Communists in Poland - Grabski and Olszowski (who emigrated to the USA, very funny).Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What ideology was Jaruzelski, in your opinion? Also, 'military' does not preclude to be 'Marxist'. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt very much that any of his critics or fans regards him as a Marxist and Google doesn't show any reliable source. His father died in the SU and Jaruzelski started to respect the Soviets. Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Jaruzelski accepted liberalisation of Polish economy (Wilczek Law 1988).Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Auschwitz doesn't belong to Polish culture.Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is correctly mentioned in the "tourism" section.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the lead - the statement "Poland managed to preserve much of its cultural wealth. There are 14 heritage sites inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list in Poland" is controversial, Poland preserves several German and Rusyn sites and at least one Polish one is abroad.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poland Brick Gothic ... St. Mary's Church, Gdańsk - Gdańsk was German and Dutch culturally, not Polish.Xx236 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to History of Gdańsk, the city was almost entirely Polish from its founding in the 10th century until the early 19th century. Student7 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say anything like that. The city belonged to Poland during centuries 15-18 but it was multi-cultural. Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
t. Mary's Church in Lübeck, the mother of all Brick Gothic churches dedicated to St. Mary in Hanseatic cities around the Baltic, is believed to be the archetype of the building.Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Numbers of people that had to migrate

"The shift forced the migration of millions of people, most of whom were Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, and Jews " Germans were by far the numerous, looking at pre-war population numbers in eastern territories of Poland (approx 3 Mio) and eastern Germany (approx 8 Mio). So said senetnce should be "The shift forced the migration of millions of people, most of whom were Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews " Antinin (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

600,000 Soviet soldiers died in freeing Poland from German rule

freeing? Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Better to say: overtook from Nazi Germans to establish a People's Republic of Poland, a satellite state of the USSR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.5 (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.
Probably needs one sentence at the end of the WWII section mentioning the Polish uprising, where the Russian Army deliberately sat on its hands waiting to confront the victor. This allowed the Germans to wipe out the Polish National Army which would have opposed Russian rule. Student7 (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internationa rankings

Please consider adding them: Index of cognitive skills and educational attainment: http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking The glass-ceiling index : http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/03/daily-chart-3 Global Peace Index: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/pdf/gpi/2013_Global_Peace_Index_Report.pdf Better Life Index: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ Rule of Law Index: http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/ Political Risk (Dynamic) Index 2014: http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2013/12/12/instability-and-conflict-mena-and-east-africa-drive-global-rise-political-risk-maplecroft-bpolitical-risk-atlas-2014b/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.5 (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many pictures

Guys, I've removed a number of pictures to make this (huge) article more readable (in few cases there were 4 images per section!) If you don't like those pics that I have left or changed, please change them back. If you don't like the whole idea, just revert my edit, but please take a look at this article first. Thanks in advance! Bosyantek (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are right about too many images in the article and I agree, however the previous pictures had quality and were present on the page for years. Maybe if their size was reduced it could be better ;)

Cheers

User:Oliszydlowski (talk) 28 May 2014, 00:13 (UTC)

Thought about the WWII section and enigma

I know the section is supposed to brief since it has its own article, but the Polish contribution to cracking ENIGMA was pretty significant, and the cracking of ENIGMA was very important to the war effort, so it might be worth mentioning.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poland&oldid=611322617"