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 Gravuritas (talk | contribs) at 05:06, 15 March 2018 (→‎Slavery: OTT). 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

Poland is in Central Europe

Poland is part of central Europe not Eastern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.90.22 (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geology, Pieniny Mountains

Pieniny national park is located in the Pieniny Mountains, not the other way around (since the park area covers only part of the area of the whole mountain range). Also the highest point of the national park is Trzy Korony (982). Wysokie Skałki is located outside of the national park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakuV (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GDP (PPP) is wrong

The GDP (PPP) is currently set to "$1,110 trillion" which would make them the richest country on Earth. On the English wiki, it is the standard form to use periods for decimals so either way, it's wrong. Princewilliam3 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed trillion to billion as per source
Gravuritas (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

temperate climat

https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/climate/Poland.htm Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Trewartha climate classification.Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poland lies in a moderate zone with mixed continental and oceanic climate influences - seems to be right, but unsourced. Please compare Zielona Góra and Suwałki.Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Climate section doesn't say "continental".Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-presidential republic

Apart from one single source which represents a paper written by somebody at the Dublin City University, there is no other source which characterises Poland as a semi-presidential republic. This change was unilateral, it was not discussed with anyone, and thus I ask that the change be reverted back to the actual nature of Poland - a parliamentary republic. Cipika (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to democratic republic as described in the body of the article. Should it be parliamentary instead- please comment?
Gravuritas (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about just a "Republic"? Using technical definitions, Democracy and Republic are similar BUT not the same thing — Greece was a Democracy, Rome was a Republic. So, in short I don't think the term "Democratic Republic" is anything but an political slang of some kind. But, I do like the current description of 'unitary semi-presidential republic' better. --E-960 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

minority languages

  • all extrernal links are dead

Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poland is the largest net beneficiary ?

Poland isn't the largest net beneficiary per capita. POlish markets are opened for EU producers and contructors. At least 50% of the help returns. The EU doesn't fight VAT crimes.Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that statement since it has been added in the last couple of days, but United Union keeps edit warring. --E-960 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What part of my explanation I wrote on my talk page as a response to your claim you don't understand E-960? United Union (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss first on talk page, instead of edit warring, apparently I'm not the only editor who questions the overall validity or nessesity of this statement in the article. --E-960 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you an explanation as you requested on my talk page. Now it's your turn to respond. Yeah, so many of you, two Polish buddies that constantly patrol the article try to cover up the fact that Poland enormously benefits from the EU funds. How shocking! The one blabbering about Lidl doing business in the Czech Republic and another about VAT crime in the EU. Oh please, at least try to act seriously. And stop constantly editing your comments. Use the "show preview". United Union (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there was a benefit and that's why I did not remove your other statement regarding the "50% GDP increase". But, France, Netherlands and Germany also benefited form the EU by having open market, somehow I don't see that fact being highlighted and explained in detail as a "EU benefit" in articles about other countries — just Poland and the "chartable" EU subsidies, so following the lead of other country articles, the topic of EU economics is not outlined in detail. --E-960 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960 starting a discussion on a user talk page about the content of the Poland article is inappropriate. @United Union if someone does that to you, I suggest you refer them immediately to the Talk:Poland page and avoid a substantive response on your talk page.
Gravuritas (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gravuritas, the discussion was about United Union edit warring (3RR rule for new text additions), I think it's appropriate to take it up with the user first not open an discussion on the article page.

Mentioning GDP growth without mentioning an important reason that significantly affected it is inappropriate. Although this discussion is not about Germany or France (if you think something needs to be added there, go and add it), I will say, since you mention it, that EU membership didn't enormously boost and transform the German or French economies like EU funds did Polish. Poland is number 1 (out of 28) net beneficiary of the EU funds and that brought Polish economy to were it is today. That's verified claim confirmed by dozens of articles from reliable sources (Bloomberg, Financial Times, The Guardian etc.), it's constantly pointed out, and that's why it's an information worth mentioning. There is absolutely no reason not to include that sentence in this article. You might think that it's embarrassing (although I don't see why would country be embarrassed for being successful in getting funds for development of its economy), but that's irrelevant since this is encyclopedia and information like that need to be mentioned. | Thanks @Gravuritas for your advice. And no E-960, that wasn't about my "edit war" since you clearly started explaining your position on the matter, and only briefly mentioned 3RR rule. United Union (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's about your edit warring, I only started the discussion on your talk page to remind you of the 3RR rule, and stated the reason why your edit was reverted — a courtesy no less, but once the issue became about merits a wrote to you that the discussion should be moved to the talk page. --E-960 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please start by going to the Netherlands, Germany and France articles and say how much they benefited form the EU policies, by absolutely raiding eastern Europe. Perhaps that should not be something to be ashamed of, just strait facts no doubt so please include them. --E-960 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can find you articles in Fortune, Business Insider, EU Observer how enormously Germany benefits form the EU, see here [1], so why don't anyone write that in, no they just start with Poland and EU subsidies. --E-960 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your answer? That discussion?! There is a lot you need to learn. A lot. You clearly show no interest in cooperating in the improvement of this article so the sentence will be restored shortly. United Union (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And again you add content while I'm writing my answer. This article is about Poland. United Union (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please remember the 3RR rule (for editors who want to insert more text), this is my opinion, but another editor also disagrees, this shows that you have no interest in following rules or following examples set by other articles, just pushing your POV. In short I think this text is unnecessary and creates POV as compared to other country pages on economics --E-960 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear from your comments that you have no valid arguments and that your sole purpose is to prevent other editors from improving the content of this article. FYI, this article is set to receive quite a few improvements in near future. As of this particular sentence, I said shortly. I'm waiting for other interested editors (although I doubt there will be many) to explain why this sentence should be removed. United Union (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He again changed his comment. And for your information, reliably sourced claims are not considered POV. And also, try to read this - WP:OWN. It might come in handy.United Union (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Union, seriously, if you think that POV pushing is an improvement that's ridiculous, also thanks for alerting the editors who worked on the Poland article that you and perhaps other editors are in the process of pushing a particular POV. I'm sure that this will be noted. --E-960 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many towns and villages are terribly indebted, some of them overinvested the alleged "help". Local governments finance preparation of proposals, a part of the total cost, infrastructure, additional administration according to EU rules. Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have yet another 100% non-biased Pole presenting dozens of reliable sources arbitrarily accusing me of being biased. Maybe some of the editors here could start new article - "EU conspiracy theories"? It seems that there is a lot of material. What does food quality in Eastern Europe and some incompetent local Polish authorities have to do with Polish usage of the EU funds and their effect on the Polish GDP growth? No such thing as "alleged" in this case. As of "generous", you don't think that ~€64,000,000,000 (2007 and 2013) and ~€106.000.000.000 (2014 and 2020) allocated for Poland can be classified as "generous", meaning, according to Merriam-Webster, "liberal in giving"? Since Bloomberg is biased, Guardian (which by the way calls this "one of the largest wealth transfers between nations in modern history"), Business Insider, Forbes, BBC, CNN, etc. would also be considered biased I suppose, let's put them aside for a moment and let's see what three Polish ministries have to say about the importance of the EU funds for the Polish economy and their impact on it:
  • Ministry of Regional Development in Impact of cohesion policy on the Polish economy - Results of macroeconomic modeling of ex-post impact and forecasts for 2014-2020 says: “In the period 2007-2012, Poland was the country with the highest GDP growth in the EU. (…) The access to the EU funds essentially contributed not only to the relatively high economic growth but also to avoiding recession in 2009. It is estimated that the EU funds allowed the GDP growth in 2012 to be higher by about 0.8-1.1 pp, than in the scenario without EU funds. (…) In 2004-2015 GDP growth is higher about 0.7 pp. than in the scenario without the inflow of EU funds. (…) In 2012, the GDP volume was higher thanks to the EU funds, by respectively 6.2% and 16.1%, while in 2013 it will be higher by 7,5-19,9%. (…) The acceleration of economic growth in Poland resulting from the inflow of the EU funds makes those resources an increasingly important factor behind the bridging of the development gap between Poland and the EU. (…) The investments in infrastructure and support to enterprises financed from the EU funds contribute significantly to the revival of investment activity in Poland, leading to both higher growth rate of gross fixed capital formation and to an increase in the rate of investment. (…) The investments in infrastructure and support to enterprises financed from the EU funds contribute significantly to the revival of investment activity in Poland, leading to both higher growth rate of gross fixed capital formation and to an increase in the rate of investment. (…) The unemployment rate lower thanks to EU funds by about 4 pp."
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the report “Poland’s 10 years in the European Union” says: “These resources [from the EU funds] helped conduct modernization that had no precedent in the country’s history. The scale of the support is best illustrated by the fact that the total financial assistance provided by the European Union accounted for around 25% of Poland’s GDP in 2013. Contrary to fears that were voiced prior to Poland’s accession to the EU, we have not become a net contributor. In the first year of membership alone we gained more from the EU coffers than we paid in. Each year since 2011 Poland has received the most EU funds of all Member States. (...) EU funds made up 1.21% of Poland’s GDP in 2004, and 4.02% in 2013, respectively. (…) This had a positive impact on the growth dynamic of our GDP, enhanced the competitiveness of the Polish economy, boosted entrepreneurship, and created new jobs. EU funds not only resulted in better infrastructure (new roads, sewage treatment plants, etc.), but above all improved the living conditions of all Poles through, among other things, access to EU knowledge, training for entrepreneurs, and broadband internet access. (…) Thanks to EU budget funds Poland has carried out key investments, improved the standards of living, continued to modernise, fostered economic growth, and made its economy more competitive. In 2004–2013 EU funds helped implement over 160 000 projects, and some more are still being implemented. This had a positive impact on the growth dynamic of our GDP, enhanced the competitiveness of the Polish economy, boosted entrepreneurship, and created new jobs. EU funds not only resulted in better infrastructure (new roads, sewage treatment plants, etc.), but above all improved the living conditions of all Poles through, among other things, access to EU knowledge, training for entrepreneurs, and broadband internet access..."
As of other "biased" sources, here we have European Commission that says that "Poland is by far the largest recipient of EU regional policy funds: €7.99 billion in 2015, amounting to 60% of EU funding in the country.", and a scientific article How Poland’s EU Membership Helped Transform its Economy by professor Marek Belka which says: “In the case of Poland, the large scale of inflows contributed to the country’s development, investment intensification, and the building of human capital. (…) Between 2004 and 2012, the GDP per capita in Poland rose from 51 percent to nearly 66 percent of the EU average, and a large portion of this growth can be attributed to the European cohesion policy. Estimations show that these fund transfers should positively influence the GDP dynamics: the additional average annual GDP growth in Poland attained with the EU funds inflow is estimated at between 0.3 and 0.7 percentage points for 2004–15. (…) As shown in Bukowski, Jędrzejowicz, and Kitala (2012), while consolidating public finances, countries that absorbed the EU funds greatly cut their current expenditure and maintained higher levels of public investment than the other EU countries, which could explain why Poland maintained positive GDP growth (…)."
This article isn't about any of those countries, Gravuritas. If you think that those informations should be added to appropriate articles go and add it. As of "per person", it's irrelevant and represents pure relativisation. Per capita is not a good indicator; although, some member states take larger amount per capita than others, when we look at the gross terms, we can see that it's not that much. Poland has much larger population then Luxembourg (40 million : 600,000) which means it has more people between which it "divides the money", but the fact is that Poland receives exponentially the largest sum of money from the EU funds, and that it greatly affects it's GDP/economy/the country in general, unlike, for example, Luxembourg, the largest net beneficiary per capita, but also hosts many of the EU institutions and spends nearly 90% of the money it receives on the EU administration, so, unlike Poland, EU funds have very limited affect to its economy. United Union (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marek Belka is a former PM and president of the Polish National Bank, apparently a biased source of informations about Poland.
Per capita is not a good indicator - Wow! Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ministry of Regional Development was responsible for usage of the EU funds. Do you expect them to admit their errors?Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Academic paperXx236 (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
United Union, perhaps you should consider adding information on all the economic benefits gained by Germany, Netherlands, etc. from the EU first. Also, you need to stop with the reoccurring personal attacks, calling out editors who you THINK are Poles — ethnic profiling — behavior which is borderline offensive and out of line (...hypocrisy at its finest). --E-960 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very poor answers as expected. You clearly don't know how to debate, just like some of your fellows here. Your comments don't have any reasonable content. "Wow!" is obviously the highlight. I knew you were going to argue that these sources are also biased because the fact is that for some here there are no sources I proved that could be considered reliable. You go as far as classifying even official Polish Governments' publications as "biased". As of Marek Belka, not only he is a reputable economist and university professor with more than 100 published scientific papers, not only he served as Finance Minister and director of Polish Central Bank, but he has also held high positions within international organizations, the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund in particular. His authority and expertise in the field of economics is unquestionable. As of this Andrzej Janowicz, I have no idea who that is and what his credentials are. Since the whole document is written in Polish I'm unable to read it, and although this is English Wikipedia and sources in English are preferred (and there are many of those on this matter), those written in Polish can also be taken into consideration but you have to cite parts relevant for the issue. United Union (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again you with the irrelevant comment, E-960. I already told you, stop with that pathetic "Germany, Netherland, etc." argument. It's not going to get you anywhere. We are talking about Poland here in case you forgot. United Union (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
United Union, for one reason or another three editors do not think this information should be included in the article (relevance, validity or a lack of similar info on other country pages), that's the point of the discussion, in other words, this data is NOT A MUST HAVE and makes the article that much longer. --E-960 (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any government is biased when it describes results of its work, both the pOlish one and the EU Comission . Government publications are primary sources, we need secondary sources.
There is no methodology to measure results of EU founding says my academic source.
Polish economy grows because of - among others - foreign investments and open EU markets.
"Wow" has exactly the same value like "Per capita is not a good indicator" or 2+2=5 Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. The government published materials are considered reliable. Especially when they come from the respective governments. || That's not how citations work. You are supposed to find a relevant part(s) and paste it here so it could be evaluated. Nevertheless, that's wrong. It's possible to measure the macroeconomic impact of the EU funds on the GDP (which makes me question this paper of yours even more). || By "among others", I assume you think of EU funds. Good for you. (They also directly affect the growth of the Polish GDP, which is noted in the sentence in question.) || "Wow" and "2+2=5" shows your lack of understanding of the subject and inability to think of a reasonable explanation. According to the per capita criteria, Luxembourg receives more funds, but its allocation of funds for the same perspective is incomparably lower than Poland's. || I propose we move to another stage and request more effective dispute resolution method because we are obviously not moving forward here. United Union (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is so obnoxious, you are POV pushing with this obsession about Poland and EU structural funds. Seriously, why don't you go on the Germany page and say that economically Germany is the biggest beneficiary of the open EU market — you don't believe me then read what the German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel said... that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of the open EU market, here: [2] but, for some reason you lached on the Poland page, and this is your one horse show. Give it a rest, three editors don't agree that this info should be included. --E-960 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only obsession I have is with facts. "Seriously", why would I? I must be interested in Germany but any interest in Poland is forbidden? I already told you. If you want to include it there, go for it. Ironically, it was you who made a big deal out of this. Not me. You can't hide facts no matter how hard you try. If you want to contribute to the discussion with reasonable arguments you are welcome to, and if not, stop clogging talk page. I proposed that we go for W:RFC, and if you two agree we can start it tomorrow. United Union (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What for, three editors said this info is not a must have, also BytEfLUSh who came over from the noticeboard and remained neutral also suggested the new info was questionable. Finally, go on other high profile articles, new text is constantly reverted (happened to me too), because other editors maintain article discipline in order to prevent the page from being swamped with excessive detail and facts — look below on the Poland talk page, I also recommended that the statement about the UN seat is too much and needs to go. --E-960 (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are any government data reliable?Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, no need to keep pushing the issue, as far as I'm concerned the this topic has run it course. --E-960 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planned POV attack on the Poland article

In the above discussion on the article talk page titled Poland is the largest net beneficiary? United Union stated that FYI, this article is set to receive quite a few improvements in near future. Unfortunately, this statement comes across as a threat to any one that disagrees with user United Union, and possibly implies a coordinated and planned effort by several editors to push a particular POV on this article. --E-960 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This reminds me of several incidents in the past where an editors/suck-puppet dumped information on unusual topics/minutia (normally not covered in other country articles) such as traffic fatalities in the country. --E-960 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@E-960: I fail to see how someone saying that they intend to improve the article could be viewed as POV-pushing. Also, regarding 3RR, you might want to check the article history and look at the timestamps of your reverts. I'm ambivalent to the content that's being added by United Union, though it doesn't seem out of place at a first glance, and it has a reference. If you feel that it's given undue weight, simply ask the editor to add a few more references to establish notability of the fact. BytEfLUSh Talk 00:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:BytEfLUSh, why this is a possible cause for concern... for example yesterday an editor on the Krakow page change Nazi German concentration camp to Polish concentration camp on that and three other pages, so I feel unease when someone makes such a statement (as above) on the Poland page. Or, when the Polish Prime Minister had a car accident, a user in the following days added text related to traffic fatalities in Poland and that they were highest in the EU. Now, user United Union wants to include information on EU subsidies for Poland just when there is talk in the news that the commission wants to take them away, sorry but there was time since 2004 to add such information about it, so why exactly now? The Poland article still suffers from a lack of cohesion because exactly from this, editors just adding random trivia. --E-960 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you might be on the lookout for vandalism on Poland-related articles; the examples you mentioned are certainly troublesome and you were probably right to revert them (haven't checked out the diffs, but as you describe them - those certainly weren't attempts to improve the encyclopedia). OTOH, those were different editors, different content. Poland is a member of the EU, and it's likely that it has a huge impact on its economy. Remember, there is no deadline, so information that may be beneficial to the readers can be added at any time. And, once again, I'm not sure if I condone the edits, but it's not worth edit warring about. Let's make a consensus about whether it should be included, and what wording should be used. BytEfLUSh Talk 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding, and as I told user United Union to simply open a discussion — see what other editors say, btw the above discussion was actually initiated by another editor who also questions the need for such info. So, I'm open to debate, but when you make such cryptic statements, it's a cause for concern given the history of sockpuppets and obnoxious edits on this page. --E-960 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, didn't notice it was another user opening the above section. Anyway, no need for edit war or AN/I in my opinion, per WP:BRD United Union was Bold, you Reverted them, now it's time to Discuss. Pinging @United Union: to get his input. If discussion fails and no consensus is reached, there's always WP:RFC. BytEfLUSh Talk 00:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here I'm. I don't know whether I must answer here and on the Administrators' noticeboard, so, for now, I'll answer it just here. I appreciate your involvement in the dispute resolution BytEfLUSh as well as your reasonable comment on the noticeboard BethNaught. You both clearly see that my sole intention was to improve the content of this article and not to "organize persistent POV attack" which I've been accused of. I have had this account (and only this one! - I support administrators to open an investigation on the possible sockpuppetry if necessary) for more than three years during which I created 130+ new articles and in all that time I have never been pushing POV. I always write facts that are easy to check. Like this one. The sentence in question is not some random claim I came up with but a well-known fact. How can something that is easily proven by various sources be considered POV? As you can see, I tried to reasonably explain why I wrote it. In return, I came across an unreasonable user who clearly does not understand the rules and behaves like he owns the article by not allowing other users to write relevant information he considers "embarrassing". It's clear that E-960 thinks that he is allowed to dictate what we should write and what not. As of "current political situation in the real world" he mentioned (I assume that he refers to the current Brussels - Warsaw dispute), I will say that it has literally nothing to do with my edit. Poland didn't become a largest net beneficiary in 2015 when PiS came to power nor in 2017 when disagreements escalated. Just because some Polish editor(s) think that it's embarrassing to mention that their country receives generous funding from the EU and that it greatly affects countries' economy, doesn't mean that those informations shouldn't be mentioned. I'm angry about this whole unnecessary mess over the sentence. So far, I haven't heard any valid explanation why this sentence should be removed. As for user who initiated this discussion, (s)he didn't give any valid arguments either. The basis of failure of these two editors is that they are trying to dispute the fact. I'm still open for discussion but I don't know what else I could do to prove to the E-960 the importance of this information. I would like to reason with him, but I'm afraid that's impossible so I suppose that we would need an administrator to intervene (once again). As I said above, I will wait for comments from other interested editors (if any) and if it doesn't work I will use WP:RFC. Greetings, United Union (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
You opinions about generous funding are biased and unsourced.
Quite many writers and politicians (PM Morawiecki) describe neocolonialism of developed EU nations.
Other states of the region protest agianst low quality of products sold by developed EU countries in poor countries. Poland doesn't protest but original German products are distributed by small importers. Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find recent per capita numbers. Please quote them. Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2012 [3] Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If ‘largest net beneficiary’ is notable, then are ‘largest net beneficiary per head’ (Hungary?/ Luxemburg) largest contributor (Germany) largest contributor per head (Netherlands, Sweden?) smallest recipient per head (UK) all also equally notable?
Gravuritas (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council

An editor has added to the lead information about Poland being on the UN Security Council for 2018-19. I think this should just be in the body of the article, not the lead, as it is only a position that will be held for a specific duration of time. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

concur ----Snowded TALK 14:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
agree, this statement is not 'lead' section material. --E-960 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Slovakia 960

Dear anybody, could you deleate map that shows Slovakia in 960? That country existed only between 1938-1945 and since 1993. Not other time! This map is falsificating history and lying. --Meszaros Miklos (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, this is not a correct term, in the German version of the map this area is referred to as Nitraer Fürstentum (Princilaplity of Nitra). However, all the names on this map have modern equivalents such as Czechia, etc. Perhaps we can use this map [4] instead, for the area in question—the name translates to "Slovak lands" which is a bit more reasonable however this area was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (this map also has issues). --E-960 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use Paint and do a new one. I mean, how hard can it be?Ernio48 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved, an older version of the map had it correct. --E-960 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018

Change Prime Minister of Poland from Beata Szydło to Mateusz Morawiecki 134.223.230.156 (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: And not needed. Beata Szydło is not listed as the Prime Minister and Mateusz Morawiecki is listed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

add about press freedom ranking

If the world is crazy, should this Wikipedia copy it? Name one "problematic" problem. No more state adds for Gazeta Wyborcza after 8 years of Eldorado?Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the ranking, so I'm not going to be the shot messenger, but I bet you can find the answer to all your questions on the website of RWB. Yakikaki (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Press Freedom Ranking

The Press Freedom Ranking published by an NGO Reporters Without Borders is a loaded and controversial topic. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you advocate will probably determine your view of it. But, I don't think such an index should be included in the Poland article as a stand alone benchmark because it oversimplifies the issue of "press freedoms". It's no secret that this NGO is political, and independent journalists accused it of political bias. For example, in Germany journalists such as Wolfgang Herles and Udo Ulfkot noted that many media outlets follow government "suggestions" and "explanations" (perfectly seen during the Cologne incident), but no one at RWB criticizes Germany for bottle-necking opinions in the press. While Poland is accused of "limiting" media freedoms, yet anyone looking at Polish papers in the newsstand will see every political opinion loudly (even rudely) expressed from left to right. --E-960 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last note, we live in the "post-truth" world, so CNN, NYT, FOX or NGOs such as RWB are more and more seen as promoters of particular political views, so in the case of Poland article we should just list media outlets operating in the country not opinions. Btw, Italy and Greece are also in the same category as Poland, but editors are not clamoring to include the "problematic" tag in those country articles. --E-960 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RWB says "After turning the state media into propaganda tools". I have been watching the state TV since ages. It was a state propaganda tool under the former administration and is one now. Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Concern is now focused on a proposed law to “re-Polishize” the country’s press" - unfortunately our administration isn't able to propose any such law. Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Poland: Record fine for Polish TV news channel" - the channel is controlled by US fund and noone dares to fine Americans. It's cultural and legal (post)colonialism. Compare "In 2016, Reporters Without Borders published the Media: when oligarchs go shopping report which raises concern about media concentration around the world." It seemd the RWB accept concentration in Poland and criticizes one outside Poland. Double standards.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy

How could the very introduction simply say it's democratic without any recent context? Government taking over courts is democratic? 86.175.182.129 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a constitutional crisis occurs in a democracy does not mean the country is automatically un-democratic — on one hand you have the argument that 'checks and balances' are needed, on the other you have 'independence of the judiciary' (both constitutional ideas), Poland is not the first democracy to have this debate and won't be the last. --E-960 (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

addition being debated.

Hiding evidence of slavery, a severe human rights abuse, affecting nearly one in 200 people in Poland, in a completely separate article, is shameful. If the information is truly not important enough to be included in the main article, then the article itself is far too long and ought to be shortened to 200 words or less. Ashy Waves (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bales; et al. "Poland". The Global Slavery Index 2016. The Minderoo Foundation Pty Ltd. Retrieved 13 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)

Agree with others this is WP:UNDUE for this overview article.....that said also agree with the move of this to Slavery in Poland.--Moxy (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The attempted insertion and the comment by Ashy Waves above is OTT. This is one small organisation’s view and their statistics are pretty wobbly.
Gravuritas (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poland&oldid=830495778"