Talk:Poland

"Polujo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Polujo. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes

Luwellen Drury (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Education reform

The information in article about polish educational system is outdated since 2017. Main aspects of the reform are listed on this site https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/article/2017/poland-government-enacts-radical-education-reform-despite-opposition. Plus there is no compulsory exam after 6th class now, only at the end of primary school after 8th class, matura remains the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AremisV (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Expose premiera Mateusza Morawieckiego (cropped0).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Freedom House report

@Oliszydlowski and François Robere: I think this is useful and the edit summary which removed it is about a different topic? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

~@Piotrus: - Do not know why etymology popped up there in the edit summary. I am going to place this info into the Politics of Poland or perhaps History of Poland under a new section. However, one report cannot justify the entire democratic slip so that's why I do not think it is appropriate for the main Poland article. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Some criticism of the current government may be due in the article, I think it is something international media picked up years ago... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That is correct,[1][2][3] but there's also good news (you will recognize the reporter).[4] François Robere (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Why should I recognize the reporter? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

[5]. François Robere (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think such details should be included in a high level country article. Also, let's not bring in the issue of politics into this article. I agree with Oliszydlowski, NGOs are a loaded issue, and you can't base everything on some reports. Great example of political bias and turning a blind eye is when the previous PO-PSL government run by Donald Tusk (later elected as the president of the EU Council) sent police in to confiscate embarrassing material from a news magazine reporter, you can see the event unfold here [6], however the EU and the NGOs hardly made any noise about it, since this was a centrist/liberal government, however PiS is a staunchly conservative government, so it's exposed to accusations of democratic back sliding on a regular basis (warranted or not), if we wanted to cover both sides of this issue we would end up with an entire paragraph about it, and this is not the article for it. --E-960 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it should. The nature of a country's governmental system is highly important in exactly that sort of article, certainly at least as important as the fact that "Poland has an active music scene" or that "Ida by Paweł Pawlikowski won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film". François Robere (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that there's now support for the inclusion in WP:NPOVN. François Robere (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it refreshing when we can agree on something? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I placed the text into the History of Poland in the contemporary section instead. That section may be used more for discussing the issue rather than in Poland article which is more of a summary of current governmental structures and government type. The Freedom House report did highlight that though the situation deteriorated heavily, democracy is still intact. If Poland's classification as a functioning democracy would change (as in Hungary's case) then it would be appropriate to place this info in the main article. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday the US Ambassador to Poland Georgette Mosbacher in an interview with Radosław Sikorski stated, when asked SPECIFICALLY about the Freedom House report, that she does not agree with that assessment. So, this only confirms that this NGO report is just an opinion, and not an be-all-end-all verdict. This reference simply is too detailed and partisan to be included. --E-960 (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also, pls see my comment on the History of Poland talk page on how a proper neutral statement should look like, capturing both sides of the debate - the way this one NGO report is highlighted and presented creates undue weight and neutrality issues. --E-960 (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Neutralize" it as you wish. The bottom line is it was widely cited[7][8][9][10] and that as a statement on current affairs it belongs first and foremost here; as a record of progress, it belongs in the "History of..." article. François Robere (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Citing news websites is not the proper approach in this case, even many Wikipedia articles have a banner which reads that a particular event or issue is current and information is subject to change. Besides, it does not matter how many times in the news the Freedom House report gets quoted, at the end of the day it's still just one report from an NGO (...is that like some kind of a force multiplier? one report = 1 source, but if the news media reports on the report then it = multiple sources? it's a bit unreasonable). On the History of Poland talk page I wrote down a quick example of how this should be presented. Definitely not a blurb which reads, Freedom House says Poland's undemocratic... case closed, let's put that one away! --E-960 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

even many Wikipedia articles have a banner which reads that a particular event or issue is current and information is subject to change These apply for "breaking" events, not societal processes that have been ongoing for years.

it does not matter how many times in the news the Freedom House report gets quoted Actually it does, because that's one of the ways you judge WP:NOTABILITY.

at the end of the day it's still just one report from an NGO Which is why it's attributed, and not presented as absolute fact.

On the History of Poland talk page I wrote down a quick example of how this should be presented As I said, you're free to present it as you wish, but do so in this article. You can't claim it's a "current event" and then push it to "history of". François Robere (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's still undue weight, one NGO report is not a verdict form the International Criminal Court in the Hague or something, that you can base an entire statement on it. If for example the US Ambassador does not agree with it, it just shows you that this report is just one opinion in among others. --E-960 (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course I can, with attribution. If there are dissenting opinions, include them as well. François Robere (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The best sources... François Robere (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

Poland is know for it's bread addiction Bratnayake108 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Snowded,

the original text was:

In 1947, the Polish People's Republic was established as a satellite state under Soviet influence

This was shortened in a way, that significant deatils of this was spared and practically Poland look like jus a signatory of the Warsaw pact and nothing more.

We discussed it with Oliszydlowski, and finally he accepted and thanked my edit. In case you disagree, we likely to roll back to the original one.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC))

I've restored the original - it reads better. Open to being told that the reference says something else -----Snowded ^TALK 13:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded:@KIENGIR: - The reference justifies simply the influence set on all Eastern Bloc countries and Warsaw Pact signatories. Saying "under Soviet influence" is synonymous and repetitive, but can be sometimes incorrect as the degree of influence varied for each satellite country. So it is best to state the obvious that one cannot discuss - Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Bloc and the lead is for stating the obvious. Although simply by stating that the country was a signatory of the Warsaw Pact means that it was in the Eastern Bloc, so I find adding "member of the Eastern Bloc" also redundant and superfluous. The word "member" is already used three times in the lead section alone. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Its clumsey, lacks a date and 'Russian influence' is more meaningful that 'signatory to the Warsaw Pact'x. I'm not going to gether into an edit war with the pair of you over this although the lack of respect for WP:BRD is odd. I restored to original to allow a discussion. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded:@KIENGIR: "Soviet" influence...let's stick to facts. The older version didn't state any Soviet-supported organizations like the very important Warsaw Pact which acted as a counterweight to NATO. I think it's best to rely upon facts which is belonging to an official political organization. One can insinuate that being part of the EU is under the influence of Brussels and so on and that breaks the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, particularly for the lead which is a summary and not a discussion field. Pardon me for WP:BRD. I believe that "The Polish People's Republic proclaimed forthwith was a chief signatory of the Warsaw Pact amidst global Cold War tensions" is the most neutral and best grammatically structured summarizing sentence. For more information one may click on the Warsaw Pact link and read more what was that about before jumping to conclusions. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski:,

Sorry to catch up only now, read through the whole discussion. Well, as I see, the waters became settled, I think the current wording is fine, as we agreed once. I think the number of the word member is not annoying, three is not much as obviously a state has been a member of many entities. Moreover, what is obvious to you or me about Poland, not necessarily for the average reader. Also in Hungary articles we have to clarify many things, since there have been many cases in history that is often misunderstood or simply unclear for an average reader and are poorly written. As it has been pointed out in the discussion, Soviet influence is undeniable, suffered all of us. I have also no problem with the statement under what influence EU might be, since it is as well apparent and undeniable. Thus one single mention of the Eastern Bloc is not devilish, but necessary, and the end result is even far more soft as the previous sentence before. I think, over 80% your preferred version is set now, so in the end you may be satisfied, I will always try to find the best consensus with you also in the future. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC))

I generally don't pardon people for BRD violatons but I often walk away if people don't respect it. I'd like to see what the reference actually says as you haven't changed the reference although you have changed what is said which is a little odd. If you don't have access to the reference then you should have deleted that as well if you could not validate it. As to facts "satillite state" is a fact and well supported by references. The EU comparison would assume that tanks would roll onto the streets on Hungary at the moment which is unlikley - its specious. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see why a reference would be required for Poland signing and being part of the Warsaw Pact if it is too obvious? A cite may be placed in the body of the article in the section relating to the post-war communist period rather than the lead for that. Perhaps comparing Warsaw Pact of "Mutual Assistance" (or mutual invasion to be fair) to the EU is inappropriate due to past historical events, but I was talking about it as a counterweight to the organization or "league" of nations of the Western Bloc. Does it say in the West Germany or France articles that they were part of the Western Bloc or under the influence of whatever nation such as the US? No, it says that they were founding members of NATO, which summarizes it. Regardless, I think that membership in the Warsaw Pact justifies both being an Eastern Bloc and a satellite ("monitored") country. Poland was one of the founding members of the Warsaw Pact, where it was planned and signed. All I attempted to do is improve Wikipedia for the benefit of the reader and avoid any bias or discrepancies. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The statement is currently supported by a reference so if I understand your comment above you changed the text but did not check back? Otherwise I think you are making a political point with the idea that the Warsaw Pact was there to balance NATO, that was the Soviet line at the time so its not really NPOV. And the Hungary point applies as well to NATO as it does to the EU, and I could add Czechoslovakia -----Snowded ^TALK 17:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that after the war Poland was NOT established as "satellite state", this was not an official political model, like say the British overseas Dominions or something. Poland was established as an independent People's Republic, however in practice the Kremlin got on the phone whenever they needed to "recommend" something, and to describe this de facto arrangement the term "satellite state" was often used, but than again the US pretty much did the same thing to its allies, like during the Suez Crisis, though in most cases more subtle approach was used. --E-960 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: - I agree. These terms were coined in the Western Bloc and they don't often represent the political structure. Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Really - got any references around that perspective? The US refused to support (rightly) the UK in the Suez Crisis but that is very different from direct interference. Any invasions of NATO countries by the US? This looks to be an attempt at revisionist history. But as I say, do you have reliable sources that say the US control of NATO was the same as USSR on Warsaw Pact? It won't take long to find references that use 'satellite state' -----Snowded ^TALK 11:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, was Poland in practice a "satellite state" yes, but that is not an official designation, such as British Domains. I would say that Poland was under Soviet influence or became a satellite state of the Soviet Union. However, it was not "established as a satellite state". --E-960 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• As for your question regarding the US, in the case of the Suez Crises the Eisenhower administration put financial pressure on the UK to end the invasion. So, Washington had ways to get it's message across, without being as crude or clumsy as the Kremlin. --E-960 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just a short reminder that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. Factual discussion should be focused on RS, not editors' opinions. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: - No need for reminders. Please join the discussion instead. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, this is not an option but a fact. The term "satellite state" is not an official designation. You can say New Newfoundland was established as a British Dominion, but it is not technically correct to say Poland was established as a Soviet Satellite State (because this is not an official designation for a polity). You can say that Poland was established as a People's Republic and became a satellite state of the Soviet Union. --E-960 (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: This discussion is taking place without sources whatsoever, and it's unclear what the core disagreement is even about (other than whether Poland was actually a satellite state at the time, and whether "Western Bloc" scholarship is is WP:DUE, the answer to both here is "yes"). Is it stylistic? Material? It's all over.

@E-960: We're talking formalities vs. facts. If a country styles itself an X but RS state it's a Y, then we'll treat it as a Y, not an X. François Robere (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there was a new source presented, it was a minor text change that kicked-off this discussion, which read "The Polish People's Republic proclaimed under Soviet influence". --E-960 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Education system

The section about education is outdated 95.40.151.159 (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an edit you'd like to propose? François Robere (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Education reform from 2016 95.41.175.19 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point. But need a source which would describe what actually changed to the system. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Education in Poland nas some 46.229.158.109 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait why did my IP changed 46.229.158.109 (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what I mean 46.229.158.109 (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Bump 46.229.158.109 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bump 46.229.158.109 (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So are we there yet? 46.229.158.109 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ King of Poland?

I was wondering if it would be worth making a note of this in articles relating to Polish government https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/poland-declares-christ-as-king. Does this mean that Poland should be reclassified as a constitutional monarchy with a state religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.100.102 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Although Poland is predominantly a Christian nations, in this case the title is not official, so including it in the article does not make much sense. --E-960 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Although the fact that there's been a vote in parliament on it makes for a good bit of trivia.[11] François Robere (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Trivia is appropriate for stub and start-class articles. This whole process is a joke. Luckily, this won't last forever. In this case, "king" would be a titular and purely ineffective title, with a strong notion of religious unity. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, I take it you are for the inclusion of this reference — not sure what's the point you are trying to articulate? --E-960 (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Joke or not, the involvement of parliament makes it newsworthy for some article, eg. Religion in Poland, the BLP MP who initiated the vote, or civilians or organizations who supported it. If you have sources that can clarify what exactly went on it we be useful to check. François Robere (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, so you are arguing for the inclusion of the text? Please be mindful that Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum for random topics. Still not every point is relevant to a high level article such as this even if it has a reliable reference. --E-960 (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, François Robere you mentioned in your last comment that "involvement of parliament makes it newsworthy" - I gauge that you are not fully informed about parliamentary customs and the fact that parliaments pass random resolutions on just about anything, such as national this or that day, or honorary so and so, etc. So, when put into full and proper context this is not really newsworthy. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbolic resolutions aren't "random", they're representative of a country's zeitgeist and often mentioned on Wiki (see eg. Mother's Day, Earth Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day). The only question is where to put this[12][13][14] and in what form. François Robere (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just no. Undue etc, it shouldn’t even have to be said. Volunteer Marek 08:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? Isn't an event attended by the PM and the President, and approved by parliament, notable? It's clearly not DUE here, but wouldn't you put it on eg. the initiating MP's page ("So and so led the move for a symbolic recognition..." etc.)? François Robere (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There is already an article on The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just realized we have a suitable section right here: Poland#Religion. It's already full of interesting details (mostly) about Christianity in Poland, so why not?[15] François Robere (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, UNDUE for this article, especially with the sources being borderline stuff like Vice or whatever cbn is. Volunteer Marek 17:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Better?[16] You don't dispute the facts of the edit, right? So why isn't it DUE? François Robere (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a feeling on this one way or another. But I did just notice that a remark, the most recent one, was removed by someone other than the person who made it. That remark argued for the position contrary to the one being argued by the person who removed the remark. It wasn't abusive; it presented a reasonable argument about which reasonable people could reasonably disagree. I hope it wasn't removed because someone felt that it tended to support the "wrong" view, Uporządnicki (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not walking back on what I just said. But I do notice that the person who added the comment that was removed here NOT ONLY added substantial text about the declaration naming Jesus as King of Poland, but also inserted the data into the infobox in the Government section along with the President and Prime Minister. Whatever the right answer might be about the article, I hardly think it belongs there. And in any case, centuries ago, the Blessed Virgin Mary (Our Lady of Czestochowa) was crowned Queen of Poland. That is not mentioned in the article (there is a separate article). I think either both points belong or both points do not. But as for the infobox, if it will name Jesus as King, then it should name the Virgin Mary as Queen. And no, I don't think the infobox should do either. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless and should close ASAP. I'm shocked that it continues to this day. Simply shows that Wikipedians are falling for the same joke/trap as others did, all orchestrated on purpose by the heads of the Polish Church and some ruling members of the current populist government. If you look on Polish Wikipedia, not even a mention of this topic exists. François Robere do not add any content before discussion is achieved. Much appreciated. Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I sense a certain antipathy towards the Catholic Church--whether just in Poland or otherwise--(and I do not say Polish Catholic Church because there is an entity, actually sort of America, that can arguably be called that and it's not the same) and the "current populist government." Not to mention a--one hopes, unintended--dictatorial tone: "... do not add any content ...," and not a single "proszę" to be seen. Uporządnicki (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Piotrus and Volunteer Marek this discussion is becoming disruptive and is starting to border on trolling, as one editor now tried to adjust the article's Infobox to include the King of Poland as the head of state, apparently based on this discussion. Perhaps this discussion should be escalated to an admin board. Poland is NOT a constitutional monarchy, so the talk of including this symbolic parliamentary resolution is ridiculous (it did not change the nature of Poland's government, or restored the monarchy ...seriously). Also, I would have to argue that user François Robere's approach and comments were key in exacerbating this issue, this coupled with his recent (and rather crude) comments about the Trump administration on the Talk:History of Poland page, only confirms a lack of merit in these discussions. Again, based on the fact that Poland is NOT a constitutional monarchy, you can't argue that Poland has a king, and persistent arguments to include this reference can be construed as disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Completely undue and assigning importance to purely symbolic gesture.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Christ the King Statue in Świebodzin, largest Jesus statue in the world

The Sejm decided. Had a vote. Decided Jesus is King. Big ceremony. Big statue. Largest statue in the world. 3m crown. Sejm thinks this important. Polish people think this important. Needs to be in article.Volodya's song (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Tough one, whilst too silly for words this is a purely symbolic gesture with out real substance it also does look to be official, but in what capacity (as it is still a republic with a president). Yes it should be mentioned, I am just non too sure how.Slatersteven (talk)Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this discussion is starting resemble trolling, also statements about this resolution such as "too silly for word" is also coming across as ridicule of religion and is violation of Wikipedia guidelines. --E-960 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I make no apologises for the choice of words, Poland is a republic, so it cannot have a KING, otherwise it is a monarchy (and thus should not have president). Is he legally head of state? What are his official functions? What exactly is the point of this decision? All of this (and more) makes it look like just a bit of grandstanding that has not real legal power or meaning.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your apology or lack there of is irrelevant, you start to make disrespectful remarks about religious topics and the Wikipedia admins will decide. --E-960 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, then I have changed it, and as it seems to have no substantive meaning I cannot see a reason to include it now. This is no different from declaring the official state cloth or official State Children's Flower. It is symbolic, and no more.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and E-960 I would like to close this discussion right here as it's useless and only plays into the hands of potential trolls and vandals [17]. Please disengage.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to close the discussion, but I agree there is no need to mention this topic in the article, it's a minor trivia. No prejudice if someone want to write the article about the concept of Jesus Christ King of Poland, which could be linked from Religion in Poland or Christianity in Poland I guess (or discussed in a single sentence in the body of those articles, I guess...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, pls see WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:DROPTHESTICK — this discussion is disruptive and lacks merit, what was the point adding an image of the statue to this thread?? Does someone think that the picture acts as some kind of a reliable reference source in this disscussion? Some of the posts here are starting to border on ridicule of religion and are nearing the line of being offensive. --E-960 (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You are right that wP:NOTAFORUM, but I am not sure if there is much we can do. I think only administrators can close threads. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

infobox languages

I think it would be sensible to add the following addition to the infobox to reflect the official/legal status of regional and minority languages:

|regional_languages<ref>{{Dziennik Ustaw|2017|823}}</ref>        = '''Official auxiliary regional language''' ''(number of [[gminas]])'' 
{{unbulleted list 
| [[Kashubian language|Kashubian]] ''(5)''
}}
'''Official auxiliary minority languages''' ''(number of [[gminas]])''
{{unbulleted list 
| [[Belarusian language|Belarusian]] ''(5)'' 
| [[German language|German]] ''(22)'' 
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ''(5)''
| languages_type          = Recognised minority languages <ref>{{cite web 
|url=http://ksng.gugik.gov.pl/english/files/act_on_national_minorities.pdf |title=Act of 6 January 2005 on national and ethnic minorities and on the regional languages |via=GUGiK.gov.pl}}</ref>
| languages               = '''National minority'''
{{unbulleted list 
| [[Armenian language|Armenian]]
| [[Belarusian language|Belarusian]]
| [[Czech language|Czech]]
| [[German language|German]] 
| [[Jewish languages]] ([[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] & [[Yiddish language|Yiddish]])
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]]
| [[Russian language|Russian]] 
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] 
| [[Ukrainian language|Ukrainian]]
}}
'''Ethnic minority'''
{{unbulleted list 
| [[Karaim language|Karaim]] 
| [[Rusyn language|Lemko]] 
| [[Romani languages|Romani]] ([[Polska Roma]] & [[Bergitka Roma]]<ref>According to [[Ethnologue]] the following Romani languages are 
 spoken in Poland: [[Vlax Romani language|Romani Vlax]], [[North Central Romani|Romani Carpathian]], [[Sinte Romani|Romani Sinte]], 
 [[Romani language|Baltic Romani]]. See: [http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=PL ''Ethnologue. Languages of the World'', 
 Ethnologue report for Poland]</ref>
| [[Tatar language|Tartar]] 
}}

Also if someone can help me with how to quote source code that would be appreciated! Abcmaxx (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't make the infobox too cluttered. How does it look at other countries, like US or Germany or Russia? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Not necessarily and I'm sure there's ways of making it less cluttered. Bit having only Kashubian listed is a bit misleading. I think the best examples would be South Africa or United Kingdom. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is best to just keep the recognized regional minority language which is Kashubian. Silesian does not possess this status. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski yes but you've missed my pointcompletely here - there's several other languages with a similar status! Nowhere is Silesian mentioned. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this will make the info box too cluttered, especially that these languages are spoken by very small groups of people. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 well there are a lot less Kashubian speakers than Belorussian or German speakers though? Those two and Lithuanian hold official status in more bilingual gminas than Kashubian.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to look at this in wider perspective and context, the situation in Poland is not like in Canada with English and French. This discussion is based on secondary details which some editors want to raise to the status of primary facts. Also, these languages are listed in the Languages section, so they are referenced in the article. --E-960 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 This discussion is based on secondary details which some editors want to raise to the status of primary facts; I'm not sure I follow your point, would you mind developing your point what you mean? My point was merely based on the statute relating to the languages, where I pointed out that 3 other languages have similar official status as much as Kashubian and many more speakers but only Kashubian is listed. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, are not those recognized languages listed in the "Languages" section? How much detail do you want to keep adding to the info box? The truth of the matter is that even though a number of those other languages are listed as having a recognized status, none of them are used in everyday communication, even the Kaszubs and German minority primarily use Polish as their main everyday language. Yet, you want to list those languages in an already cluttered info box, as if the situation in Poland was the same as in Canada with French and English, where more than one language is widely and commonly used. So yes, this is trying to elevate details and exceptions. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 - in which case surely Kashubian should be removed from the infobox? Elevating one language over others is disproportional. German, Belarusian and Lithuanian is much more widely used in bi-lingual gminas than Kashubian and more frequently a mother tongue too. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I would not object, since Polish is the only widely used language of everyday use in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Abcmaxx the infobox is a summary of the MOST important facts about a country, not a place to reference every other detail mention in the article text. --E-960 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Protection edit

Talk:Poland#Education system 46.229.158.109 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Change: Update Education section in accordance to education reform from 2016 or put outdated tag on it

Source: Here. I think you can also find more sources on Education in Poland. 46.229.158.109 (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to add some text to the article, please write exactly what should be added in (i.e. propose a paragraph); as the instructions at WP:ER say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

2nd Polish Republic 1930s

@E-960: Since you plain reverted my correction in the article. The "rationale" for my edit was the following: the text currenty claims "By the late 1930s, due to increased threats posed by political extremism inside the country, the Polish government became increasingly rigid, banning a number of radical organizations, including communist and ultra-nationalist political parties, which threatened the stability of the country." This is objectivly wrong on multiple levels and also not supported by the given source.

• Not a single political party was banned in the 1930s. The Communist party of Poland was already banned in 1919.
• The source does not say anyone was banned because they "threatened the stability of the country". It states that this was simply a campaign to root out opposition and secure the power of the Sanacja government.
• Not only "extremist" or "radical" organsations/politicians were threatened and arrested, moderate leftists and opposition were too; as per the source

Not gonna edit war for that, but in its current form this is just nonsense. Dead Mary (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Checked the referenced source and agree with @Dead Mary:. Restored the version I believe was an improvement. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dead Mary and Kashmiri, you keep repeating that the communist party of Poland was banned in 1919 (I think there were other communist parties involved, if I recall correctly), in the late 1930s several parties got banned see here Kategoria:Partie i ugrupowania zdelegalizowane w II Rzeczypospolitej[18] — so you conveniently removed the fact that just about all of the illegal formations were radical movements — I would call that rather POV-ish, much easier to just add the word "authoritarian" and remove context. The source clearly says most parties and/or politicians targeted were either communists, separatists and ultra-nationalist. At this point, there is no consensus for the rather inaccurate change to the original text. --E-960 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: I don't think you even understand what the purpose of the changes were. Not sure why you are so combative.

"By the late 1930s [...] the Polish [...] banning a number of radical organizations, including communist and ultra-nationalist political parties"

• This sentence is simply wrong. There was not a single political party banned in the 1930s. I honestly have no idea why this is so hard to understand.

The source clearly says most parties and/or politicians targeted were either communists, separatists and ultra-nationalist.

• The source nowhere says something like this. It clearly states the entire political spectrum was targeted and how the the Sanacja government became a "military regime which undermined democracy". The only reference to that is when it talks about the Bereza Kartuska prison, but this is about Poland as whole. Dead Mary (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Dead Mary, the source clearly says that the far-right Camp of Great Poland was banned in 1934. Also, the reference says that the political prisoners were either — and here is the actual quote: "most of the prisoners were communists or Ukrainian separatists" (aka OUN). Also, you fail to realize that the term 'by the late 1930s' does not denote the time between 1935 and 1939, but that by that time several parties got banned — communists in 1919 and far-right in 1934. If some wording fixes are needed that's fine, but that oversimplified statement first inserted is not factually accurate. --E-960 (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Multiple image

I added a multiple-image template in order to reduce the excessive WP:Image Sandwich in the section that has been going on for years. Any thoughts? Is it an improvement? Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It is an improvement, but still congested. I'd just remove the tanks photo - the resistance and the RAF wing are more notable IMO. François Robere (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, all stages of the war are important - invasion, pilots, holocaust (camps) and uprising. The tank image has an important statement with caption clarifying WW2 began with the invasion. Plus, none of these images less important than the other - all show some period of the war chronologically. The war did after all start with the invasion in Septemeber 1939. Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but can stay. --E-960 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning polytheism alongside church

@Volunteer Marek: Please check the revision history before you revert. If something is unclear, then instead of giving "uh, what???" as the edit summary, ask.[19]

@E-960: We either mention both belief systems or neither. You can't say "religion is a part of culture" and then only apply it to one culture.[20][21] François Robere (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly in revision history should I check?

And there's absolutely nothing that requires us to "either mention both belief systems or neither". I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about with this stuff, in particular "You can't say "religion is a part of culture" and then only apply it to one culture". Are you seriously suggesting that Polish culture is polytheistic? Volunteer Marek 22:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly in revision history should I check? The edit summaries of the last 7-8 revisions, so you'll know what you're reverting. François Robere (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I checked them (and you shouldn't assume that I hadn't done so before). What's your point? I was pretty sure that I reverted you adding "polytheistic" to the article, and after a thorough examination, a detailed investigation and an extensive audit, it appears that that's exactly what I reverted indeed.

Now, you wanna give us a source which says Polish culture is polytheistic? Volunteer Marek 22:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I added the terms "Slavic customs" and "Western cultures" this was changed/augmented to "customs" and "Latin Church". I think my original approach was more optimal because customs/culture already encompass religion. --E-960 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: That's not the question. The question is why you removed the note on "paganism" (or rather - polytheism). If you note that Western culture is associated with the church, then you should also note that Lechithic culture is associated with polytheism. François Robere (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

LGBT status in Poland

Mentioning that Poland is the only European country to have never criminalized homosexuality[22] is pretty misleading if we don't also mention that it's the only European country to have "LGBT-free zones".[23] Comments? François Robere (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: Poland is a country full of contradictions and a very divided society, and this has always been the case throughout history. There are lots of Polish LGBT activists, organisations, and openly gay people play a big part in public life e.g. Robert Biedroń, Anna Grodzka. Throughout history it accepted huge Jewish and Protestant minorities kicked out of of other European countries. Similarly it was one of the first countries to give women the vote. However, the anti-Jewish, anti-Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Catholic fundamentalists have also been a significant force since the inter-war period and are now in power, building on their ideology to include eurosceptycyzm and anti-LGBT movements. However, even the most far-right groups would not criminalise homosexuality in Poland, the current populist traditionalists are treading a line along the lines of "out of sight out of mind, we don't want to hear about it". However LGBT rights issue in Poland is framed it will have to balance or at least highlight the massive contradictions and divisions in Poland. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: So you support mentioning both? François Robere (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere I would yes. Unfortunately a bit like the UK, Brazil and the US, Poland has succumbed to a populist-right wing frenzy where what the government and media are saying more often than not does not correspond with real-life at all. Having said that, Poland is still far-ahead of lot of the world in LGBT rights (compared to the Islamic world or Russia for example), despite being far behind by Western standards (e.g. UK, Canada, Netherlands) . Abcmaxx (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

One is a historical fact, the other just a recent pre election stunt by some local politicians. This is a high level article and this kind of detail is UNDUE. Additionally, this is just Francois Robere, once again, trying to cram his indef banned friend’s Icewhiz’s article into as many places as possible. Volunteer Marek 22:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Tell that to the LGBT community in Poland.[24][25][26][27][28] François Robere (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that the LGBT community in Poland is aware who Icewhiz and Francois Robere are, but your attempt to attack me personally is noted. Volunteer Marek 06:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Volunteer Marek Firstly, just to be clear, I do not want to be dragged in into personal drama or motivations for raising the point; a question was raised and I answered it. The recent developments may be a political stunt but the harsh truth is Poland is currently full of anti-LGBT rhetoric and is at odds with the EU and the vast majority of the developed world on the issue, and Poland is not as LGBT friendly as it may seem from these basic historical facts. The "LGBT-free zone" scandal is still ongoing. A brief short sentence on LGBT rights with wiki-links to relevant articles is the appropriate weight, it doesn't need any more than that. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with including something regarding recent events that is more general, rather than this sensationalist stuff. I have no problem whatsoever with including well sourced material that is (deservedly) critical of recent developments and political posturing and scare mongering by some sides of the political scene in a Poland with respect to LGBT rights. But this stuff here is not that. It’s just sensationalist headlines and within the context of Wikipedia itself originated with a now indef banned user trying to grief Polish editors. Volunteer Marek 22:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere and Abcmaxx, I agree that the statement on decriminalizing homosexuality should be removed, I took it out sometime ago, but it was re-added recently. Also, regarding "LGBT-Free Zone". Unfortunately, we live in a post-truth world and the way this issue is reported on in the west is bias at best. Those municipalities declared support for "family values" just as others like Warsaw declared support for LGBT by passing the "LGBT Card", and none called themselves "LGBT-Free Zone" banning gays. This reminds me a bit of how the CIA coined the term "Viet Cong" because Front National de Libération sounded too "inspiring", subsequently the term Viet Cong started to appear in the newspapers, despite the fact that it was a totally made up name designed to conjure up negative and crude emotions about the enemy. --E-960 (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What are the sources it is the only country to have not made homosexuality illegal?Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Source

From Szulc, Lukasz (2017). Transnational homosexuals in communist Poland: cross-border flows in gay and lesbian magazines. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-3-319-58901-5. OCLC 993598494.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link): Same-sex acts continued to be formally criminalized in Poland after the First World War, when the penal codes of the former occupants (Austro-Hungarian Empire, Imperial Russia and Prussia) remained in power... The new penal code of the independent Poland from 1932 decriminalized consensual same-sex acts, which have not been recriminalized ever since... This new law... reflected the Napoleonic Code of 1804, which had been used as a model for the 1808 law of the Duchy of Warsaw... it was also influenced by the prominent Polish sexologists of that time... Mikulski and Wachholz, who promoted the interpretation that homosexuality is innate... The most liberal provisions were introduced in communist Poland in 1969, when the new penal code... did not mention homosexuality at all... He continues: The liberalization of homosexuality-related laws in the PRL did not translate into state's distinctively positive attitude towards homosexuals... At least since the 1960s, the police forces and criminologists started to pay special attention to homosexuality, viewing it chiefly as a social pathology... The secret service, in turn, saw homosexuality as an opportunity, a tool, which could help the agents to do their job... [gives as examples Michel Foucault, who was forced out of Warsaw; Jerzy Andrzejewski, who was slandered; and Operation Hyacinth]. On public discourse: In the PRL's public discourse until 1980, male homosexuality was usually represented in stereotypical ways, either in a criminal context... or in a comical context... Not rarely, homosexuality was also depicted as characteristic of the perverse Western Bloc in contrast to the healthy Eastern Bloc: 'a foreign novelty, and imported disease, or the decadent hobby of the bored Western bourgeoisie'...

The latter quote is particularly interesting in the context of the current discourse in Poland - it's another example of how many contemporary Poles, despite their contempt towards the former communist regime, (naively) re-hash its arguments. We've seen this phenomenon before in the context of WWII ethos. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, this is not a forum. Statements like "we've seen this phenomenon before in the context of WWII ethos" come across as you trying to insert personal views into every comment — this is not a WWII issue. In any case you have my support to remove the statement because I also think that it out of place. --E-960 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: Coming from the guy who brought up the Viet Cong..?[29] François Robere (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

uhm... referencing an example of how media can manipulate perceptions is a bit different then making a broad generalization which stereotypes an ethnic group, as you did by saying that "many contemporary Poles" hold such and such views. --E-960 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: And how is that inaccurate? Gomułka promoted the idea that Jews have divided loyalties (Cooper, 2000, p. 209), and today some 64% of respondents in a recent survey still believe it (Q1 here); Werblan suggested that Jews don't care about Poland (p. 213, there), which is mirrored by 48% of respondents stating that "they only care about themselves" (Q5, there); and the theme of the "ungrateful Jews" (which was promoted during the 1968 Polish political crisis (p. 212, there), but actually originated much earlier) seem to underlie the public discourse on restitution, though only as a second fiddle to more traditional antisemitic stereotypes (see eg. here, and some of the questions on secondary antisemitism here). And of course, there's the claim that the Western press fabricates news (p. 222, there), used as a defence by government representatives... François Robere (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Francois Robere, I’d appreciate it if you refrained from expressing your opinions about “many contemporary Poles” as these kind of ethnic generalizations and stereotyping smack of prejudice and bigotry. Especially for someone with your editing history. Consider this a warning. Volunteer Marek 05:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Marek, stop WP:HOUNDING me. You've been following me around and personally attacking me for two years (!). ArbCom admonished you, you've been T-banned,[30] and you're still at it. I don't know what you're thinking, but this won't go on forever. If you take issue with me quoting reliably sourced material on current and historical thinking vis-à-vis minorities in Poland (which I'm the only one to do so around here, apparently), take it to the boards. Otherwise, keep to yourself. François Robere (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not been hounding you, neither now nor for two years. You know very well that my interest in this article goes back more than a dozen years and you also know why I have an interest in this particular issue. Your accusation is simply false and made in bad faith. Likewise, your contention that I am topic banned from this article or topic is utterly and demonstrates false. Worse, you know that it is not true. So why are you making false statements?

You were also not “quoting reliably sourced material” but rather expressing your own personal opinion (in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM) regarding what YOU think “contemporary Poles” are like. Expressing such an opinion which involves such gross generalizations and stereotyping can easily cross into vulgar ethnic based bigotry. That is why I asked you to stop doing it. Predictably, you responded by making a series of completely false and untrue allegations against me. Volunteer Marek 17:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 The example you gave is not quite the same. Polish media and the EU quite clearly refer to "LGBT-free zones" in exactly those words, those municipalities and various media and organisations were giving out "LGBT-free zone" memorabilia. The "family values" is just a cover to legitimise and rationalise an anti-LGBT stunt, the same way many far-right organisations are "not racist or fascist but traditionalist patriots", far-left militants are just "fighting fascism", the anti-abortion movement calls itself "pro-life", anti-vax is "pro-choice" etc. etc. The move was a direct reaction to Warsaw declaration of granting more rights to the LGBT community, and that was the motivation. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, I disagree, in your statement you automatically assume that everyone has radical views, and the mild language is just a cover. Also, this is a bit of a POV push, it's no secret that there are different cultural norms in Western society (based on religion, ethnicity, demographics, etc.), and that needs to be neutrally covered, not throwing around media jargons. In any case, as I stated before this is a secondary issue and should not be included in this article. --E-960 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@User talk:E-960 I see it as calling spade a spade; I would see targeting a significant part of the population because their sexual orientation is an extreme measure. I disagree that this is just media jargon, this furore is entirely of the making political establishment who bought the media scrutiny upon themselves. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Because this article is more or less a summary, I'd suggest a solution - "Poland is the only European country which never criminalized homosexuality and its legality was reconfirmed in 1932. However, recent LGBT-free zones have caused much controversy in relation to the country's LGBT rights." True, unsophisticated and does not question anything. Simply states the facts. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Oliszydlowski Support. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, I think the issue has a bit more depth to it than how you articulated the point, I'm not entirely sure the the aim of those resolutions was to "target" any one, again that kind of language only serves to sensationalize the issue. In any case, I recommend that the "1932" statement is removed because it was only of symbolic nature, and I do not support adding even more text regarding resolutions which in reality had no practical impact - I think we just had a discussion earlier about adding statements regarding symbolic resolutions in this article. --E-960 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 I'm not sure the Polish LGBT community, the EU, the populist right or the inhabitants of those municipalities would agree with you. It does have a practical impact not only on social attitudes but on the people who both made such resolutions and those who the resolutions concerns. It has had a practical impact on the amount of EU subsidies allotted to Poland, city twinning, the general societal attitudes, political discourse in the country and on LGBT rights movement as a whole already. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the king of Poland discussion regarding symbolic statutes. --E-960 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Except these people aren't made of stone.[31][32][33][34][35] François Robere (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I clicked on one of those (and seriously man, WP:NOTAFORUM). What I see is that in Poland police protect protestors who march for equality and disperse violent thugs who try to attack the LGBT marchers. Meanwhile, in US, the police brutally attack protestors who march for equality, and hobnob with the violent thugs who try to attack the BLM protestors. So you’re kind of making the opposite point of the one you think you’re making. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Abcmaxx, the question is whether this info is DUE for a general level article like this one. Which verrrryyy general. It obviously belongs in articles like LGBT rights in Poland. But here?

For comparison consider that last year a significant number of US states passed laws effectively outlawing abortion. Of course none of that matters at all since the US Supreme Court has ruled that the right to choose is a constitutional right. So this was just empty posturing by some local state representatives and senators, appeals to their base, shoring up their conservative constituencies before the election. It had no practical impact what so ever. Same thing here. And this is the key - while that info does belong in articles about abortion rights in US, no one is running over to the article United States and trying to cram that stuff into that article. They’d be reverted and told to do something else if they did. So why is it ok to do that in this article? Or a better question, why are a couple editors (I’m not talking about you), one of whom has been topic banned and then indef banned for making ethnically discriminatory and prejudicial statements (about Poles), so insistent on putting it in here? Volunteer Marek 05:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski and Abcmaxx: Problem is it's as true for Poland as it is for Kosovo and Slovenia - all three were part of a larger organ that did criminalize homosexuality (see source re: Poland above), and all three rejected it when they re/gained their independence. In other words, if that's the criterion, then Poland isn't unique like the text claims. François Robere (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: - I don't see how Slovenia ever existed as a true independent state before its independence and Kosovo is not really a unanimously recognized country. Regardless, I think there should be balance between claims eg. in the suggestion I made earlier. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: It doesn't matter. Poland as an entity in the modern sense didn't exist either (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth isn't the same as the Second Republic). Anyway, I've managed to load the source, and AFAICT it doesn't say anything about Poland being the "only" country to do so in Europe, as the text claims. Am I wrong? François Robere (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: Ok, saying that it was the only one can be cut I guess. But what about - "Poland never criminalized homosexuality and its legality was reconfirmed in 1932. However, recent LGBT-free zones have caused much controversy in relation to the country's LGBT rights." Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: François Robere (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"1932 decriminalized consensual same-sex acts", forgive me, but for something to be decriminalised it must first be criminalised. As Poland existed before 1932 this cannot be used to say Homosexuality was always legal.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Not necessarily; if its status is unknown or uncertain then we use the word "reconfirmed" which I just did. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No as reconfirmed implies it was the case, we have no evidence it was decriminalised is the word that should be used.

decriminalize

/diːˈkrɪmɪn(ə)lʌɪz/

verb

past tense: decriminalised; past participle: decriminalised cease to treat (something) as illegal or as a criminal offence.

The word literally means it was an offence prior to this point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I do not support the latest text suggestions. Poland never criminalized homosexuality because in the 19th century (when this was a trend) Poland was not a sovereign state. As for the "1932" resolution and the "LTGB-free zone" those are just symbolic statutes. Also, François Robere you need to stop using every dissuasion to make unfair remarks about Poles, again every issue for you is an opportunity to drop a snarky comments such as "many contemporary Poles" think this way or that way, and so on. What does WWII or antisemitism have to do with this issue? Again, this is not a forum for random thoughts. --E-960 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: You know, I was offended by your comments diminishing the effects this has on Polish LGBTs and implying a dichotomy between LGBTs and "family values", but you know what? I deal with it. We're all adults here (I think?) and we should be able to handle other people's thoughts without assuming the worst about them (eg. that they're prejudiced rather than informed). That's not to say we should throw out WP:NOTFORUM (I certainly didn't intend to start this discussion), but we should be able to contain a passing comment. If you're offended, I apologize; but realize this isn't prejudice looking for an "easy dunk", but the product of a lot of reading coupled with personal familiarity, on a subject that by its very nature connects with many layers of social and historical context. Friends? François Robere (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, you do realize that most of those municipalities passes non-legally binding resolutions supporting "family values" their term not mine (that's why I used quotation marks in my comments when referring to this term). Also, this discussion is starting to sound like a forum. Again, the reason why these statements should not be included is because both were symbolic in nature, as user Volunteer Marek suggested this type of information is more appropriate for the LGBT rights in Poland article, but not here. --E-960 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

These "symbolic" decision have very real repercussions, as Abcmaxx stated above, and more coverage than the fact Poland hasn't criminalized homosexuality in 1932. At any rate, I never objected the removal if you remove the other bit as well; this is less important now that we've removed the "only" phrase, but I'm not yet convinced that they shouldn't be mentioned. Would you like to wait for other editors to opine, and perhaps help form a consensus? François Robere (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason why this is called a "culture war" happening not just in Poland. LGBT advocates object to the legally non-binding resolutions, and the Polish Catholics are offended by the recent desecration of religious symbols by LGBT activists, and so on. If we open up this avenue we can also inset text on anti-Christian acts and their impact. I would just like to leave out this type of subject matter from this high-level overview article, it can be discussed in the main articles on those subjects, but not here. --E-960 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. My only problem is with balancing different aspects - having had that statement on "the only country in Europe" etc. was risking giving a false impression to the reader; now it's less of a problem. I think we do need some coverage of the situations of minorities, not necessarily through the "zones" (at least not yet). François Robere (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to take a jab at resolving the dispute. I think the issue is really about what exactly the sources say, and whether those sources are reliable, rather than what we think about the subject matter. So far, attention to the sources has been obscured by personal opinions. I think if Poland does not criminalize homosexuality in law, but expresses social intolerance towards homosexuality in certain regions, then both propositions should be presented (assuming that is what the sources say). It will be misleading for one to be presented without the other.

I looked at the sources cited in the original diff, and cannot find direct support for the proposition, "Poland is the only European country to have never criminalized homosexuality" (I might be wrong).

On the other hand, I do see a lot of support for the LGBT-free zone controversy. My issue, however, is that the phrase "LGBT free zone" is vague. What does it mean? Does it mean that no LGBT is ever allowed to step foot in that region? Or does it mean that the region declares official support for an anti-LGBT position? Is the exclusion of LGBT in word or in deed?

I prefer the explanation at LGBT ideology-free zone that says, ""LGBT-free zone motions" refer to resolutions passed by some of Polish gminas (municipalities),[1][13] powiats (counties),[31] and voivodeships (provinces)[14] who declared their attachment to conservative values in reaction to the Warsaw declaration.[32][33] While unenforceable, activists say the declared zones represent attempts to exclude the LGBT community[13][14] and called the declarations "a statement saying that a specific kind of people is not welcome there."[13]

This explanation should be included in the mention of LGBT-free zone. The article does not necessarily have to make Poland a paragon of tolerance for sexual minorities, nor a violent, regressive state. I think the truth, based on the sources, is somewhere in between. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

HollerithPunchCard, I definitely, agree with your assessment that Poland is not "a paragon of tolerance for sexual minorities, nor a violent, regressive state". Having said that, I still think that it's better not to include these texts, as this is high level overview article, and these are symbolic statutes. Also, I am not comfortable with the approach that some editors take to this topic, at the end this is part of a "culture war". From an academic (neutral) point of view, civilizations form their cultures. Greeks and Romans widely accepted homosexuality, yet did not allow for gay marriage. In the Islamic world polygamy is practiced. Yet, here this issue comes across as a value judgment "Poland and its LGBT-free zones" (a term coined by media no less). If you are going to be neutral simply say Poland does not criminalize homosexuality (in contrast to some countries that do), and in contrast to western European countries Poland does not allow for gay marriage, partnerships or adoptions by gays — that's all you need clear to the point, not basing the text on media headlines, but simple and direct facts. However, I still think that's a bit much, since we could also insert texts saying that Poland does not allow for polygamy, etc. --E-960 (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM? François Robere (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, the above statement is regarding the topic in question (though indeed a bit long winded). Raising the issue that some editors are inserting value judgment is appropriate, as is the fact that instead of covering non-legally binding motions, we should address what the Polish law and the constitutions actually upholds. --E-960 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is, but you see how nuanced this whole thing is? Even you can't avoid WP:FORUM. The bottom line, though, is that "LGBT-free zones" are the most WP:COMMON name, and everything else is beyond Policy. François Robere (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree that we are in a midst of a cultural war, fought on many fronts, in different parts of the world (sometimes if I wonder if the highest good is not victory, but the ability to co-exist). Whatever it is, I think we can all agree that neutrality requires compromise, especially in a conflict ridden topic such as this.

Would anyone take issue with a formulation along the lines of: "Poland does not criminalize homosexuality, but societal attitude towards the LGBT community is mixed"? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard: I'd rather we stated outright that it's a conservative society.[36] We can state, however, that attitudes are changing. François Robere (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:HollerithPunchCard's assessment and its broadly what I was trying to say. As for User:E-960's point whether this does belong in the article? As I stated before, one sentence is the appropriate weight and length, the question is content, which is why I supported User:Oliszydlowski's suggestions. As for User:François Robere; Poland is definitely not a conservative society. There are of factions of conservatives, liberals, religious zealots, nationalists, communists, anarchists, LGBT-rights advocates, militant atheists and everything and everyone in between all those examples of the very ends of the spectrum. It is no more secular or conservative than let's say the UK for example. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, I don't think this "LGBT Zones" reference is appropriate in this article. I just added two sentences related to the issues: "Also, Poland does not criminalize homosexuality and its legality was reconfirmed in 1932. The Polish Constitution defines marriage as an union between a man and a woman." This is the Law section, not public opinions/views section. Just as a practical example, in other country articles, we don't write about "no go zones" in some western European countries or the "autonomous zones" in the US (both media labels, btw) and tag on some reference that some citizens are worried about safety and security issues — this would be POV-ish. This topic can be discussed at length with the full context in the LGBT rights in Poland article, as originally recommended by user Volunteer Marek. --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the LGBT-free zones have no legal recognition or status; they are a mere reaction by anti-LGBT groups. Hence, they are more of a controversy rather than an actual problem or hostile action undertaken against the LGBT community. Nevertheless, I'd think it is best to stick to facts and keep it simple. I will rephrase what is on there as it sounds a bit odd. Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Symbolism is super important when you're a disenfranchised - and often physically abused - minority. And it's not "anti-LGBT groups" as in NGOs, it's local politicians and governments. François Robere (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue of disenfranchisement and physical abuse is definitely something that affects many groups, even in Poland radical-left/anarchist activists vandalized church exteriors and statues, in places like Argentina or Chile there were instances where protesters vandalized churches and physically assaulted priests. Again, these topics can be appropriately covered in subject specific articles, but here we are dealing with just a high-level article. --E-960 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the status of a 5%-10% minority is "high level" enough. François Robere (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: I'm sure there are factions like in every society, but opinion polls still show a conservative majority on LGBT issues; a conservative nationalist still won the presidency; the country is still deeply religious; abortions are still mostly illegal; etc. etc. So that's pretty conservative. François Robere (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: I'm going to echo what the others have told you already that you seem to be adamant on insisting your view onto the article, and the way you're phrasing your arguments does look like your personal beliefs seem to cloud your judgement, and bordering on the offensive to Poles. For the record, UK voted Brexit and Johnson, Italy Salvini, Le Pen went into presidential run-off in France; Ireland, Greece and Malta are still "deeply religious", abortions are illegal in Northern Ireland. Duda won by an incredibly very slim majority and he might be a right-wing populist but is not an extremist in any academic term, nor does one vote mean that necessarily people agree with him, they just liked him more than the other candidate, for a host of unrelated reasons. Your argument is neither here not there. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: This is the last message I'll leave you here, just so you don't accuse me of "bludgeoning":

You can agree or disagree that we should mention it, but you can't really deny Poland is a conservative country: Poland consistently ranks below the European average on acceptance of LGBT marriage, right to adopt and public displays of affection; on measures of discrimination and inclusiveness on the basis of ethnicity or skin color, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religion, immigration status and disability; and on agreement on the importance of a free press and diversity education. Ireland - where abortion reform is under way - consistently ranks above average, Italy below average, and Malta is inconsistent. Hence my objection to the phrase "mixed attitudes", which is a nice compromise, but not exactly accurate. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

References