Talk:History of Poland

Recent criticism

It's a bit of a POV push to just cite one report and base an entire assessment of the situation on it. The US ambassador to Poland in an interview stated that she does not agree with the Freedom House report. Also, in an earlier interview she mentioned that much of the EU's criticism against Poland is politically motivated. So, if you are going to neutrally frame the current issue(s), you need to say something like... after the election of the conservative Law and Justice party, the Polish government repeatedly clashed with the EU on the issue of Judicial Reform and was accused of eroding democratic standards, while the Law and Justice party maintained that the reforms were necessary due to the prevalence of corruption and cronyism in the Polish judiciary. Not, Freedom House says Poland's undemocratic. --E-960 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Recently I added contents to History of Poland, and providing a reliable source, I mentioned that the ruling party is heading the country towards democratic backsliding. An editor deleted my edits, and without providing any source-he said, "The US ambassador to Poland says that she does not believe the report, and there is a lot of politics involved. Ppt2003 (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you want to quote her on antisemitism as well?... François Robere (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, you should consider these points from Wikipedia:Teahouse. --E-960 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just locate Ppt2003 or my user name on the Teahouse discussion page — it's quite clear that the Freedom House statement was POV-ish, and at this point a number of editors agree. Also, I don't think your last point is relevant in this discussion. --E-960 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see a reason to discuss it there if I've already started a discussion at WP:NPOVN#Freedom House Nations in Transit 2020 report where "a number of editors agree" with the opposite position. Also, as I've already said "POV" is irrelevant, as this is a mainstream organization and attribution is enough.
  I'll rephrase the last point: the upper echelon of the current American administration is a ridiculous ensemble of incompetent plutocrats who shouldn't be trusted with anything more complicated than boiling an egg. I wouldn't give a single one of them whose title starts with "business-" the benefit of assuming they're literate. If you wish to cite any one of them as an RS for the purpose of this article, bear in mind you'd be opening the door for citing them on completely different matters elsewhere. François Robere (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, Wikipedia is not a forum for your political views, or an medium to push your political or world narrative. Whether you agree or not with the Trump administration or the Law and Justice party is besides the point, in Wikipedia neutrality is paramount. Your last statement about the Trump administrations clearly demonstrates that your general approach here is not balanced. As stated in the Teahouse discussion by another editor in reference to the way this statement was first written, confirming that this might be the instance where there is "a POV perspective and an inability to write neutral statements". --E-960 (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• The latter point is an aside, E-960; I'm fairly convinced that while you accept the ambassador's opinion here (as irrelevant as it may be), were an editor to quote it somewhere else on the subject of Poland's role in the resurgence of antisemitism, then you'd reject it. But you can't have it both ways: either it's NOTABLE and DUE, in which case we should quote it on both subjects, or it's not.
• The teahouse discussion is irrelevant, as it was opened by a different editor about a different edit, and only one of the comments is about the text. We've already discussed this in another, more relevant forum where opinion where different (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING).
• As things stand (and correct me if I'm wrong) - you've now claimed that this isn't DUE in Poland (see talk); that it's about current affairs; that it's only DUE in History of Poland; that it isn't DUE in History of Poland; and that it's POV. You've yet to explain why attribution isn't enough, or why a statement on current affairs is due here but not in the main article. François Robere (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Not just me, at this point on the Poland page, it's four editors who did not agree with you. Also, the Teahouse discussion was about your Freedom House statement, which was re-added on this page by another editor, in any case there too several editors though the tone of it was not neutral. --E-960 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

1. It's not "mine", and two of the three commentators comments on the OP's language, not about the source.
2. Who are the four editors? I can only see you and Oliszydlowski disagreeing.
3. You still haven't answered my third and fourth points. François Robere (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Umm, three editors digressed with your edit on the Poland page (see also reverts and comments there - one revert, I though was for your edit was in fact for another change that's why I initially said four), and three editors on the Teahouse page (when the issue was raised there on the side), who though the statement was not neutral. Also, I'm really taken aback by your Trump administration rant, saying things like "ridiculous ensemble of incompetent plutocrats" clearly come across as partisan, coarse and raises issues of editing objectivity and Wikipedia etiquette. --E-960 (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Which editors? We seem to disagree on who said what.
• Firstly, my opinion of the Trump "administration" can be backed by so many sources, we might as well state it in Wikivoice.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Second, drawing from one issue to the entirety of the Wikipedia enterprise strikes me as disingenuous, as does the pretense that "real world" politics aren't mirrored in Wikipedia even when no one states it. Third, and just to reiterate the point: if you're claiming that a Trump appointee with no background in history, diplomacy, sociology or political science - in other words, a representative of a failing organizational with no relevant academic credentials - is qualified to rebut a detailed report by a highly regarded think tank, then the onus is on you to prove it.
• And you still haven't answered my points (You've yet to explain why attribution isn't enough, or why a statement on current affairs is due here but not in the main article). François Robere (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --E-960 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NEUTRAL is about content, not editors.

Are you going to answer my questions? François Robere (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment, I also disagree adding to the Hungary article, it's not a big deal what Freedom House says, as well many of her statements are biased, typically fitting to the recurrent attack of those circles who symphatize with the opposition, etc., so I can understand those who diasagree also here. These organiztaions, media outlets silenced and did not cry for democracy in the past decade (in Hungary), when it should have been really immminent and why? Because their favorized political group was at the Government. Double measure, as the recurrent attacks. In case the same or similar policy would be conducted of a left-wing government, they would be celebrated as champions of democracy. Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Your input is appreciated. Freedom House is critical of China, Cuba and Venezuela, which by some measures are "left-wing". I'm not sure what you mean by "the past decade (in Hungary)" - the oldest report in series, from 2015, is critical of Orbán's gov.[10] It isn't as critical as later reports, but then many of the changes they criticize today simply haven't been enacted then. François Robere (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere:, thank you as your's always! I meant 2002-2010. Left-wing may have different connotations in some other countries, cultures or continents, as having their special aspects (i.e. the criticism of Communist China is sideless, etc.), but where we may really distinguish between clear left or right affairs, there is not doubt. Well, the fact some changes weren't enacted then, it's not an excuse, since many changes should have been done even in 1990s, that was not done and some Communist skeletons still remanined in the countries legislation, constition unrepaired, etc. A few points bear some "eligible" criticism, but changing the constitution not, it has been made by fully democratically, replacing the old Communist made constitution, and i.e. regading the media, the "right-connected" media is only now reached cca. 50% comparing to the "left-connected" media, so its near equal yet. All in all, the one who dare to change, will have ths stakes, it's been always like so.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

@François Robere: Excuse me, what am I disagreeing on> Kind reminder I placed the information you provided here. I just do not see why it is "yet" essential on Poland page if the status of democracy remains unchanged. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: Thanks for clarifying. It's a reasonable approach, even though I personally disagree. Regarding the addition - it's no longer in the article, so someone must have removed it. François Robere (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Human activity in Poland in antiquity

@Oliszydlowski: If this is "too obvious", then why should we emphasize this? And why should we state this when sources in the article don't support it any better than the more accurate alternative? It's just WP:PEACOCK, and there's nothing quite like it in any of Poland's neighbours' articles.[11][12][13][14][15][16] François Robere (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The human activity can be taken out and deleted as it is obvious. However, Germany article and many more do have a line about classical antiquity. Also, do you understand the meaning of the words "inseparable" (part of) or "intricate" (complicated)? They do not violate the WP:PEACOCK at all. Puffery would be saying "the largest, the best, the most beautiful, the most important" which is simply coarse and should be avoided at all cost unless supported by strong sources. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It actually isn't obvious at all, as "prehistory" is about as broad a definition as they come, and some places were not even settled pre-history. Regardless, that's not the issue - the issue is in highlighting it where it's undue. Compare History of Poland, which highlights its "thousands of years" of "intricate" history, and "inseparable" link to Western civilization, with eg. History of Syria - a country with recorded history spanning several millennia and a prehistory spanning hundreds of thousands of years; or History of Greece, the birthplace of Western civilization, which has a history going back to the Neolithic era; neither article uses such embellishments. François Robere (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Regarding this - you have the wrong link in the citation. The sentence appears in the 2008 edition and in Vol. 2 of the 2013 one, but you link to the first volume of the latter. François Robere (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC) I've just removed the whole bit.[17] There's really no need for stating the obvious. François Robere (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That part is not obvious to some. There is a huge discrepancy when it comes to what is western civilization, in this case we mean western culture. No puffy text that I recall either. That's POV. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Like whom?

"thousands of years of human activity", "an inseparable part of western civilization", "intricate history", "innumerable tribes" and "brilliant period of economic prosperity" is a whole lot of WP:PEACOCK. François Robere (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the language looks like something out of a tourism ad. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, just because an encyclopedia is free to edit, doesn't mean you can turn an article into a tourism advertisement. Notrium (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a "tourism advertisement" at all, and it's in line with articles about other countries (Germany) GizzyCatBella🍁 18:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: do you really think that "an inseparable part of western civilization" is encyclopedic in tone? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

For that particular one (I agree that the “brilliant” and innumerable” are peacock terms) it depends on how sources talk about it. Is there a way to say the same thing in what you’d consider a more encyclopedic tone? Volunteer Marek 20:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The "inseparable part of western civilization" is too vague to go into a proper encyclopedia. For a better description one would have to peruse to sources, but note that the ref with quote that was used to back up the statement does not even correspond to the statement. Notrium (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"thousands of years of human activity" is irrelevant as most of europe has over 45,000 years of human activity. "innumerable" could be better rendered as "numerous". "brilliant" could just be removed entirely. "Western civilisation" is such a nebulous term anyway, see this AskHistorians thread such that I don't think it is worth including at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Notrium - What do you suggest to replace the information (as it was before) about the connection of Poland to Christian Western Civilization? @Hemiauchenia www.reddit.com is not a RS source. GizzyCatBella🍁 22:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Reddit itself is not a reliable source, and I was not suggesting to cite it. r/AskHistorians is notable enough to have its own wikipedia article and is run by credible historians and provides context on why I personally don't like the term. Here are some other articles criticising the term in The Conversation The Guardian and Times Higher Education Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion Western religions, Western culture, Western World? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I could see deleting Western religions as it seems meaningless as a term, but Western culture and western world are clearly notable as concepts, even if I disagree with them. Western world and "Western civilisation" are notably distinct and not the same, with Western world clearly being notable in a geopolitical context. The "western civlisation" article is pretty bad though, as it doesn't really treat the origins of the term and doesn't incorporate any criticism the term has received. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"the information (as it was before) about the connection of Poland to Christian Western Civilization" - are you referring to just the "An inseparable part of western civilization" part? I think that's too vague too call it information (also there is the issue I mentioned of it not being supported by the source quote...), but there may lay something behind that claim that could be worthy of inclusion into the article, something more concrete: for example something about the economy, culture, scholarship, theology, etc. However, I find it very unlikely that such a (less vague) claim would be well placed within the first paragraph of the lead section. I am imagining something like (just hypothetically) "In this period, the Kingdom of Poland was strongly linked by trade to other European states, with Polish product A being used in France and German product B in Poland". This particular example is maybe matter-of-fact to the extreme, but you get the idea. Also don't forget sources. Notrium (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the 500,000 years because of a previous dispute, and the "inseparable part of western civilization" can also be removed or changed to "western world" if you come to an agreement, but note that the name of the republics/states (Polish People's Rep, Second Polish Rep etc.) should not be mentioned as it is only an introduction. The line beginning with "Poland's intricate history..." is very well structured and summarizes Poland's 1,000 years of events. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: - Please do not remove or change content per personal view or opinions unless a discussion has been achieved and a consensus has been agreed on. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: You were the one who added the disputed language diff, which is disputed, it was removed and should remain so per WP:BRD until the discussion is resolved.

@Hemiauchenia: - The dispute concerns the use of "western civilization" and not what follows. Western civ can be removed. I am for keeping the sentence "Poland's intricate history extends from ancient tribes, Catholic baptism, rule of kings, cultural prosperity, expansionism and becoming one of the largest European powers to its collapse and partitions, World War I, World War II, communism and restoration of democracy." Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As a separate issue: Which version of the article do we think is better? The current version or the version prior to Oliszydlowski's editing? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

:) you know what?... Both are fine. You realize people that we are arguing about a minor thing here...GizzyCatBella🍁 23:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Style is important for a reference work such as an encyclopedia. It has to be informative, without vague or puffy words or idioms, to emphasize facts. Notrium (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You did’t change the “style”, you reverted to the “not a tourist pamphlet nonsense” version off your liking without addressing @Hemiauchenia: question and (edited later) you removed a bunch of additional information without achieving the consensus.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

For discussion to be possible, it must be made clear what are the objections to my edits, if any, that some people have. Otherwise, how can I know what to discuss, where can a compromise (third) solution lie, etc. Notrium (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: - your edits on History of Poland page without achieving a discussion are unacceptable. Until a consensus is reached here on talk page, please do not edit the main article page. It violates the guidelines of Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Edit warring. As you can see, a few users have objections to your edits, which are not constructive at all. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Not only that but also not an improvement at all, in my opinion, we need a consensus if we are going to perform any additional edits at this point. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Notrium and Hemiauchenia have my support (which I've already justified), which means it's a 3:1 consensus. François Robere (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The text in the lede downright comical, with colour and tone of an advert. I am removing it.--Iron Thain (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: a voting template needs to be inserted for all users to cast a vote. Let me remind everyone that creating double accounts is violating the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and results in an immediate ban. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CON doesn't require a vote, you can count for yourself based on the discussion.

I don't see why anyone here would feel the need to create a "sock" given the above. François Robere (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What are the exact changes you propose? Can you list them? We'd appreciate it. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You've already reverted me a couple of times, so you should know.

I'm okay with Notrium's current revision.[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by François Robere (talk • contribs)

Please explain why in [19]:

• the link to planned economy was removed?
• the longitudinal summary "represents over 1,000 years of recorded historical events and 500,000 years of human activity" was removed from lead?
• the etymological explanation of Polanie being the "people living in open fields" was removed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the wikilink to planned economy, the edit summary of the edit that removed it has the answer for you. BTW, you should know that it is disruptive to clutter the discussion here with such questions if you're not gonna bother even reading the edit summary. Think about how every paragraph you write will be read by many people many times. Notrium (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps my question wasn't clear enough. I understand why the link was removed, I don't understand why it wasn't replaced with a better one? Anyway, the link is a minor issue, still waiting to hear the answer to my two other questions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The "500,000 years" is off-topic as far as I see (not within article scope). "over 1,000 years of recorded history" seems useless to the reader (but I think it would be good to be specific and give a more exact range for when recorded history begins for Poland). Both of those are a bit too vague, they are not specific enough claims to be refutable, thus verifiability issues ensue. On a higher level, both of those are part of a style issue, which was already discussed.

The etymology of the name of Poland is a nice little bit of information (although I didn't check verifiability), but it's not nearly important or relevant enough to be in the lead section of this article. Notrium (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note might I be so bold to suggest a dispute resolution request like an RfC that is properly closed (on the strength of arguments rather than a vote tally). Maybe the next thing you all do is discuss how to construct the question for such an RfC in a manner that's clear, concise, fair to all sides of the dispute, etc.? El_C 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: If you will base the lead purely on your personal opinion (which we disagree to) then the content will be disputed and or reasonably valid. Your actions show that you do not engage in proper discussion and edit the article at your pleasure. This is a second warning. I will be sending your details for investigation for sockpuppetry and the content for dispute resolution. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)