Talk:Poland

Government

I'd advise the infobox value on Poland's government should be changed to Parliamentary rather than Semi-presidential, as the one I propose also applies to the system of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and other countries of the Central Europe, which the system of Poland is similar to the most. Importantly, the Polish version of this article features the parliamentary system, not presidential. Mustafar29 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Great read ...but

Have not looked over this article in a long time! Great read lacking some sources but the images are affecting accessibility as per WP:Sandwich and MOS:IMGLOC . I would normally jump-in and start fixing this by removing some and moving others but I see great care has gone into selection. Anyone have any suggestions on how to fix the sandwich of text all over?

e.g for me I see 4 words per line on my phone and 7 words per line on my PC making it hard to follow.--Moxy 🍁 16:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Chief of State Marshal Józef Piłsudski was a hero of the Polish independence campaign and the nation's premiere statesman between 1918 until his death on 12 May 1935.

During World War I, all the Allies agreed on the reconstitution of Poland that United States President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed in Point 13 of his Fourteen Points. A total of 2 million Polish troops fought with the armies of the three occupying powers, and 450,000 died. Shortly after the armistice with Germany in November 1918, Poland regained its independence as the Second Polish Republic (II Rzeczpospolita Polska). It reaffirmed its independence after a series of military conflicts, the most notable being the Polish–Soviet War (1919–21) when Poland inflicted a crushing defeat on the Red Army at the Battle of Warsaw, an event which is considered to have halted the advance of Communism into Europe and forced Vladimir Lenin to rethink his objective of achieving global socialism. The event is often referred to as the "Miracle at the Vistula".

Map of Poland during the Interwar period, 1921–39

During this period, Poland successfully managed to fuse the territories of the three former partitioning powers into a cohesive nation state. Railways were restructured to direct traffic towards Warsaw instead of the former imperial capitals, a new network of national roads was gradually built up and a major seaport was opened on the Baltic Coast, so as to allow Polish exports and imports to bypass the politically charged Free City of Danzig.

The inter-war period heralded in a new era of Polish politics. Whilst Polish political activists had faced heavy censorship in the decades up until the First World War, the country now found itself trying to establish a new political tradition. For this reason, many exiled Polish activists, such as Ignacy Paderewski (who would later become prime minister) returned home to help; a significant number of them then went on to take key positions in the newly formed political and governmental structures. Tragedy struck in 1922 when Gabriel Narutowicz, inaugural holder of the presidency, was assassinated at the Zachęta Gallery in Warsaw by painter and right-wing nationalist Eligiusz Niewiadomski

Tadeusz Kosciuszko

please change Tadeusz Kosciuszko to Tadeusz Kościuszko

I know this is off-topic, but please tell me why the name is in double parentheses? ☶☲SouthernKangaroo☶☲ (☎) 17:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

because it is a link 2601:541:4500:1760:25E1:3194:81D4:4F50 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, right. I went and changed the parentheses to square brackets. ☶☲SouthernKangaroo☶☲ (☎) 17:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Outriggr (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"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)

Americanisation in "British code-breaker Gordon Welchman said: "Ultra would never have gotten off the ground if we had not learned from the Poles[...]"

Should read: "British code-breaker Gordon Welchman said: "Ultra would never have got off the ground if we had not learned from the Poles[...]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScarletPeacock (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

At the time he wrote that in The Hut Six Story, he had been living and working in the United States; and either he adopted the American spelling, or an editor changed the wording.

Nihil novi (talk) 13:08, 27 March 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)

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 just about anything, such as national this or that day, or honorary so and so, etc. So, when put into full context this is not really newsworthy. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)