Jump to content

Talk:Polish people/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

polacks

Ive never heheheheheheheard any polish person call or refer to themselves or our culture as "polacks" this is mis-information from n0n-polish people you can ask my 98 year old grandmother ,this should not be listed at all

DON'T MAKE FUN OF ME LIKE THAT! OR I'M TELLING GREG! Mariusz Zielinski 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is making fun of you. We're just discussing topics that are based on this article. Gm1121983 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC) "Polak" is a Polish word describing a Pole. Sad but true. I'm Polish and I've never found the word "Pola[c]k" offensive. Quite frankly, I prefer it to "Pole". Sounds more Polish to me - and it is. - N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.203 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Regarding the citation "proving" that Polak is always offencive, if you bother to read all five entries, four say it is "offencive" (not "always offencive") and one makes no mention of offence. I have never heard of a Polish person taking offence to the term, and suggest its just an overly sensitive politically correct culture that is saying it is offencive. Whoever wrote that sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.160.143 (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the explanation in a popular dictionary was a man of letters. You suck more, excuse the repetition.
  1. Random House Unabridged Dictionary: "Slang: Disparaging and Offensive"
  2. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "Offensive Slang"
  3. Online Etymology Dictionary: "considered offensive in Eng."
--Poeticbent talk 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

i see an error

how can there the number of Polish speakers in Poland be higher than the population of Poland.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.199.156 (talk • contribs)

Because lots of people in other countries can speak Polish. In the same way, there are more speakers of German than there are people in Germany, more English speakers than people in England, etc CTwells (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The person said IN Poland not outside. Pay attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.12.22 (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Easy, the math was done by a pole! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.32.10 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

old redirect

Redirect to Talk:Pole removed. Przepla 20:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Polack

Proposal for Polack to redirect here instead of List of ethnic slurs?

I doubt it is a good idea. Someone uninformed might think that it is a legitimate, neutral term. Alternatively, we'd have to list all offensive terms for the Poles here, which doesn't seem a good option either. Halibutt 05:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Besides, Polack currently redirects to Anti-Polonism so this is outdated. --Joy [shallot] 14:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Pomeranians

Kociewiacy and Borowiacy are not ethnic Pomeranians. The only Pomeranians are Kashubians and Slovincians, since only they have preserved the Pomeranian language. However, the Slovincian group ceased to exist in the 20th century. Also, most sources from outside of Poland (and many Polish also) do not treat Pomeranians as a Polish tribe, the differences were too great. Completely agree. Pomeranians were Baltic tribes spoke similar language as Prussians and Lithuanians did. Moreover Germans, Danes, Sweeds and Poles together made lots of campaigns into these lands, latter to Prussia and even more latter to Lithuania. From the east at the same time Lithuanians fighted agains East Slavians (Russians). Half of nowadays Poland, northern part of Ukraine, Western part of Russia and whole Belorussia were Baltic peoples lands. At the time of Kiev Rus the land inhabited completely by Balts were called White Rus and occupied territories (inhabited mostly by Balts) - Black Rus whithin Kiev Rus Empire. This is were the biggest and longest massacres in the humans history...but as it is said - the winners takes it all. That's why the Baltic sea is called Baltic (means White). Moreover Pomeranians in Lithuanian language means the people living on the shore of the sea with such formations like the lake between sea and the river (there are lot's of them in nowadays Poland, Kaliningrad and Lithuania). Only Lithuanians call Poles 'Lenkai' and the land called 'Palenke' is now in Poland and means the land which has the border with Poland. However the word Poles originated from the slavian word 'polia' means the open lands or savanah, but this word originated from Lithuanian word 'Polekis' and means the place in which you can run or rush without any obstacles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.112.200 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

title

I moved the article back to Poles because moving it to "Polish people" does not accomplish anything useful - most pages referred to them as "Poles", and "Polish people" doesn't really disambiguate ethnicity from nationality. --Joy [shallot] 22:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Halibutt 06:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Someones frequent revert to 55 million Poles

Where do you gather the other 7-8 million unrepresented Poles? Even if the Brazil estimate is too lower -- that DOES NOT subtract 7 million Poles. Also, this in itself may even be an overestimation -- only reason I don't think it is is because the Polish birthrate was incredibly high recently. Antidote 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Antidote, you cannot just change enter arbitrary population numbers into the article. If you think a number is inaccurate or you have newer figures, support your edits with sources of the data. Also, pls watch your language in the edit summeries. --Lysy (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean arbitrary numbers? Nearly all the numbers have sources! Antidote 23:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)'

O, you wanted a source for Germany - I just put one. Antidote 23:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very fine for Germany. --Lysy (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.poland.gov.pl/?document=48 Według szacunkowych danych poza granicami Polski mieszka od 14 do 17 mln Polaków, głównie w Stanach Zjednoczonych (6-10 mln osób), Niemczech (ok. 1,5 mln), Brazylii (ok. 1 mln), Francji (ok. 1 mln), Kanadzie (ok. 600 tys.), Białorusi (400 tys.-1 mln), Ukrainie (300-500 tys.), Litwie (250-300 tys.), Wielkiej Brytanii (ok. 150 tys.), Australii (130-180 tys.), Argentynie (100-170 tys.), Rosji (ok. 100 tys.), Czechach (70-100 tys.) i Kazachstanie (60-100 tys.). Tak duża liczba Polaków i osób deklarujących polskie pochodzenie, a mieszkających poza ojczyzną (dla porównania - 17 mln to ok. 40% liczby Polaków obecnie mieszkających w kraju), --Molobo 13:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you please provide an English translation for the benefit of non-English speakers here? This is after all an English Wiki. Thanks Chelman 13:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That was for Lysy and any Polish users interested in the article. --Molobo 14:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC) There are mixed numbers of people declaring Polish ancestry (like in US - 9000000) and people declaring Polish nationality (i.e. Germany - over 292 000 of people of Polish nationality, but probably much more of Polish ancestry - maybe close to data from Polish government). Those two kinds of data shouldn't be mixed together, it is like adding metres to kilograms. Darzbor 13:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more and wonder if more people have noticed. Lot of these numbers are like apples and oranges and yet what we see here most of the time are dogged fights over virtually irrelevant numeric differences while ignoring glaring fundamental issues. Jbetak 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Additions of "estimates" by Polish government

Estimates are estimates. For those statistics that are not sourced by official research these estimates can be added, but we are not going to have the messy addition of these estimates given by the Polish government, otherwise we'd have to include estimates given by any other place as reputable (and trust me there are many). People must realize Wikipedia is here to present the MOST reliable and realistic of sourced statistics not just ANY sourced information. The simple solution to this is to leave the page as it is unless one can provide researched information for the estimated values here. Those are the only ones that merit a change. Antidote 04:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can get any more reliable then government data. As both numbers can be seen, and it most likely you won't get any final data on ethnic groups there should both Polish and foreign estimates. --Molobo 08:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Magically appearing 10 million Poles

The collection of data from Poles from the most significant diaspora populations is present as well as a not-so-prude estimate for elsewhere, yet because a few links from Domestic Agency's (not the majority) estimate there to be roughly (~) 60 million Poles, we have to assume that to be true? Where would the 10 million Poles come from? These estimates might have a basis but not for when Wikipedia is here to bring the most responsible and sensible estimates. Unless it can be shown where the other 10 million Poles come from, the total population estimate will stick with official census reports from the diaspora countries as well as a few sensible estimates (sensible meaning not saying 1,000,000 Poles in Puerto Rico). The Agency estimates will be placed in the main article. Antidote 01:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Subject of Ethnic Poles should be separate from vague word "Poles"

--142.214.108.101 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC) For the reasons listed on the page. Informationguy --142.214.108.101 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Add the word Lechitic

I don't know where to add the word Lechitic, but since it's mentioned that the Polish ethnic group belongs to the West-Slavic category, it seems that it would be appropriate to add that Poles belong to the Lechitic subgroup of the West-Slavic ethnic group of peoples. Informationguy

Numbers of Polish-Americans from 1990-2000

It's a pretty drastic change 9,366,051 Polish-Americans in 1990, compared to 8,977,235 in 2000. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf Informationguy

And what do you infer from this - if I may ask? Curiously Jbetak 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That it's a change in numbers, it was interesting to find out. It's became less rather than more, what exactly do you mean "infer from this", this is not innuedo! I thought it would be important to state the difference from 1990 to 2000, that it's less now rather than more. What is the reason for this I would like to ask? Is it due to low birthrates, or high death rates? Or immigration? Which ones more so and why? Informationguy
Perhaps the Polish population in various countries should also be listed on this page as through the years: 1990, decade by decade. Or would that take up too much space? Informationguy
Sorry - I should have bitten my lip. I'm just a bit disappointed about the uncritical approach most of the editors seem to take. Virtually all the census numbers are quite problematic. Unfortunately, I believe that you might be jumping to wrong conclusions. I think the numbers should either rounded off or removed althogether. Jbetak 05:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The links at the end of the page give full numbers not rounded off numbers. Thats all I can think of saying. But of course you can edit also. Informationguy
You have noticed the fluctuations in US census numbers. These numbers have the highest visibility, since they tend to represent the largest diaspora for most ethnicities.
The problem is much larger though. All foreign census results are inherently inaccurate in regards to ethnicity. Tabulation of ethnic origin is typically not the primany goal of a national census. The questions asked change slightly from census to census and so do the options a respondent can select. This explains some of the fluctuation.
Also, various countries classify ethnic origin differently. Some go by language, others by country of birth and some (e.g. the U.S.) let respondents declare their ancestry.
As things stand, we have some real issues when it comes to both accuracy and to the definition of ethnic origin. Although I can speak for the US census numbers with certain authority, I don't have the time to check everything in detail. Jbetak 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "fluctuation" does it have anything to do with some people on the US census listing themselves in more than one ethnic category? Informationguy
"we have some real issues when it comes to both accuracy and to the definition of ethnic origin" - Explain this, I already had a vote with someone else on the definition of ethnic origin and a consensus was reached. As a result of this, I don't want to talk about "definition of ethnic origin". I will let someone else decide on the definition of ethnic origin now. since as you said, that "various countries classify ethnic origin differently", then go on a country-by-country basis and make comparisons if you think this will clarify things. I did not write in the numbers on this page for Poles, besides the example I presented you with the population of Polish-Americans in 1990 compared to 2000. Informationguy
  • So explain who is this "we" that you have some "real issues" with. How can "we" resolve these "real issues", the clarity of this wording is weak at best. Since I also don't have time to argue over everything and I just came to mention a few things that were left out or hardly mentioned, such as the word Lechitic. Informationguy

www.nasza-gazetka.com/Menu_Polonia/DIASPORA/DIASPORA.HTM >POLONIA> LICZBY/ROZMIESZCZENIE 8THERE ARE ALMOST 40 MILLION POLEN IN POLAND AND 20 MILLION ABROAD!!! 2 million poles in germany www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/401/212schlott.html

Regarding 'Polak'

One of my best friends is Polish (Born in 'Commie Poland', lived there until he was 8, speaks Polish fluently etc etc), both by birth and decent, and *he* refers to himself as (a) Polak. It's one of his nicknames, part of his email address and even written on one of his 2 keychains. So it's not completely unheard of for Poles to refer to themselves as Polak, though I'd be willing to believe that he's a little unusual. Anyway, the other thing I wanted to mention is that in Australia (at least), Polak is pronounced the way it's written, not as 'Poe-lock' as mentioned in the article. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make some note of the alternative pronunciation, or remove the current reference altogether?

AFAIK Polack has derrogative connotations in English and in German. I'm not sure about other languages. I can also confirm that the term Poles in Polish language is verbatim Polaci, the singular of which (i.e. Pole) would be Polak. Perhaps this would explain your friend's somewhat peculiar preferece. My $0.02 Jbetak 09:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Polak" simply means a "Pole" in Polish. That's all there is too it... I wish you people actually bothered to learn the language of a country you try to argue about.
(The preceeding unsigned comment was added by User:74.101.195.104 (talk)

Conversely, "Ruski" simply means a "Russian" in Russian. However, if used to describe a Russian by another person who is not a Russian, it becomes an insult. Just try to say it to a Russian-American and see what happens... or read about it at urbandictionary.com with the proverbial tongue in cheek [1]. --Poeticbent  talk  04:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Polish Population in Lithuania

I don't think that there are 300,000 Polish people living in Lithuania, maybe in Vilnuis! I watched a Polish documentary showing Polish children in Polish schools in Lithaunia (a bit redundant I might say :P) anyways, they said that there are over 250,000 Polish children in these schools I doubt that 95% of the Polish population in Lithuania are children :P There has to be at least a million Polish people in Lithuania Can you change the amount of Polish people in Lithuania, 300.000 is too small of a number The problem is that during 500 years of polonosation even some Lithuanians started to call themselves Polish or Belorussians (due to the slavian written language was used in Lithuanian Grand Duchy by Lithuanians, because we adapted latin letters only some 400 years ago and started to write in our spoken native Lithuanian language - there are huge amount of Lithuanian word naming rivers, places and lakes in Poland, Belorussia Ukraine and Russia)...so in fact the number of real Polish in Lithuania is less than 100 000, but the rest call themselves 'tuteish' and they have quite different language (mix of 3 languages - Belorussian, Lithuanian and Polish - that's why Poland had the pretext to occupy our ancient capital Vilnius) and this fenomena due to prolonged occupations from all the sides (Russia and Poland), but in fact they are Lithuanians by ethnicity (like my grandfather was, the family name and history of it explicitly show Lithuanian origins). Some 300 years ago even in the heart of Lithuania were one city in which all inhabitants spoke in Polish (Kedainiai), like 100 years ago lots of very famous Lithuanian people were speaking only in Polish (it is due to long occupation by Poles), but they kept themselves and their family tree showed pure Lithiuanian ethnocity without any impurity. So 20% or so Polish are purely of Baltic origin even family names are derived from Lithuanian words and not from Slavic roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.112.200 (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Moreover even Poland flag is half Baltic half Slavian indicating that White color is for Balts (means Whites) and Red is for Slavs (means Fame which associates with blood). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.112.200 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Polish Population in Israel

There are utleast 300,000 polish people in israel, if you take into consideration their direct decendents -utleast one polish grandfather/grandmother (in my case 3.5 out of 4) the number can reach 800,000-1,000,000. I would like to ask from the regulars to add this figure to the numbers of the countries where there are poles. I see myself as a polish person like any other pole regardless of my religion. ...erm...yeah good for you. Now for the grammer check: We say ATleast not UTleast. (Sorry it's just really annoying me!) Polish and Israel both get capitals. Tut tut! How can you have half a person? If you mean half Polish just say it. Life would be so much easier for you if you did things simply and always tell the truth.

Polish Population in the UK

According to The Indepedent from Saturday 11 February 2006 there are now 750,000 Poles living in the United Kingdom. I've given a link to the Indy's website, but I think old articles might be available to subsribers only, so in a few days this link might not be accessible. Also I wasn't sure whether to put it above or below Canada on the list as 750k is more the Canada's lowest estimate but less than the highest estimate. You have misinterpreted the article. Ever since Poland has become part of the EU, thousands of Poles have flocked to UK and other places for jobs, however, they are not included in the UK census information but infact in the Poland census. Essentially, you are re-adding already added population numbers. Simple mistake, and it's been done before on other articles. 72.153.53.38

Polish Population in France

There's no Poles at all, or what ? Illmarinen 22:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Sure, probably 10,000 or so, maybe less. Find an accurate source that lists French citizens of Polish descent, not Polish people who work or travel to France. 72.144.161.84 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

According to that website about immigration in France, around 700,000 Poles immigrated to France in the 1920s. In the 1930s, many foreigners were expelled from France but there still were 422,700 Poles living in France in 1936. There are now 1,000,000 people of Polish background living in France, half of them from Nord-Pas-de-Calais. --Elnuevomercurio 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to highlight that even if the number of Polish nationals is low in France compared with other EU countries (chiefly Britain or Germany) a million French people claim Polish ancestry. The Polish immigration to France at the beginning of the 20th century was massive and those people stayed. Does anyone know a reliable source to support that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.163.212 (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Polish Population in Germany

290.000 - this is only population of Poles living in Germany without german citizenship, true number of ethnic Poles is a much larger (over 2 mln to 3 mln) Illmarinen 14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (sorry for my bad language)

that's right. the german politics don't tell the ethnic poles with german citizenship. The germans have a problem with the word "ethnic" because of there historie. --Plk 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the number of Germans with some Polish forefather(s)amounts to something like 2 or 2 million. However, as most of them (probably the overwhelming majority) have in the meantime mixed with people who are not of Polish descent, there are very few who could be called "ethnic Poles", and who would consider them as such. There are evidently exceptions, like Lucas Podolski in the German national football team...--213.22.66.154 (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Polish Population in Ireland

I have revised this to 116,206 based on the numbers of PPS no.s (needed to pay taxes) in Ireland which have been allocated to Polish nationals. These figures are credible so please whoever removed them before leave them there. Thanks. (Irishman) Whoever changed this to 150,000 if you are going to do that then provide a citation please because otherwise I don't think your figure is as credible as mine which comes with a citation based on PPS no.s. I have changed it back. Thanks. (Irishman) I changed the 116,000 figure to 150,000 and added a source for it. Also please checke out Poles in Ireland Taoiseach :)

This is a very simple concept to grasp. There may be 150,000 Poles living and working in Ireland, but they are not discounted from the 38 million Polish population in mainland Poland, so you are just adding 150,000 people twice. 72.144.161.84 23:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As the latest Census returns indicate 63,276 Poles in Ireland,oh oh I get the fealing that's not good, I feel this should be included on the info bar. http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/PDR%202006%20Tables%2019-30.pdf (Celt2007) -2 April 2007

Ethnic Poles

I commented out some paragraphs from the Ethnic Poles subheader as the information was confusingly arranged, unclear, and unsourced. Cleanup of this section would be appreciated. Olessi 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

2 mil Poles in UK!!!

I noticed the extremist and liar website where that 2 000 000 mil Poles living in UK is confirmed. Hat guy is a just a stupid nationalist that has nothing to do with. It even says that the Polish diaspora counts 40 mil people(!!!) and is the second numerous diaspora in WORLD. How about Italians, English , French, Germans!! I mean who is enough stupid to believe that a country of 38 mil people like Poland could have a diaspora of 40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorbertArthur (talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 September 2006 

        Surely Poland would be pretty empty if that were true =] 82.9.230.246 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They really are Polaks?!

OMG! I just thought that was some duragatory offenseive term made up by Americans! Here in America Poles call themselves Polaks in jokes but I didn't think it was a real Polish term! T. Bartosz 21:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As I am Pole I can confirm you that Poles are in Polish Polacy. I don't know what is that offensive term for Poles but Polaks looks as if someone tried to make English plural form by adding -s to Polish (singular) word Polak (which really means [one] Pole). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.25.102.123 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
Here in America Poles call themselves Polaks in jokes No, here in America ignorant bigots call us Poles Polaks in jokes. I've never known a non-Polish speaking Pole (such as myself) use the term, as we generally do not make fun of ourselves. That being said, this discussion has no place on a talk page. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"as we generally do not make fun of ourselves" - Yes, we do:) Don't make such humourless stiff bores out of us:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.160.49.34 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But everyone makes fun of themselves and their nationallity such as us Irish always having a laugh but proud to be Irish. Polish people should stay in Poland if that's the attitude they have. Honestly talk about spoilsports!

Poles in Argentina

The link clearly says that there are 500.000 people of Pole ancestry living in Argentina. 250.000 is the number of Polish immigrants that settled there in the last century. Please stop changing the figures. --Elnuevomercurio 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Block Needed

Please block IP Address: 71.233.193.32 for adding 'john john john george was the first President'. I removed it to keep wikipedia looking good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.119.157 (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Official Census

Are there any official census about the Poles in world wide. Because those figures in the chart are quite different than this. [2] Ajda 02:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition & slavicity

Someone here is trying to rewrite the history of Slavs by removing Poles from that group. I'd like to see some serious proof before I choose to accept that ;) Definition seems to be an issue as well. I can easily understand why some might dislike such terms as nation and/or ethnic group but nevertheless they exist and should be used where appropriate. Using definition taken from the Polish constitution as a main one seems a bit strange to me. Surely it's been created by politicians who are not exactly experts in the field. So I see it as a big POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.44.220 (talk • contribs)

Yes - please discuss all changes here; rather than reverting each other back and forth, the issue should be resolved before editing. I will be alerting all editors involved. -- Natalya 01:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This change what an IP since two weeks do again and again is a drastic change of the article. And without source and without any statements. I don't think that this change is quite correct. --Plk 12:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued edit war over opening paragraph

The continued edit war from the last few days over the opening paragraph is unnecessary and disruptive. I would ask all parties to discuss the matter here and reach a consensus rather than continuing to revert. If this does not happen I will protect the page from further editing to prevent a continuation of the dispute in the article. Thanks, Gwernol 19:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that didn't work, so the article is now semi-protected for a couple of days. Please everyone, discuss changes here before entering an edit war. Gwernol 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for statements about the changes.--Plk 21:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) The anon slugfest is described at Talk:Poland#Poland.2C_Central_or_East; none of the anon's seem to like talk page - they prefer to revert war and discuss through edit summaries. Unfortunatly their changing IPs make blocks relativly uneffective, but semiprotection is a good responce.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite semi-protecion, the edit war has continued. I am disappointed to see that established editors continue to change the opening paragraph back and forwards. I am also disappointed to see editors on both sides throw around the term "vandalism", which is clearly inappropriate. I am particularly sad to see that there has been no attempt at constructive dialog over this. The article has now been fully protected, so only admins can edit. Everyone involved needs to come here and discuss the issue and reach consensus on an appropriate wording. Until you do, you cannot edit the article further. Thanks, Gwernol 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Edits of user:Spraspost will be always reverted and considered vandalism. Replacing interwiki links with quotation-marks is surely vandalism. As for the "problematic" definition, well, look at the map. - Darwinek 12:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Please review the edits that Sparspost made [3]: it is clear his primary objective is to change the related peoples infobox entry and to place Poland in Eastern rather than Central Europe. This is primarily a content dispute and this should be addressed here. A blanket threat to always revert another editor's contributions is not helpful and escalates rather then resolves the dispute. I urge you all to work towards a common consensus on this. Thank you, Gwernol 14:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

From official site of Poland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs ([4]): Poland lies in the central part of the European continent, the geometrical centre of which is near Warsaw. . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

The article was started in Romanian Wikipedia too. I see here it is protected, so if an admin could please insert the interwiki to the Romanian article - ro:Polonezi. Thanks. --Roamataa 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Gwernol 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"western Slavic people" vs. "European people" in the first line

Czechs, Serbs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Ukrainians, Russians, Croats, Bulgarians, Bosniaks and Belarusians. All this articles use the form with "slavic people" and no one use a form "European people". Where is the reasen to do that in this article different than in the others?--Szkopski 00:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that the article is meant to be read by various people from all over the world, some of whom might not be familiar with European geography and history as much as you are. There's enough space within the article to explain the ethnic roots, differences and similarities between Western Slavic people. There must be some kind of progression on the scale of importance from the beginning of the article till its end. --Poeticbent  talk  00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
In the first line you have "inhabiting the country of Poland (in the central part of the European continent)". So you don't need to say it double. If in a country in Europe, than a european people. It's a logical conclusion. So you can leave the old version with western Slavic people. Everyone in this world will read in the same line that it is in Europe and if he want to know more about West Slavs than he must just click at the link.--Szkopski 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have a bit of a difficulty with that one line you mentioned: "inhabiting the country of Poland." I personally prefer simple ways. I've searched Google for "a European people". You can read the results here [5]. There are about 16,100 hits for "a European people" in Google. Please doublecheck. You might also be interested in reading the statement made by Dr Judy Batt from the Centre for Russian and East European Studies of the Birmingham University: "Poles see themselves as a great people, a European people who have preserved their European values from which they have been separated by outside influences." [6] --Poeticbent  talk  01:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the first line oriented by the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the article Czechs. Hope that's okay.--Szkopski 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you didn't get my point. You insist on just one answer, which is to use Western Slavs in the opening line. And so you removed a European people again, which is inflammatory. This edit war will continue indefinitely if you don't reconsider you position. There are other ways in addressing the same challenge without upsetting other editors. Please, use your smarts and look for middle ground. It is naive to think that you or anyone else is going to win this edit war by being stubborn. If I were you I would leave the opening line alone, than again, it is your life, not mine. --Poeticbent  talk  13:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No-one said why it will not be "western Slavic people". It was here changed without any argument. And before 14 February 2007 it was allways "western slavic people" in the opening line. So if you want that change than you have to argument why. I want the old version. The old version was so long there and is in other article so it should be again here. If you don't have any arguments that it have to be the old version whithout this change.--Szkopski 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You want to save something permanently - an old version - from before User:83.22.75.22 came along and changed it on February 15. You're willing to fight for it. That's fine. Wikipedia is about constant change though. Just like you, I edit articles and strive to accommodate change in such way as to maintain the balance. User:83.22.75.22 will be back, so do what you wish. I'm out. --Poeticbent  talk  18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Poles identify more with Western European culture then with term "Slavic people" which includes Russians or Serbs with which an average Pole doesn't share much common culture, religion or tradition. Ethnicly Poles are connected to West Slavs due to history, culturaly Poles feel connected to Western Europe. Polish nation also is made out of assimiliated Germans, Jews and Tatars-the template "Slavic nation" seem ideologically charged and innacurate.--JackNo 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC) source? any naziwebsites?

All answers are already there

Please take time to read the actual article. All possible answers are already there. --Poeticbent  talk  04:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you any source for your thesis? You say that the Poles don't be a slavic people. Without source for that it is wrong and have to be changed.--Szkopski 09:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article again. Here's is what is says:

"As to the ethnicity, the name of the nation comes from a western Slavic ethnic group primarily associated with Poland and the Polish language. Poles belong to the Lechitic subgroup of these ethnic people. The Polans of Giecz, Gniezno, and Poznań were one of the most influential tribes of Greater Poland and managed to unite many other West Slavic tribes in the area under the rule of what became the Piast dynasty, thus giving birth to a new state."

You might also be interested in reading about other European people in Wikipedia encyclopedia. --Poeticbent  talk  15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Like Irish people(hint hint) we're great. YAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.12.22 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

...and Muslim minorities

is it realy mentionable to list this? 0.018% of the poles are moslems. I don't think that is mentionable. Maybe there belong 20 poles to a Buddhism minority. Should we mention that, too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.87.150 (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC). That is almost impossible (nothing's impossible) I'm pretty sure there is no religous group who call themselves moslems could be wrong though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.12.22 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Tatar (Muslin) minority has a bit of place in Polish history, contrary to Buddhists. 88.156.220.218 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) I also think this should be removed, even the source listed for that fact only lists 5000 Muslims while Atheists and Protestants number in the millions. Tatars are the only group to whom this specifically pertains and seeing as they identify themselves as Tatar they should not appear in an article for Poles. Unless someone presents a source for a significant number of Poles who are Muslim this will be edited. JRWalko 01:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Removing references to Islam after consulting the Central Statistics Office demographics data. They list many religious denominations and Muslim isn't listed. If it isn't notable in such a broad data survey it shouldn't be noted here. Will retain Jewish as a notable religion due to Poles living abroad. If anyone has data to suggest the contrary please provide it.

Why is Ireland not listed?

The article states that 150,000 Poles live in Ireland, yet this isn't mentioned in the information bar thing. Someone might want to edit it. I'm not touching it, I'd only break it. Big Moira 21:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) The article also has two different numbers, one states 150,000 Poles in Ireland, other says 200,000 left for Ireland. No citation on either one and the Irish public info only has numbers from 2002. If someone has a good source for a number please provide it so we can update the article.

first line needs editing

please correct the first sentence; it should say mother language, not mother tongue; tongue is just a body part; language is a form of communication —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnsp (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Mexico and Turkey

It seems that the 55,000 of Poles in Mexico may be erroneous, perhaps 5,000? Also Turkey closes out the list with 2,000 while Slovakia, Sweden, Norway, and France, all countries with Polish populations well above 2,000 remain unlisted. JRWalko 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The infobox

On 08:53, 26 March 2007 Horvat Den wrote in his edit summary: (why did you revert? Those statistics are a complete farce continually added by a vandal anon. The millions of Poles he keeps adding are completely unsubstantiated). Then, he went on to rewrite the entire infobox. So I checked what Horvat Den meant and found out that two numbers might have been changed, but all additional revisions made by Horvat Den on that date can be considered disruptive. Here are the specifics:

  • Natalya reverted stats edit by 201.26.164.157 to last version by 82.19.15.172 [7]
  • Poeticbent reverted stats edit by User:201.42.32.70 [8]
  • User:64.171.134.239, Mexico: 5,000 => 55,000 [9] not yet reverted
  • User:84.142.114.69, Total population=60 million => 55-60 million [10]
  • User:213.39.160.20, Total population=50 million => 60 million [11] changed (see above)
  • Revision as of 10:32, 13 January 2007 Horvat Den, Total population=55-60 million => 50 million [12] changed (see above)

I brought the infobox back to its original state with the inclussion of Mexico: 5,000. Total population: 50 million as requested by Horvat Den is lacking outside reference (see: [1] - no source provided). I'd like to encourage you to bring it in before changing the numbers again. --Poeticbent  talk  16:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) But all additional revisions made by Horvat Den on that date can be considered disruptive? Oh please. Stop acting so bureacratic and stop singling me out. You write this like I stole a nuclear warhead. Besides, you only looked back a few weeks at most. The reverts have been taking place since last year, and the Germany number has been fiddled with every since I joined wikipedia. I have to revert back to the original well-sourced numbers nearly every month because the anons keep playing with them. Your analysis of my reverts like they're vandalism is just feeding their fire. Horvat Den 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

idiotopedia

"Since Poland joined the EU in May 2004, 307,670 Poles have registered to work in the United Kingdom" hahaha very important information (and sole) about modern Polish Nation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.242.104.9 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC). Its stupid, its like saying, The english people have robbed india from its wealth.

Polanski on image

Somebody please replace Polanski on the image of Polish representative. He hardly passes as a universal representative of the Polish nation. LeszekB 09:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

More directly, he isn't ethnically Polish. 76.182.116.210 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we settle the religion dispute?

I think the infobox mentions too many religions. The numbers of the minorities are so tiny I don't think they deserve to be noted there. Virtually every country in the world in the 21st century will have minorities of some religious groups so is it really necessary to mention these in this article? The breakdown for Poland I found is as follows: Orthodox - 500,000 or .01%, Jehovah's Witnesses - 125,000 or .003%, Protestant - .002%, Muslim - 30,000 or .0007%. I haven't found an exact number for Poles living abroad but I doubt that they change these numbers much. A significant number of Polish Jews lives in other countries so that perhaps should be noted but the religions I named above really don't constitute large enough portions of Poles to be noted. Secondly, a large number of those practising the Protestant and Muslim denominations don't even declare themselves as Poles but rather Germans and Tatars. Bottom line is that given that 90-95% of the people in Poland are Catholic and the Polonia in the US is also predominatly Catholic I don't think these other religions should be mentioned. JRWalko 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How about mentioning only these, that account for more than 1% of the population ? --Lysytalk 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I’m not sure whether we should decide anything without input from other editors. On whose authority do we choose what exact percentage point of Polish population is worth mentioning in the infobox? Personally, I’d rather be adding than extracting. --Poeticbent  talk  19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I put up a notice on the WikiProject Poland notice board asking for input from other editors. JRWalko 19:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I support e.g. giving to infobox 5 most numerous religions. The fact that e.g. to Round Table talks in 1989 was invited a Lutheran Bishop (along with only two Roman Catholic representatives) speaks for itself. Other historical religions have also "their" strong regions in Poland, so they are surely notable. I see no harm in having them in infobox. - Darwinek 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC) I'd strongly recommend refering readers to religion in Poland, and interested editors to improve what is know a pitful stub.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We should not confuse "Poland" with "Poles", as the latter are not the only ethnic group in Poland. Similarly, we should not confuse "religion in Poland" with "religion of Poles". --Lysytalk 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Following the example of Germans, Britons, Austrians, and other articles listing religion I think it should say "Predominantly Roman Catholic, with other Christian, Jewish, and secular minorities." The religions below 1% are simply not statistically significant to be individually listed.JRWalko 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Article about Britons puzzles me a bit. We all know about major East Indian and Muslim minorities originating from Great Britain, and yet their religions are not mentioned at all among Britons worldwide. How come? British Muslims live everywhere on Earth. The same can be said about Germans with only “Roman Catholic, Protestant (chiefly Lutheran), secular, others” mentioned. How come German Turks living outside of Germany are omitted? Is there so very few of them? Not possible. Article about Austrians for example, list only Roman Catholic ca. 75 %, Protestant ca. 5 %, other or no religion (ca. 20 %). That’s it. Than again, do these nations have diasporas as big as that of ours? I would doubt that. --Poeticbent  talk  03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How about mentioning 2-3 largest religions ? I believe Orthodox and Protestant are significant for Poles, depending on the region. --Lysytalk 08:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
if we said "other Christian" then it would include Orthodox, Protestant, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Together these would make up something like half a percent of the population. "secular" would include atheists and agnostics. Does anyone find any general fault with: "Predominantly Roman Catholic (+90%), with other Christian, Jewish, and secular minorities."? I really think that's a more accurate statement. JRWalko 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point, however, the phrase "other Christian" does not include Muslim minority (regardless of how miniute it might be). Personally I’ve never met a Polish Muslim, but please ask User:Orestek who added the link. Maybe he knows better, since he’s involved with the Polish-American church recently. --Poeticbent  talk  17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Most of Poland's 30,000 Muslims are recent immigrants from the Soviet countries. They are not ethnic Poles. The only historical Polish populations that are Muslims are the Tatars who declare themselves to be Tatar not Polish (according to the last census) and are a separate ethnic group that is not a branch of Poles. Poland also has Hindu and Buddhist minorities but they are also recent immigrants and not representative of Poles as an ethnic group. JRWalko 18:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why "together something like half a percent of the population" ? The Orthodox accounts for about 1.5% alone. Where did you get your data from ? --Lysytalk 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I just misinterpreted the number. Based on the info from www.poland.gov.pl the Orthodox Church numbers 550000 or 1.4%. The site also says that "most" of those are Belorussians not Poles. Then the Lutherans at .22%, Pentecostals at .04%, Adventists at .02%, .14% in non-Roman Catholic churches. Then you have .33% Jehovah's Witnesses and Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu religions that aren't even given numbers. JRWalko 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Population numbers

I wasn't the one that initially put in the numbers that were removed from the template and don't know where they came from BUT the template as it is now is virtually unusable as it greatly misinforms readers as to the type and extent of the Polish diaspora. It is ridiculous that the current template implies that Brazil is the third most populous destination of Poles around the world. That is blatantly wrong and does a disservice to wikipedia. I suggest restoring the old numbers, removing the citations next to them and distinctly marking them as unsourced estimates. This way the counties can be compared in some more relative terms and the template can become useful. JRWalko 02:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I invite editors to discuss the above matter on the discussion page of the template in question, which can be found here -> [13]. I copied my comments from that page because the template isn't perhaps so well watched by other editors. JRWalko 02:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Poles in the UK

Why over 600,000 Poles or Polish Britons in the UK aren't add to the article? Kowalmistrz 12:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Poles in US

In the list, it says that there are 9.3 million polish descendents in the USA, but when I looked in the pdf, that was a 1990 stat. The 2000 stat says that there are now 8.9 million people in the USA claiming Polish background. Can you check that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.152.146.236 (talk) 06:25, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The article lacks any information about the etymology of the word "pole(s)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.27.9 (talk) 23:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

UK POLES

There are over 3/4 million Polish people in the UK, this would rank 4th in the list, yet they are not even mentioned here. Surely the 4th largest Polish Diaspora Group should be mentioned [14] I know some of these are recorded in the Polish Census, but as long as they are in the UK, they are Polish British. There may not be exactly 750,000 British Poles, but even if this is true, the Polish British population would be considerably higher than the majority of diasporas listed in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.217.123 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable sources to support what you claim? Please read WP:V. --Mathsci 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The link (number 13) to the Australian statistics no longer works. Can someone fix it? Davez621 18:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

SOURCES FOR UK POLES POPULATION

number of Poles working in UK after May 2004 (EU Accession)

The article claimed 110,000 and cites this report. But the report itself lists in Table 2 on p.11 that the number was 310,000 (just add all quarters). I changed it. I also changed the wording of the credit that it gives to workers from new EU countries. It gives credit to workers from all those countries, not just from Poland. Furthermore Poles are those that claim absolutely (not per capita or per 1,000 workers) the most tax-funded income-related benefits (Table 13, p.30), even though this number is still consider by authors of the report low. 24.81.130.107 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's no Table 2 on p.11. However, there's a Chart 2 on pg. 8 showing the Nationality of applicants (May 2004 - September 2006). It says: "In the period 1 May 2004 to 30 September 2006, the highest proportion of applicants were Polish (63% of the total), followed by Lithuanian (11%) and Slovak (10%) applicants." Those are just applicants, all right?
And don't change the words of the report to prove your WP:POINT. The chart of pg. 30 says "Applications for Tax Credits" and not "tax-funded income-related benefits" as you falsely claim. Those are two entirely different things. "Tax credits" are given to those who earn their keep, and "benefits" to those who don't. --Poeticbent talk 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
One more time: Table 2, page 9 (that's the 11th page in the document) lists Nationality of applicants approved by quarter applied and for 2004 it lists 71 000, for 2005 127 000 and for Q1-Q3 2006 32+38+39 thousand approved applicants. Altogether 310 000. Under the table one can read: This table shows applicants approved rather than the total number of applications made. The figures are for initial applications only (not multiple applications, where an individual is doing more than one job simultaneously, or re-registration, where an individual has changed employers.
The chart on p.8 you mention show exactly the same 310000 I talk about. What's not clear?
Table 16, p.28 (that's the 30th page of the document) has title Nationality of applicants for tax-funded, Income-related benefits. That's social support. Poland makes a little over 50% of all applications. I also correctly stated it's not the most per 1000 workers.
The preambule doesn't mention Poles. It mentions workers from A8, so don't steal credit from those who got it.
Until you are able to prove what you base your 110 000 on, I'm reverting the article to my version.
24.81.130.107 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you really believe that I'm going to buy this? The fact is that, if Polish nationals make over 50% of all applicants, the preamble of the British Home Office refers to them most of all. The preamble is supported by the entire document without the need for being repetitive, but obviously the credit goes to Poles. And what numbers are you adding? There's a Table on p.9 entitled "Nationality of applicants approved by quarter applied, May 2004 - September 2006". It states the following: 2004 Total (Poland): 71,020; 2005 Total (Poland): 127,310; 3 quarters of 2006 (Poland): 72% of total. You cannot be adding these numbers, unless you have no idea what you're doing or what these numbers mean. Applicants come and go, many of them apply from year to year as the same people, others go back home and are replaced by newcomers. The numbers are independent for each year. Please stop manipulating them to fit your WP:POINT. --Poeticbent talk 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Show me ONE location in the source where it mentions 110 000 registred workers and I may change my mind. So far the only thing you've done is throwing around some random number. All claims in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Prove yours. I've certainly proved mine. I'm aware that 310 000 is not a number of unique workers or number of workers working in UK at any given moment, but I can re-word the section.
Your version of the article says: Poles continue to come to the UK to work and [...] keep "contributing to the success of the UK economy ... which is not what the preambule - you self are citing - says. Don't take credit from those who were given it.
I tagged it as disputed section and I'm not taking it off until this dispute is resolved.
23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Kościuszko should be removed from the image

Kościuszko is an important Poland's national hero. Nevertheless, the article is about those who are ethnically Polish. Kościuszko was born on a territory which most of it's residents where Ruthenians (today it's Belarus), so most of the chances his ethnicity wasn't Polish, while this article talks about the Polish ethnicity. 132.66.161.42 (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Most of the chances are" - this is a good explanation of the point you are trying to achieve. Perhaps you do not know that many Poles used to live and still live in those territories. And let's not talk about chances Tymek (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Polish People in Italy

according with this source the Polish immigrants in Italy are more than 100,000 many of them live in Rome . http://www.aduc.it/dyn/immigrazione/noti.php?id=148797—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.201.52 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

European Union section

Just a thought but the entire section on the EU seems really out of place in this article. None of the other articles on European ethnic groups have this and it seems really trivial in the scope of the entire history of the group. It's as if the only defining characteristic of Poles is their place in the EU. I suggest a removal of this section. A brief overview of language, religion, culture would probably me more informative here. JRWalko (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

poels

we would like to say that ....... we think that pole people are very interesting to learn about... lets just say we think you are very cool people Guess what my best friend is a pole just like you(maybe you no HER) LOVE CAILY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.202.96 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"European Union" section

(for ethnic Poles living abroad see Polonia, for those living and working in the United Kingdom see Polish British)

A survey carried out by the CBOS public opinion institute, between March 30 and April 2, 2007, found that 86% of Poles felt that EU membership had had a positive effect, with only 5% of the respondents speaking against it, down from 22 percent in 2004. The institute also found that 55% of those surveyed prefer the EU to remain a union of sovereign states, while 22% supported the idea of a "United States of Europe".[1] Principal areas of Polish life that have been improved by EU membership, are agriculture (according to 75% of those surveyed), the environment (61%), productivity (57%) and unemployment (56%).[2] Among the ten new EU members, of which eight are Central or Eastern European, Poles are the most mobile, with considerable numbers of Polish migrants found in almost all ‘old’ EU countries, filling numerous vacancies on the European labour market, especially in areas where indigenous workforce is insufficient. According to Franck Duvell of Oxford, some countries, like Germany and Austria, missed on that opportunity by discriminating against mobile Europeans, granting them freedom of movement without freedom of employment, which resulted in the increase of numbers of illegal migrant workers there. “In fact, the EU accession process, and namely the Polish experience could possibly serve as a paradigm for easing some of Europe’s migration dilemma,” Duvell suggested.[3] Take this elsewhere. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I changed the infobox section on religion to simply Christianity (Predominantly Roman Catholic) because the percentage of other religious groups is about the same or less as Spaniards and Italians and since those and other ethnicities' infoboxes generally don't include tiny religions I don't see why they should be here. Kasnie (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I make any mistake here - I'm not used to editing on Wiki.. I would like to emphasize that most of the Poles do not feel that they belong to any church at all. The information that it's above 90% is surely wrong - maybe it's due to the fact, that there's no mean of measuring that. Up to recent years the baptizing of the children was seen as "something traditional", people were doing that thinking "it's no big deal, I can do this if my mom/dad/grandma wants it". So you see, usually ('cause, surely, there is some amount of people who really believe) there are no religious thoughts behind that. And once you're baptized, you remain in the Church' documents forever unless you perform the apostasy, which obviously no-one who decides not to go to church cares about. So, in the end, in the documents owned by Church are people who, f.e., haven't been in church or haven't done anything "religious" for YEARS (this includes all of my family, which is really a bunch of people - we all have been baptized, some of us may believe IN SOME SORT OF SENSE, but none of us identifies with the Catholic Church, or any christian one at all). That's a different situation form the one you can see for example in Germany, where there is a tax connected to the Church and if you're paying, you're in - that gives you the exact measure. So I think you should maybe find some information about that and change this description a little. Especially young Poles, and that includes me, are tired of being called "religious", of hearing that we listen to the Pope and consider what Church says about the law, politics etc. We do not. Otherwise - that's a great article ;). 90.156.33.231 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I for example until recently studied at the university of Warsaw where I met a surprisingly high amount of people who actually are catholics who still go to church quite often. I'm quite sure that among my fellow students it was even the majority. But that of course doesn't mean that I'm perfectly certain that most Poles actually are religious. However, it's general knowledge that Poland is an ultra catholic nation so I take my own experiences as a confirmation of the statistics. Unless you have any kind of valid sources for "most young Poles being tired of being called religious" your opinion doesn't have any relevance. --88.75.176.24 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You are soo so wrong Poland is one of the most Christians and most Catholic country in the world 97% percent of the Polish population are Christians (Catholic) your probably Atheist also out of any country in europe we have the most people that go to church regualry Maks12345678910 (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Great Poles"

I think that we should change that: First row: Skłodowska–Curie • Pope John Paul II • Copernicus • Wałęsa • Conrad. Second row: Gretzky • Jan III Sobieski • Kościuszko • Rejewski • Wajda • Kolbe. Third row: Piłsudski • Lem • Brzeziński • Warner • Wielicki • Wolszczan. We have bigger "heroes" than these bolded by me. For example, Ignacy Łukasiewicz, Adam Mickiewicz, Roman Dmowski and much more. I think that it is no need for placing former Soviet agents, Canadian sport heroes or other next to Piłsudski, Jan III Sobieski, Kościuszko or Pope John Paul II. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your concern, the people selected for this image were specifically meant to come from all walks of life and all incarnations of the meaning of "Poles". The definition is very broad and so is this selection. See the other articles on ethnic groups and how they tackled the issue. JRWalko (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

--142.214.108.101 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)--142.214.108.101 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)--~~~~Insert non-formatted text here

Hi, I was reading that article about fameous Poles and... Don't know how to say that. Well. I woul'd like to ask, why that set of pictures lacks one particular piano-guy? One Chopin guy? Is it becouse by many he is considered to be french pianist? I can live without Chopin's photo in that set, but why Delacroix? I'm almost certain that Delacroix wasn't Pole. Did french people give Delacroix to polish people in exchange for Chopin? We don't need Delacroix, we've got lots of poets. We'll take Zidane for Chopin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.199.67 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

There are couple issues with this picture that need to be resolved. Warner should not be included, because this article is about ethnic Poles. Harry Warner's ethnicity was not Polish, he was Jewish. So was Stanisław Lem. Also exceptional notability of Wielicki and Wolszczan is questionable. M0RD00R (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lem was a Pole or Jew? Really his origins are jewish, but what decides of his ethnicity? His family was catholic, St.Lem was atheist, their nationality was Polish. Lem repatriated to Poland (not Izrael). Yes, from racist POV he was Jew, but from any other POV - Polish writer and philosopher.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I definitely can understand how Lem can be considered Polish. But still I fail to see what Harry Warner is doing here. Wayne Gretzky Polishness is also debatable, wiki article is inconsistent on this question (Belarusian heritage is also mentioned). Disputable entries should be left out of infobox in my opinion. M0RD00R (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Poles and non-Poles with Polish origins - two different topics.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I find these sort of feuds tiring. We're only one click away from the article Krasnosielc in the heart of Poland where Harry Warner born as Hirsch Wonsal (Wąsal perhaps?) came from. Yes, he was Jewish, we know that, but please read the introduction to this article. --Poeticbent talk 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Exists Poles sensu lato definition (so 250,000 Jews in Israel are from Poland and so Poles), and Poles sensu stricto (Lithuanians, Roma, Ukrainians with Polish nationality are not Poles). So all over the world is possible to find Pole who even does not know he is Pole. Civilized society recognizes ethnic (or ethnic descent) selfdefinition only, so blackskin Pole is possible and Jan Kowalski non-Pole is possible also. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed self definition is the key question here. So the question is - did Harry Warner ever referred to himself as a Pole, and how many of 250,000 Israelis listed here refer to themselves as Poles. M0RD00R (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't provide you with any surveys relating to the topic, but Being an Israeli of Polish background myself, I can assure you many of us do consider ourselves to be Polish(not to mention we still carry our Polish last names), despite the efforts of some nationalists to take away our Polish identity. BTW, 250,000 is an oddly low number. My guess is it's only counting Polish-born Israelis. The actual numbers of Israelis of Polish origin are much higher, est. to be around 500,000, if not higher.79.179.239.75 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read the introduction, namely "Poles are a Western Slavic ethnic group of Central Europe" , I don't believe Harry Warner did belong to that ethnic group. The Poles can also be referred to ... Polish emigrants irrespective of their ethnicity. True as well, but this does not change the fact the scope of this article is Poles (ethnic group). Beeing born Krasnosielc (in Russian Empire then) does not make him ethnic Russian as well. If I'm wrong about the scope of this article - we'll need to work on the Polish Jews section. It looks strange when the Polish Jews are only present in the infobox image, without single word about them in the article space. Another point is that even if indeed sometimes "Polish emigrants irrespective of their ethnicity" are referred to as Poles, it does not mean that Harry Warner is referred to that way. So far I'm not familiar with any WP:RS referring to him as Pole. And if there are no WP:RS, it is WP:OR. M0RD00R (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Krasnosielc (a short distance away from Warsaw), was once a town in Congress Poland (not in the Russian Empire in the usual sense). No foreign invader can change the ethnic make up of a nation with its prominent minorities, subjugated even for a century or more. But, perhaps the time has come to expand on the Jewish Poles in this article as per your suggestion from above. There's space for that. --Poeticbent talk 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking by 1881 when Harry Warner was born it was Russian Empire in usual sense, autonomy of Congress Poland was abolished long time ago. But let's not distract ourselves from the really important question of self identification, namely did Harry Warner ever referred to himself as a Pole, or is he referred that way by multiple WP:RS, or maybe we have a case of WP:OR here. M0RD00R (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In 1881 Poland existed in hearts ans mindes of Poles, but Wiki calls the Congress Poland a "puppet" with a fictional autonomy. But what does it changes? Who decides Warner ethnicity or his descent selfdefinition? It is an encyclopedic fact he was born at ethnic Polish land in a heart of the modern Poland territory. We can not decide of his selfdefinition. There are unquestionable Poles to choose. The chapter with a Polish place of birth or Polish roots personalities list can be useful, I guess, as it is made in a lot of articles in Wiki.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And that is not what I asked. This article is not titled Polish Jews. It is titled Poles. So I ask did Warner was ever referred to as Pole. It is quite simple question I guess. Answer is simple as well, and we all know what it is. M0RD00R (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • M0RD00R, you're being fixated on the racial divide. You know more than well about how many minorities live in France, Germany, England and in other European countries. And yet the Wikipedia articles on French, German, British, and other European people defined by their nationalities, backgrounds and language, speak of them in a unified manner. Harry Warner was Jewish, Polish and American, just like Einstein was Jewish, German and American. So please don't waste our time trying so hard to undermine this connection? --Poeticbent talk 17:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And that's where the problem is. British people, French people articles speak about minorities, this article does not. So there are two options now - community consensus should decide what is the scope of this article. If it should stay the way it is written now, it means focused just on Poles (the ethnic group), or if its subject is the Polish nation in a broader sense. There is nothing wrong with either option. Either way this article can be written in an encyclopedic and consistent way. But if community goes with the broader scope, then this article should be substantially rewritten and expanded, and as you have mentioned examples of the French and the British people articles, minorities should be given proper article space (not just in the infobox). If community will go with latter option, British people article has some positive examples to follow e.g. attempts to present an Irish point of view on the British identity etc. So if we decide that the scope of this article is not the Polish ethnic group, but the Nation of Poland, then the history of the Jewish, German, Ukrainian, etc minorities in Poland, and their attitude towards Polish identity should be fully reflected.M0RD00R (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Either remove Lem and Werner from the infobox, or bring back the population figures for Israel. It's confusing. Lem and Werner are included, yet you don't consider Jews to be Poles!
I think it should include the Israeli Polish-Jewish population. Take the US for example - Many of those 10,024,711 Polish-Americans are infact Polish Jews; Most American Jews (~7,000,000) are the descendants of immigrants from either Russia or Poland. The same can be said for the Polish communities of Brazil, Canada France and Argentina. So even when excluding Israel, a large percentage of Poles in other countries are actually Polish Jews.79.179.239.75 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is confusing. But as I said I'm not sure now what is the scope of this article. Categories that are applied to this article Category:Ethnic groups in Poland, Category:Ethnic groups in Europe, Category:Ethnic groups in Russia, Category:Slavic nations, would imply that it should be about Poles (ethnic group). But I guess it is obvious that Warner was not an ethnic Pole, nor was he a Slav. However if community consensus will decide that the scope of this article is much broader, when we'll have to expand this article by adding new sections about Polish Jews, Polish Germans, Polish Ukrainians etc. This would bring more consistency, because nothing is confusing as the fact that so far we had Polish Jews only pictured in the infobox, and they were totally ignored in the main article.M0RD00R (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a very fuzzy concept, as we can see. If quoting numbers, it would be good if we could determine on what basis they were counted, and mention that in the article. But as to the infobox image (which we can't edit, so it's all or nothing until someone produces a better one), I think it represents the set of "Poles" quite well, in all its fuzziness - provided the caption makes clear (as it now does) that not all those depicted are 100% Pole.--Kotniski (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I can edit the infobox image any way we choose, because I uploaded one of its versions into Commons. I didn’t create the file, but I exchanged individual portraits already before. It is a lot of time consuming effort, so consensus has to be formed well beforehand. --Poeticbent talk 17:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there are two major issues, that need to be discussed separately, so I will split this discussion into two threads below. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

There are couple issue with this picture that still need to be resolved: 1. Current selection of individuals pictures is far from perfect - Wielicki and Wolszczan, clearly should not be here. Their notability clearly is not exceptional. What comes in mind first when Poland is mentioned - Mickiewicz and Chopin, or Wielicki and Wolszczan? Answer to this is an obvious one I would guess.

But the image isn't there simply to tell people what they already know. (Chopin's absence does seem strange though.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Harry Warner picture. Leaving aside the question of the scope of this article, and even WP:Due weight - Warner is not quintessentially associated with the Polish nation. There is simple technical issue. Licence of this image is obviously questionable, there is no proof presented that it was published prior to year 1923, and there is no source of this image. It is an obvious speedy candidate. And if (when) this image will be csd nominated, this compilation will be deleted next.M0RD00R (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this article

So can we please make at least an attempt of decision what is the scope of this article - Poles (ethnic group) or Nation of Poland in broader sense?M0RD00R (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, it should cover all the different interpretations of the term "Poles" that can be found in reliable sources. Since there is probably no clear divide between sets of such interpretations, it seems unhelpful and pointless to try to break them into separate articles.--Kotniski (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, we have Germans and Ethnic Germans articles. So I guess it is possible to distinguish between those two topics. M0RD00R (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I guess such a split would be possible. But I don't see the point unless/until the article becomes too large.--Kotniski (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Going by the Germans and Ethnic Germans articles, this one, Poles, would be the one for the broad, inclusive definition of the term. So Lem and Warner should stay here. Note that Germans does list Germans in Israel, a good portion of whom, presumably are Jewish. Likewise the number for Poles in Israel, many of whom do identify as Polish in some sense, or as having Polish roots, belongs here. The lead and corresponding portions of the article may perhaps be need to rewritten to emphasize the more inclusive usage of "Poles" in this article.radek (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Article Ethnic Germans, quote: "German: Deutschstämmige, historically also Volksdeutsche, collectively referred to as the German diaspora" has its Polish counterpart in the article Polonia which is 26,745 bytes long. There's no need for any new articles accenting Polish minorities, because both existing articles are a good enough base for further expansion. --Poeticbent talk 22:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly. Polonia is not synonymous with ethnic Poles. Currently Polonia article defines its subject as "people of Polish origin who live outside Polish borders", when Poles article is concerned with "Western Slavic ethnic group of Central Europe, living predominantly in Poland". So Poles article is much closer to Poles (ethnic group), and Polonia to Polish Nation if we take in account the just the scope of inclusion, but since the most important aspect of the definion of the term Polonia "people of Polish origin who live outside Polish borders",it can not be synonymous with the term Ethnic Poles by default. M0RD00R (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Polack

The article says: "The Polish word for a Polish person is Polak (male) and Polka (female), however, when this common noun is used verbatim in the English language (usually spelled as Polack) it is a polite way to greet a polish person [28]"

As far as I know, "Polack" is an offensive word for a Pole. It looks to me that someone has written the above on purpose. Or did I miss something? Pawelkw (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Poles are an Ethnic group in Russia?????

Excuse me but i just dont get it. Why did someone put Poles into "the ethnic groups in Russia" category? Poles are not some ethnic group in Russia. Russians and Poles are part of Slavs group but Poles are not part of Russians. Adam81w —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.119.36 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but Poles have frequently been deported there by Tsarist authorities. Polish minority in Russia is the article you're looking for. 80.167.179.233 (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Polish People in Greece

According to this article published in Warsaw, there are over 50,000 Poles living in Greece. Please recognize that! http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/1716 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirGeorge8600 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Poles in Israel

Hello! The tens of thousands of Polish Jews immigrated to Israel, before and after the holocaust, are not mentioned anywhere in this article, nor in the table on the right. Today, there probably should be a few hundreds of thousands of people of polish descent in Israel. --93.173.7.99 (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • That is a clear oversight. The Polish Jews in Israel must be added to the template, so please look for references featuring statistical data (in English, Hebrew or in Polish, doesn't matter). I can help out with formatting if necessary. --Poeticbent talk 17:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe there is any official statistical data relating to ethnic-origin matters of the jewish population here in Israel. I also couldn't find any other estimation of the number of people of polish descent here in Israel. The only thing I found is an article on Ynet (news site, in Hebrew) about polish citizenship, estimate that there are 1,250,000 israelis eligible of polish citizenship in Israel. If that is correct, I guess the total number of poles in Israel might be higher. --93.173.7.99 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I went to Google translator and translated the page you mentioned, please take a look. Wikipedia respects foreign sources on good faith. The rough translation clearly indicates that at least 1,250,000 Israelis are entitled to Polish citizenship, which means, they have either been born in Poland or have strong Polish roots. – I included the above number in our article's template, tentatively of course. Thanks for letting us know about this. --Poeticbent talk 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poles#Ethnic_Jews_listed_here_as_Poles 78.8.185.108 (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Poles in Sweden

According to Polish Wiki there are 100,000 Poles in Sweden. But they are not included in the infobox.Mycomp (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "Autochthonous"

The article uses the word "autochthonous," a synonym of indigenous, excessively. It is my opinion, which I think most would find agreeable, that it is awkward style to have this ungainly word used with such repetition. Even the built in spellchecker doesn't recognize it. People should not have to use a dictionary to find the meanings of words that should be clear when they are reading an encyclopedia, unless the subject matter cannot avoid the use of complicated jargon. I am replacing it, but I open the floor for dialogue, and please, if you rv, join me here with your reasoning. John Mytton (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

Can I just ask why Poland isn't in this list? As with other people articles, e.g. English People, German People and Han Chinese? I'm a bit unfamiliar with the guidelines and therefore why Poland isn't included. Jack?! 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And, unless I'm missing something, this makes the whole regions with significant populations section wrong, as it says 'rest of world 1,145,000'. Without a mention of Poland, this means there are around 35 million poles not mentioned in the list? Jack?! 15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Noticed an error in the section, USA and Poland were both listed as region one, meaning Poland's Polish population was not visible in the list; fixed it. Also changed UK population. Jack?! 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem still hasn't been fixed, the USA is not currently listed in the "regions with significant populations." Is the USA not supposed to be included for some reason? (Please forgive my ignorance if this has already been decided.) Lelapindore (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
See below. There are no reliable statistics as to how many Poles live in the US. The census bureau asks for ancestry, which, to a lot of Americans, is simply a box to tick and doesn't indicate self-identification. What could be useful would be numbers from the Polish embassy as to how many Polish citizens are currently living in the US. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Poles in the US

The article states there are 10 millions poles in the U.S. which seems to be wrong since the reference document (US Census Bureau) is about ancestry and not nationality. --Syrmonsieur (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Polish an ethnicity? If so then there are 10 million people who are ethnically Polish in the USA, their DNA Y chrmosome haplogroups match their Polish ancestors and by default modern Polish people (that is Polish people in Poland.) Zantorzi (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Being Polish is definitely not a ethnicity but a nationality, the same as for the rest of the people of Europe (unless you're reading 19th century books...). Polish borders and people from central Europe moved a lot during history. Makes no sense talking about DNA in such shorts periods. The "10 millions poles" in the U.S. has nothing to do with present day Polish people. It just denotes that 10 million people living in the US have Polish ancestry. => I remove this assertion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.78.142 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The US census is merely about ancestry; few of those who check the box would call themselves "Poles". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Same problem for Israel (the figure indicates how many people are eligible for Polish nationality), Canada (same kind of statistics as for the US), and for Brasil. Figures indicating the number of Pole expat in those countries are welcome.--88.6.78.142 (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
curious that they are not a ethnic group but are genetically different than Germans with poles having a much much higher amount amount of y-haplogroup r1a1(a) compared to the Germans, of which their r1a is limited to east Germany, a remnant of the pre-10th century slavs that would later turn into poles and sorbians. you're quite wrong about "short periods" - perhaps you should read up more on genetic archeology, quite a fascinating science. population of "central" Europe have remained rather the same, exceptions being the post world war forced deportations of Germans to modern Germany, and eastern poles to the former homes of the Germans, regardless geneticists don't count such people in their research. Zantorzi (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not mean there are no genetic differences between the population of different states/areas, but those differences are not limited by an artificial limit, but rather shade softly from an area to another. State borders are the result of history, they are artifial and temporary lines (eg Poland moved west at the end of the War). Looking at the state to partition the genetic map is statistic error. If history had produced Bullshitland between germany and poland you would perhaps talk about a Bullshitian ethnicity...Same genetic repartition and different conclusion!
Finally, I agree it is appropriate to talk about genetic profile of the Polish population, but this is not a reason to say that Polish is a specific/peculiar genetic population.--88.6.78.142 (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Image of Copernicus in the infobox?

Nicolaus Copernicus, who apparently was added to the infobox in 2008, definitely has spoken and written German and Latin. Nothing is known about any knowledge of Polish language. He does not belong on this page, no matter how successful Polish claims have been since the 19th century. I'm replacing him with Henryk Sienkiewicz-- Matthead  Discuß   04:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Professor Stefan Melkowski of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń writes that Copernicus spoke both Polish and German, see: "O historii i o współczesności" ("About History and Contemporaneity"), May 2003. He used Latin, knew enough Greek to translate the 7th-century Byzantine poet Theophylact Simocatta's verses into Latin prose (Armitage, The World of Copernicus, pp. 75–77), and there is ample evidence he spoke Polish while living and studying in Krakow (Norman Davies, God's Playground, vol. II, p. 26). During his several years' studies in Italy, Copernicus also learned some Italian. -- Poeticbent talk 05:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
pl:Stefan Melkowski, a literary historian but no proper historian, has compiled an abstract of events at the 2005 Festival of Science and Art at Thorn. One of them was a "discussion", moderated by pl:Sławomir Kalembka, between pl:Janusz Małłek and pl:Krzysztof Mikulski, whether Copernicus was Polish or German. So Melkowski writes that he recalls from said "exhibition match" - hardly a reliable source. Point me to a scientific work by Małłek or Mikulski covering Copernicus alleged Polish skills in detail, rather than en passant. And the proper quote from Davies 2005 edition at GBS is "From the cultural point of view, he came from a family whose connections in Silesia, and in the bourgeoisie of fifteenth-century Cracow, in Thorn, and in Frauenberg, were with the German-speaking rather than with the Polish-speaking element; but there is ample evidence that he knew the Polish language." Where is any evidence? Davies also wrote "Polish scholars have felt obliged to follow the German example and to mount exclusive claims over a generous man who would turn in his grave to hear their bickerings". Besides Coperncius being unable to rotate or rest in his grave as he was exhumed by Poles, there was hardly any German example, safe for a few non-scientific ones in the time of the World Wars, countering Polish propaganda. In fact, German scholars who had studied Copernicus biography in the mid-19th century had come to a balanced conclusions, for example the one in the 1875 Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie quote at Wikisource which is rather friendly to Polish POV. That was 135 years ago. Since starting to publish bold claims in the early 19th century, Poles ignore or belittle most biographical evidence unearthed since. Today, Poland is in the EU for 5 years or so, yet many Poles, from the government to Wikipedians, still disgrace their nation and themselves by making exclusive claims about many persons who clearly have a strong non-Polish aspect in their biographies. Are there not enough non-controversial famous Poles to fill eight spots in the infobox? Is there a need to fill gaps with Germans, Lithuanians, half-French persons, etc.? Whats wrong with Sienkiewicz? After all, he wrote the The Knights of the Cross. Polish patriots should be more satisfied with Sienkiewicz than with the inclusion of astronomer who was writing in German and Latin, and who in his book stated he made observations "in Frueburgo Prussiae", in Prussia's Frauenburg, rather than in Poland's Frombork. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a wrong image of Copernicus up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.27.169 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Copernicus was at least half-German, and his family were native German-speakers. The fact that he's vehemently claimed as a great Pole is embarassing. Copernicus was an intellectual of the Middle Ages with German/Polish origins, who did most of his work in Latin. The bottom line is Copernicus can't be claimed solely by anyone. Vdjj1960 (talk) 1:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kościuszko doesn't belong to the page image

Ethnicaly, he was not Polish, but of mixed Ruthenian and Lithuenian origin, and this article talks about ethnic Poles. Free Belarus (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Poles, ethnic or otherwise. He is a Polish national hero. Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish. —Stephen (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ethnicaly he was not Polish, and this article is about ethnic Poles. Free Belarus (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The opening of the article: "The Polish people, or Poles (Polish: Polacy [pɔˈlat​͡sɨ], singular Polak), are a Western Slavic ethnic group of Central Europe, living predominantly in Poland." So this article is about the ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You are rationalizing. This article is about Poles, ethnic or otherwise. He is a Polish national hero. Leave the Polish to the Polish. —Stephen (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It just jit me you don't understand the difference beetwen nationality and ethnicity. He was of Polish nationality, yes, and he was a national hero of Poland, but he wasn't Polish ethnicaly! Read the difference nationality and ethnicity. And it's really stupid of you to think only people of certain nationality can do certain articles :-) Not mentioning the fact he was ethnicaly Belarusian (at least partly). Free Belarus (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand the difference and the difference is irrelevant here. He is a Pole and this page is about Poles. It is for Poles just like Kościuszko. It is for Kościuszko. —Stephen (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
This difference is very relevant here, that page is about Poles as the ethnic group, and he was not an ethnic Pole (at least you didn't bring links to that). He spoke Belarusian, he was born on the territory of Belarus, he was even baptised in the orthodox church like done by Belarusians. Yes, he had a Polish nationality since it was all the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth then, and he fought for the independence of Poland, yes, but that doesn't change the fact he was not of Polish ethnicity. Just for the record, in a discussion above they didn't enter Harry Warner because of him not being of Polish but Jewish ethnicity. It's the same case! Free Belarus (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

hmmm. Kosciuszko didnt speak polish????where did You get that from??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.114.239.79 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Polish people

I think there should be more faces added to the title block of famous polish people. There are currently only 8 and none of them are living. For comparison the page 'English people' is headed by 21 faces. Perhaps another row of 4 faces. My first suggestion would be Lech Wałęsa, then an athlete perhaps. And another two contemporary faces, suggestions please... And if anyone know the html these pictures should be posted to the Polish version of the page as well. 91.108.14.78 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has to be decided first who is Polish. From my encounters the common consensus from modern day Poles (that is Polish people from the Republic of Poland in Central/Eastern Europe) is that they consider only people from Poland and grew up there to be Poles. Descendants of immigrants such as Polish Americans are not Poles from their standards, nor are Polish Brazilians. So that eliminates about 12,000,000 from the pool of whose pictures to choose from. (EDIT: oh i just discovered these groups have heir own categories and pages complete with faces!) There are plenty of athletes, warriors/soldiers, artists, and politicians to pick. So Lech Wałęsa, then that one Pole who plays for the Germans as an athlete I suppose (forget his name i dont follow sports,) annnnd cant think of another Zantorzi (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE READ poles in the netherlands

according to the dutch official statistic thing there are 68.844 poles in the netherlands please add it to the list i don't know how it works please do it for me thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.137.41 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ EU Business, 21 June 2007, Poles more pro-EU than ever: survey Accessed 12-06-2007.
  2. ^ EU Business, 02 May 2007, Three years after entering the EU, 86% of Poles are satisfied
  3. ^ Franck Duvell, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Oxford, "Poles in Europe - From Illegal Immigrants to Members of the European Union" (PDF). (22.3 KiB), accessed 12-06-2007.

Numbers by nation

The infobox section seems to have the number of Polish citizens by country, but the article itself is about Poles as an ethnic group. This should be returned to the old way which lists the number of ethnic Poles by nation, the way it does for the Italians, Scots, French, etc. Sbrianhicks (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And how would you want to satisfy WP:V in that case? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are the numbers of Poles in USA and Brazil??? The list is not good... 187.107.37.63 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Census surveys just like with all the other ethnic groups on Wikipedia. Sbrianhicks (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is (as noted in a previous thread) that not all countries have data on this. There is, for instance, no question about ethnicity on the US-census. The 2000-census only asked about ancestry (not equal to ethnicity, multiple answers possible), on the 2010 census, they didn't ask about ancestry at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So, then why do we have such numbers on English, Scots, Irish, French, Welsh, Spanish, Italians, Germans, Czechs, Russians, Greeks, etc.? Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. You will notice that for Germans and Russians it says (XYZ ancestry). Maybe that could be the solution here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right, there's a mix of data with different meanings, here. Should those statistics express ethnicity or nationality is a question, but in any way the "10M poles in the US" is just ridiculous (same for Brazil). There might have been a lot of people emmigrating from this country but it's been several generations since so ethnicity is no longer relevant.82.67.124.143 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with SEb_az86556. These statistics are obscene. The article is about ETHNIC POLES yet the population box seems to include German and Jews invariably. Why is this? Soundsboy (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

DO POLES REALLY HAVE SIGNIFICANT GERMANIC AND CELTIC ADMIXTURE???

I have read many books about Polish history and never seen information about so called "significant Germanic and Celtic admixture" (You would imagine that Poles are pidgin nation, e.g. 50% Slavic, 30% Germanic, 20% Celtic). The article which is cited (20th reference) Prehistory and protohistory of Poland clearly states: "Celtic, Germanic and Baltic tribes inhabited various parts of Poland" - and this is correct, THEY HAD INHABITED AREA BEFORE SLAVIC TRIBES ARRIVED, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE INTO POLISH ETHNOSIS.

TO CONCLUDE: I think that information: "with significant Germanic, Celtic and to a lesser extent Baltic admixtures" should be removed, otherwise it needs verifiable sources cited (genetic research, academic book etc). Regards! Wojgniew (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Poles i Belarus: new 2009 census data vs 1999 census data

Few days ago Belarus National Census 2009 data were officially published, so these data were added into the infobox. Previuos official 1999 data were updated with the recent census values. User Polish29 added 1999 census data again like an upper range value with the explanation:"two refs are acceptable (i.e. range)". It is surprising why we need outdated census numbers? Can we decide the range creation (mb possible original research?) using two official censuses 1999 and 2009 data? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  • The problem with census results (as shown in some Western countries in recent years), is that the questions asked by census officials change with leadership, resulting in segments of the population being left out. Over 100,000 difference is too much to be considered usual within a single decade. The original source (CIA) lists Polish ethnic minority in Belarus at 3.9% (1999 census). If the total number of citizens is correct (9,648,533 as of July 2010 est.), the number of ethnic Poles should be around 376,292 instead of 400,000 mentioned in our article. However, both sources seem equally credible. [15] --- Polish29 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • CIA source uses official Belarus census data as the new data were not published yet. But CIA USES official (Lukashenka regime) census data. Decrease 100,000 is too much? I think so, but it is MY original research, I guess. But I can't change this legally published official census data, isn't it? If CIA Factbood had no time to use latest data just published - we need to do that and provide'em. It is our Wikipedia mission, I see.
    • Can you mix in this infobox outdated 1999 census data and 2009 up-to-date data? I don't think so, you can (or have) add a reference, where you add an old value and pay a user's attention to the strong pop. decrease, yeah? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And about your calculations. You are making YOUR private decision with the census 1999 ethic Poles share being stable till 2010, next YOU are deciding to use U.S.Census Bureau projections (instead of the actual cemsus 2009 data) and YOU calculates YOUR estimation value and next YOU add this ORIGINAL RESEARCH to the infobox. Is is leagal for the Wikipedia? I don't think so as this value was not published in the relevant sources. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I downloaded the RAR file from the link you provided. The document is called Бюллетень_Республика.pdf. On page 22 (row #4, col. #6) it is said that Poles constitute 3.1% of the general population of 9,503,807. The World Factbook claims that the percentage point is 3.9%. It is NOT our fault that the numbers don't match. However, the obvious difference is worth mentioning. --- Polish29 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  • These date CAN NOT match as these figures are from different official censuses: 3.9% from outdated 1999 census, but 3.1% from up-to-date 2009 census. These figures are coming from the same source, but 2009 census data are newest. Population dynamics need be located in the article but not in the infobox. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • to straszne, czegoś takiego[16] nawet w III Rzeszy nie robiono

07:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.188.234 (talk)

    • Polish29 reverted my edition and added again Polish29 private calculations with the link to the CIA FactBook (these calculations are not present in this source). Does Polish29 claime (in fact) the 1999 Census data are still relevant even after 2009 Census? Why new census data can not replace outdated 1999 Census? WP: I just don't like it? Polish29 offered the RANGE - 2009 Census data comes from recent official source, but based on thePolish29 PRIVATE HYPOTHESIS of the constant 1999 Poles share value CALCULATIONS are Polish29 ORIGINAL RESEARCH. So (see WP:OR) is not any relevant contribution to the Wikipedia, isn't it? I've erased Polish29 original research - I have do that. But Polish29 didn't agree with my step.
    • And Polish29 made his irrelevant revert with the explanation " What is this? Attack of the Killer Tomatoes? CONSENSUS IN TALK PLEASE" which has (in my opinion) some signs of the not ethic behavior. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • IN MY OPINION YOU SHOULD DISPLAY FIGURES FROM BOTH SOURCES (1999 and 2009) WITH APPROPRIATE NOTE. Wojgniew (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • But what sources? One source is Census 2009 but the other - selfmade calculations declaring constant census 1999 Poles share. We can not add such kind of an original research, I see. You are sure in 1999 Lukashenka census? Or Soviet census 1989 is better with larger Poles share? In the infobox we are adding more recent values, history - into the article body. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Population mistake

This page says there are 38,860,000 Poles in Poland. According to Poland, Poland's total population in June of 2010 was 38,192,000. Do the math, guys. --SergeiXXX (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Provide the source and I'll add the updated figure. Soundsboy (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Collage

It's possible to link the pictures directly to the article on the figures, by adding the |Link=article to the image syntax. That will be a nice modification to the already good assemblage of pictures as a collage, as this technique allows.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleSerajah (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourselves, having mention of the 4 ethnic types (Nordic etc.) in the article! These theories have been completely discredited tens of years ago, are just plain obviously unscientific, and provided ideological justification for German Fascism! You will not see any such thing discussed in any scientific journal! This should be plainly obvious to you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.42.58 (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

images

In the images in the infobox I'm thinking of replacing Domeyko with Stefan Banach who really really deserves to be in there. Any objections? I'd also like to fit Kalecki in there somewhere but don't think there's space.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin of stereotype jokes

I remember "Polish jokes" when I was young seemed very popular. In fact some of the earliest jokes I can remember portrayed Poles basically as idiots. Does anyone know the origin of this stereotype and is this something that could (or should) be explored in this article? --Brendanmccabe (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Chicago as second largest Polish City

According to the 2007 US Census American Community Survey those whose ancestory was considered Polish within the greater Chicago area numbered 179,868. There are at least 20 cities in Poland that have larger populations than 175,000. Therefore the comment about Chicago being the second biggest polish city needs to be removed.... for Pete's sake—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Aleksandrowicz (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Edit by other person" More than 1.3 million people of Polish origin in Chicago city. 250 000 to speak Polish daily. Chicago is the second largest Polish collectivity after Warsaw. Legally or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.231.245.202 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ABO and all that stuff

Re: [17], basically, who cares? Why is this information in any way useful in this article? It's not in any other articles and for a good reason. It's pointless. Even if it's sourced, it's simply WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree. And it's high time to get rid of all the racist, nationalistic and fairy-tale crap about gentetics and "Leches", etc. The article is an embarrassment in its present state. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh I didn't even see that one. And wth are "Leches" anyway?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Panowie specjaliści od historii Polski, nie wstyd wam usuwać [18] przypisy do publikacji naukowych Polskiej Akadami Nauk? (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ale po co to?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
usuwasz całe akapity z przypisami, równie dobrze można zapytać po co R1a i jeszcze pytasz po co to ??? (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Tak, po co? Jaka wartosc ma ta informacja w tym artykule? A tak apropo, ty Silar czasem sie juz o to nie klociles? Cos tam mi sie przypomina, ze juz bylo burda o to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
jaką wartość posiada informacja o typach krwi występujących w danym kraju, no nie żartuj, specem od tych spraw jest mikrobiolog Dominus Vobisdu, A tak apropo, ty Volunteer Marek masz maniere wmawiania burd, i klótni innym co jest u ciebie symptomatyczne. (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the English version of Wikipedia, and all discussions are to take place EXCLUSIVELY in English. The only time Polish may be used is when quoting sources.

@Dominus Vobisdu: "The only time Polish may be used is when quoting sources." - coś podobnego, na prawdę :) (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course. All comments on the talk page have to be readable by all editors, and not all editors can read Polish. On the other hand, all editors are expected to read and write English. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@Silar: Romantic-era nationalistic, racist and folk-mythological material is now considered fringe and lies beyond the scope of the present article. The genetics material is also of little use, and has no place here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: Thoughtless epithets, and abusing words like "racist", it just matters, is your all arguments ? ps. see [19] (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The information on blood groups is completely irrelevant to the subject of this article. If you add it again without getting consensus on the talk page, you will be reported for edit warring. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
@Dominus Vobisdu: first of all, why do you (and this other "Lithuanian ancestry") worry about it?! (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have little to add to what Dominus said. The information just doesn't add anything to the article. Why is the fact that a given percentage of Poles have a particular blood type? And Silar, it sounds like you know me. May I ask where from?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Polish people in Ireland

According to this article it states there are 200,000 Polish in Ireland yet it gives a census reference that gives 63,276 in Ireland. Where did the extra 136,724 come from ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.77.221 (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, honestly,

The infobox has way too many photos in it, and it just keeps getting bigger. Compare to other "nationalities" infoboxes. In my mind, the montage should include people who, according to some kind of a weighed average made significant contributions to both Poland world culture. Going back from the end:

  1. Krasicki - mostly of interest to Poles only. Sure, great guy, but at the end of the day, too much. Remove.
  2. Pulaski - I would also remove. He's of significance to Polish-Americans but honestly, what did he do for Poland or the world at large?
  3. Paderewski - borderline. Of great importance to Poland. Really unknown outside of it.
  4. Sienkiewicz, Mickiewicz, the Pope - keep. Mmm... we can talk about it, but keeping them seems pretty obvious.
  5. Didur - Remove. Come on, essentially unknown except for a very particular demographic.
  6. Domeyko - Important but still remove. We can't fit everyone in and there's a lot of folks that have similar level of credentials.
  7. Szymborksa - As much as I dislike her, and her work, pretty well known internationally so should be kept.
  8. Milosz - yeah, see Sienkiewicz, Mickiewicz and the Pope above.
  9. Walesa - ditto
  10. Matejko - I would really like to keep him. But I don't think he fits international standards here.
  11. Pilsudski - yeah keep him
  12. Conrad - this is an interesting one. Made his bones as a writer in English but was very much Polish. I would incline to keep him.
  13. Kosciuszko - again, someone who's very important to Poles, has some American connection - ... I'm starting to think we need to decide on the number of photos to be included and then make these kinds of judgements.
  14. Rajewski - remove. Honestly, while his work with the Enigma was very important, as far as Polish mathematicians go there was a TON of folks who are more qualified. Why not Banach (invented a shitload of modern mathematics)? Or if you want war related stuff, why not Ulam? Remove but replace with another famous Polish mathematician.
  15. Sobieski - sure, keep him as a remainder to our Austrian brothers.
  16. Prus - too esoteric internationally. Remove.
  17. Curie-Skolodowska - of course.
  18. Kopernik - of course.
  19. Chopin - of course.

So I would remove six, to get it down to the number comparable to other "nationalities" infoboxes, and replace 1 (Banach or Ulam for Rajewski). Volunteer Marek  08:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

exactly. But you should keep it to 12 (3x4) or 16 (4x4). Anything else looks crappy in the box. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I went with 16. I would still like to add Stefan Banach in place of Rajewski and I *think* I've tracked down a PD photo, though I'll have to wait till a book comes in to verify for sure. And I still think that we should replace Szymborska with someone, preferably another woman, but can't think of one atm.VolunteerMarek 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the criterion of contemporary international import, I would suggest keeping Copernicus, Chopin, Conrad, Piłsudski and Skłodowska-Curie; adding Banach; and considering selections from among L.L. Zamenhof, Znaniecki, Malinowski, Artur Rubinstein and perhaps some other internationally prominent Poles.

I would drop Jadwiga, Sobieski, Mickiewicz, Matejko, Sienkiewicz, Miłosz, Wałęsa, Szymborska and Pope John Paul II. Nihil novi (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Pope and Walesa should definitely stay - that's really the two people that most non-Poles think of when they think of Poland, despite the fact that JP has passed away and Walesa is well past his peak. Sienkiewicz and Mickiewicz are a bit of a toughy - their names are known in the West but their works are not read (at least partly due to the fact that the translations are god awful). However, if we forget about the "West" for a minute, their works ARE quite widely read (at least Sienkiewicz) in Eastern Europe and other non-Western parts of the world (I once randomly met a guy from Nigeria who said Sienkiewicz was his favorite author!)
Sobieski is well known among people with even a passing interest in history because of Vienna - he is probably the best known Polish king outside of Poland. It makes sense to have at least one king in there, so he should probably be it.
Jadwiga, I put in there because I do think we need to have some women there. I'm open to other suggestions.
I essentially agree on Matejko. What Polish painter/artist is known internationally? I'm sure Zdzisław Beksiński is more recognized outside of Poland than Matejko actually - Polish painters, like Polish writers, for obvious reasons tended to focus on very "Polish" topics, which made/makes them hard to get international recognition. I'll try to think of someone.
I also agree on Szymborska, but again, I think we need to have women in there.
In regard to your suggestions, I like the idea of including Rubinstein, though he was quite cosmopolitan. L. L. Zamenhof ... mmm, back when Esperanto was cool maybe, but these days ... not really. Malinowski is a good suggestion. Znaniecki, honestly, first I heard of him though sociology is very much not my thing.VolunteerMarek 05:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Rubinstein was a Polish patriot, known especially for his interpretations of Chopin. At the 1945 San Francisco conference that founded the United Nations, Poland was not represented; Rubinstein undertook to represent her artistically by playing Chopin for the attendees. Nihil novi (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Znaniecki, who worked both in Poland and the United States, is considered a co-founder of modern empirical sociology and humanistic sociology. He is also noted in the history of philosophy in Poland. Nihil novi (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If we want to include a Pole who saved western civilization, a candidate more contemporary than Sobieski would be Marian Rejewski, whose solution of the German Enigma cipher machine in December 1932 led directly to Britain's Ultra Secret, which Churchill told King George VI had been responsible for Allied victory in World War II.
Rejewski may not have been Poland's greatest mathematician, but he was possibly her most important, in having literally saved his country in World War II. Nihil novi (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
If we wish to recruit a Polish woman, whom better than Irena Sendler, who has become well known, through a TV dramatization and a 2011 PBS documentary, for her achievement in saving 2,500 Jewish children during World War II—a heroic campaign that nearly cost her life? Nihil novi (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
A Pole of cosmic notability is Aleksander Wolszczan, co-discoverer in 1992 of the first extrasolar planets and pulsar planets. Since this first confirmed discovery of planets outside the Solar System, over seven hundred other such planets have been found. Nihil novi (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think some of your comments go to the heart of the matter here - what are the images in the box supposed to represent? Are they Poles who are already famous and world known? Or are they Poles that we are particularly proud of? Or are they people that we wish to "advertise" to the rest of the world? Any decision is essentially going to be some kind of a compromise between these three purposes, and given the limited space (please, no more than 16), will involve necessary trade offs.
Ok, first I totally agree on Irena Sendler. Can we replace Szymborska with Sendler?
Rubinstein also sounds good.
I think we should have at least one king in there. So either Jadwiga or Sobieski, or both.
Rejewski - yeah, I recognize his importance and don't want to diminish what he did. But I do think Banach would be better; if you take graduate level math courses, half to whole first year of these (and a lot subsequently) is pretty much all about Banach (and his collaborators). Modern mathematics would not exist as we know it without him. *ANY* mathematician in the world knows who Banach is (+ lots of physicists etc.) and has studied his theorems. Part of the problem here is that Poland actually had A LOT of great mathematicians, starting in the interwar period and into the post-war period so choosing among them is hard. But Banach pretty much tops the list.
Maybe we should bring this discussion on WikiProject Poland and continue it there with input from others.VolunteerMarek 16:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I would think that the individuals shown should be Poles who have made recognized contributions to important fields of world concern. Notability should trump notoriety; the 25-person "Germans" gallery omits Adolf Hitler, the most notorious German in history.
An encyclopedia's role is to inform and enlighten, not confirm broadly-held stereotypes.
We can replace Szymborska with Sendler, and Czesław Miłosz with Bolesław Prus.
If a king there must be, I would propose Kazimierz the Great, Poland's only king still generally called "the Great."
How about both mathematicians, Banach and Rejewski? The first was perhaps Poland's greatest mathematician. The second arguably saved western civilization as we know it — and certainly Poland.
Sure, let's move this discussion to WikiProject Poland. Nihil novi (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you want to drop Milosz? He probably IS the only Polish poet actually read in the West (and rest of the world)? I don't think Prus is read all that much. Milosz makes it on upper division English/poetry courses at universities, Prus, not unless it's a specialized "Polish literature" class or something.VolunteerMarek 09:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall reading much by Miłosz that seemed notable. He may prove to have been largely an epiphenomenon of his times, much exploited by Cold Warriors such as William F. Buckley. But if you choose to keep him, if only as a token Nobel laureate, I'll probably acquiesce.
Prus has suffered—as you note about other Polish writers—from dreadful translations. But his place in Polish and even world literature seems secure. He continues to have much to teach for our times. Nihil novi (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
As to the kings I suggest that we add one to represent Piast Poland period-either Mieszko(founded Poland), Łokietek(unified Poland) or Kazimierz Wielki(modernisation). We can have another representing Commonwealth Poland era of course, Sobieski would be good choice. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
One possibility: the first Polish king, and the last. Mieszko I and Stanisław August Poniatowski may not have been Poland's greatest kings, but they would provide neat book-ends, marking crises that brought Poland into existence and, later, into eclipse. Nihil novi (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for "Poles" gallery:





Mieszko I • Copernicus • Stanisław August • Krasicki
Chopin • Prus • Conrad • Skłodowska-Curie
Piłsudski • Tarski • Rejewski • Sendler
John Paul II • Wajda • Wałęsa • Wolszczan

Nihil novi (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

DASHbot has deleted the Stefan Banach "fair use file" from between the Józef Piłsudski and Marian Rejewski photographs in the gallery above. Pending availability of a freely-usable photograph of Stefan Banach, I have replaced the deleted Banach photograph with one of another highly-regarded Polish mathematician, Alfred Tarski. Nihil novi (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before I very much agree with having Sendler in there so I will assume that this "consensus of two" is sufficient and go ahead and put her in there.
Onto the other ones: Ciolek? He was sort of the Jimmy Carter of Polish kings. Probably a nice enough guy on a personal level but all in all not that important. I don't think the fact that he was the last king of Poland is enough to put him in there. When it comes to kings there's three obvious choices: Chrobry, Wielki and Sobieski. Plus two "important" choices - Jadwiga and Jagiello, since they changed the whole course of Polish history (the effects of which, for better or worse we are still witnessing right here on Wikipedia today). And if we want to be international and tip our hats to our Hungarian/Romanian brothers then my personal favorite, Batory, can be thrown into the running. If we take the international perspective then the best known one is by far Sobieski. If we consider the importance for Polish history then it's Chrobry, Jagiello or Wielki (Sobieski does not qualify). If we want the most bad ass guy in there it's Batory, but I will readily admit that that's a very un-encyclopedic criteria. So I'd replace Mieszko/Ciolek with Chrobry, Wielki, Sobieski or Jadwiga (she can serve as a stand in for Jagiello too). That would also open up a space for someone else, and at the end of the day I'd be indifferent among those 4.
Prus - again, why him? Sienkiewicz, whatever the relative literary merits, is by far better known. And if it's about having an internationally famous writer in there then Milosz trumps both by a whole lot. Again, I think we should try to put aside our personal preferences in this. I love "Faraon", "Lalka" bored the hell out of me, "Chlopi" was a masterpiece (are we considering Reymont?) on par with the best stuff ever written (reminded me of Selimovic except less pretentious), but at the end of the day Milosz IS much more read than any of them. And it's not Cold War stuff, though that's - Captive Mind - h0w he got to be known in the west. If I were to walk into the nearest English or Literature department in US and ask them "what Polish writers, if any, do you cover?" then it'd be Milosz, for better or worse.
Same thing for Krasicki. Slowacki would be much better. And Mickiewicz is far better known then either.
Tarski is a good choice. With the Banach thing, yeah, that image is uploaded to Wikipedia under free-use (though honestly, it's probably PD - had it been originally uploaded as PD-Poland nobody would have noticed). Like I said I'm pretty sure I can get a PD image of Banach though it may take a bit (rare book I ordered). Then it's going to be between Tarski, Banach and Rejewski - I can see having 2 of them but not 3.
I'd dump Wajda. Speaking of an "epiphenomenon of his times". Him and Szymborska are roughly comparable in substance, just a different medium. Only thing that could justify including him is that he does have international recognition. This is the point at which I'm tempted to nominate Klaus Kinski just to mess with some people's heads. Or we could get crazy and put Schopenhauer up there (just kidding).

VolunteerMarek 05:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wolszczan would be good for the sake of some recentism so I'd support keeping him there too.VolunteerMarek 05:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I am in favor of replacing Poniatowski with Sobieski. As to Wajda, while not replace him with Stanisław Lem? He is both more important to cultural contribution of Poland on world stage and more recognizable, and at the same time recent enough. Certainly beats both Szymborska and Wajda when it comes to this.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the famous Poles' gallery that we don't see the Polish Noble prize winners like Sienkiewicz, Reymont, Milosz, Szymborska, Walesa, but there are images of the likes of - with due respect for their deeds - Jozef Rotblat and Bronislaw Malinowski instead?? Also, I'd replace Wladyslaw Lokietek with Boleslaw Chrobry, the first Polish king, and would definitely insert king Jan Sobieski, victorious commander from the Battle of Vienna 1683. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.198.227 (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

A 5 x 5 "Poles" gallery:





File:Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz.jpg

Władysław Elbow-high • Copernicus • Kochanowski • Krasicki • Kościuszko
Staszic • Chopin • Łukasiewicz • Wieniawski • Prus
Malczewski • Conrad • Zamenhof • Skłodowska-Curie • Piłsudski
Malinowski • Tatarkiewicz • Tarski • Rejewski • Rotblat
Sendler • Koprowski • Lem • Wajda • Wolszczan

Nihil novi (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The "Spanish people" article gives 18 portraits; the "Italians" — 20; "Germans" — 25; "French people" — 27; "Russians" — 36. No reason why the "Poles" article must limit itself to 16.
And I do believe that the above Polish gallery generally gives a better cross-section of national achievements, presented in a more coherent chronological order, than the other articles I have listed.
Also notable is that the "Italians" did not include a single pope, though they had over 250 from among whom to choose. Nihil novi (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Indo-european section

I've removed this section for many reasons, including OR, Synth, outdated or primary sources, general irrelvance and unencyclopedic content. Sounded like a very bad attempt at an undergraduate anthropology paper, which I suspect it was. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

J. Rotblat and T. Kościuszko should not be in the image due to the fact they are not ethnically Polish

Personal theories do not matter here. Bring sources that support your individual cases, otherwise do not waste others' time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article talkes about Poles as an ethnic group, not nationality, therefore the images should be replaced. Both were Poles by nationality but not by ethnicity.

I know Kosciuszko is a sensitive topic here. He definitely was Polish by nationality, he considered himself a Pole and he fought for Poland, but the fact is ethnically he was Ruthenian. He might also had Lithuanian ancestry, though not sure about that, but from what I checked he was not from Polish ethnicity, and the article is about Poles as an ethnic group. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they were Polish.Volunteer Marek 15:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
They were Polish by nationality, but not by ethnicity. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. See Ethnicity. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Ethnicity is based on genes and history, and his Kosciuszko came from Ruthenian ethnicity and Rotblat of Jewish. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Kosciuszko definitely considered himself a Pole, but at the time nationalism was popular and it was based on citizenship and nationality and not on ethnic origin, he didn't even thing about ethnic origin because that was not relevant at the time. The fact is, he was of Ruthenian ethnicity and ethnicity unlikne nationality is not something you choose. The article talks about ethnic Poles, not Poles by nationality. The case of Kazimir Malevich has nothing to do with it because he actually came from a Polish family from what I know, while Kosciuszko from both father's side and mother's side came from a Ruthenian one. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Any promotion of only ethnic nationalism here based on the principle of Jus sanguinis needs to be augmented with at least some aspects of liberal nationalism in a non-xenophobic form. Poeticbent talk 21:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not promoting anything, I'm a Jew myself. But for example if a Pole lives in Israel, will it make him an ethnic Jew and delete his Slavic genetics and origin? Same thing. Ethnicity and nationality are different terms. Nationality talks about citizenship while ethnicity talks about genetic and history. Kosciuszko's Polish identity came from liberal nationalism by the way because ethnically he was not a Pole. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You neglect 4 other Poles of Jewish descent who appear in the gallery: Wieniawski, Zamenhof, Tarski, Lem. They considered themselves Poles; we should respect their self-concept. Poland, like other countries, unites individuals of more than one ethnic extraction. Nihil novi (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
They were Polish by nationality, and therefore considered themselves Polish. Ethnically however they were not Polish due to the fact ethnicity is not a matter of opinion or choice, it's genes and history. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I took a look over at Germans, where it looks like you wasted a tremendous amount of time and editor energy in a similar manner. I really don't feel like having my time wasted. For Wikipedia purposes all what matters is whether reliable sources refer to these individuals as "Polish". They do. Your own theories as to what "ethnicity" really means and all that are beside the point. That's all I'm gonna say here.Volunteer Marek 18:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Famous Poles - loads of missing individuals!

A few great individuals are missing:

  • Hugo Kołłątaj - creating world's first ministry of education and prohibiting corporal punishment in schools;
  • Lech Walesa - this feisty, moustachioed electrician from Gdansk shaped the end of the 20th century as the leader of the Solidarity movement that led Poland out of communism. Walesa's contribution to the end of communism in Europe, and hence the end of the cold war, stands beside those of his fellow Pole, Pope John Paul II, and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev;
  • Jan III Sobieski

He had won fame as a grand hetman, and was an outstanding military commander and strategist in a war with Turkey. He married Marie Casimire de la Grange d'Arquien, a woman of great political aspirations. The king's letters to Marysienka, as he endearingly called his queen, are masterpieces of Polish late seventeenth century literary language

  • Jan Heweliusz

Polish 17th- century astronomer from Gdansk, who studied comets, catalogued the stars, and constructed some of first accurate maps of the moon's surface. In recognition of his scientific endeavours, one of the moon's craters is named after him.

  • Ludwig Zamenhoff (1859-1917)

A Polish-born Jew, a great physician and linguist, born in Bialystok and known for the invention of Esperanto - a pan-European language that he hoped would bring understanding between all the people across the world, notwithstanding national distinctions and cultural diversity. In fact, Esperanto was essentially a “corrected” Latin. All aspects of grammar and syntax, including the formation of derived words, was relentlessly regularized so that the language could be learnt in the least possible time. Eventually nothing came of it, because Esperanto was not accepted by many people; however, a lot of research is still being done into it and there are 8 million speakers worldwide.

  • Roman Polanski

One of the most famous Polish directors and an Oscar winner. The story of Roman Polanski's life is as tortuous and full of incident and tragedy as one of his dark films. Polanski survived the Nazi atrocities committed in the Krakow ghetto, but lost his mother in a concentration camp gas chamber. He spent a large part of his life in the US and made several important films with top American actors, such as Chinatown (with Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, and John Huston), and Rosemary’s Baby (with Mia Farrow). In 1969 he experienced another personal tragedy when his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson Family. In 1978 he fled to France where he has directed Frantic, Death and the Maiden, The Ninth Gate, The Pianist, and Oliver Twist (2005).

  • Agnieska Holland
  • Krzysztof Kieslowski

Although probably the best-known Polish film director of the last two decades, Kieslowski began by making documentaries. These films concentrated on aspects of Polish life, culture, and political conditions under the Communist Party. Indeed it was these conditions that helped spark the Solidarity movement that ultimately forced the Party to relinquish power by way of new general elections. Among his best-known films are Camera Buff, A Short Film about Killing and A Short Film about Love, and the The Decalogue cycle. Many of his films were produced in France, such as the Three Colours trilogy and The Double Life of Véronique. --81.100.242.0 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. We can't have everyone in the infobox or wherever, and in any case, this is not a nationalistic dick-comparing contest to see who can rack up the highest number of famous people. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on! It so is and you know it! :) Anyway, my point is that some people are there and they didn't really do much to improve humanity, like Henryk Wieniawski. They are not as cool as Kollataj, for instance, who basically introduced first ministry of education, first educational system and prohibited corporal punishment at schools. Walesa is also a legend (a controversial one), but missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.242.0 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Israel?

Not trying to be racist, but the Polish Jews are clearly ethnically distinctive from the Slavic Poles. Ethnically they are part of the Ashkenazi Jews and the Jewish people in general, and here in Israel they are an important part of the Jewish Israeli society, not a national minority of Poles... 77.126.164.11 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It seems Wikipedia is engaging in a campaign of delegitimization of the Jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.42.139 (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Polish Jews are not even related to Poles. They are related to both Israelites and Germans. That is why Polish Jews' mother tongue is Yiddish, a Germanic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.42.139 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

File deletion warning

File:Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz.jpg, which part of the collage at the top of this article and the only picture available for Władysław Tatarkiewicz, has been nominated for deletion at Commons because of unclear copyright status. If you know anything about the original source of this image please join THE DELETION REQUEST and help us find a way to keep it. You might also want to consider uploading it here locally as Fair Use (see Wikipedia:Non-free content)). Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship or Ethnicity?

This article was created (and titled) for definitely ethnic group: ethnic Poles (Slavs Poles) - nation live in today Poland from 6 century (cca 500-2013), polish people is spoken in slavic polish language and is connexion with other Slavs nations like Czechs, Slovaks, Russians, Serbs, Ukrainians etc. I don't understand why in this article was mentioned Semitic Jews (some of them lived in Poland in XIV-XX century) and why Jews was mentioned in Polish diaspora where is write how much ethnic Slavic Poles lived in other countries - Jews are different ethnic group and they have different article (Jews). Why in Wikipedia don't have articles about polish ethnic group? Everyone article about polish ethnic group (ethnic Poles, Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, etc) was renamed and rewrite to article about polish citizenship and mainly is there written about polish Jews, but articles about they already exists (Jews, Holocaust in German-occupied Poland, History of the Jews in Poland, etc) and articles about polish citizenship exists too (Polish and Jews together) - (Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), World War II crimes in Poland, Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–1946), Demographic history of Poland). Why someone want cover existence of ethnic Slavs Poles? (sorry for my error grammar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.54.249 (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments relating to articles on the Slavs, especially Poles. Wikipedia is a very bold project, since it is always open and based on a voluntary basis. Is no exaggeration to say that it is "truly free", although it is difficult to find here rules of democracy. All wiki-projects, not only an online encyclopedia, are a result of previous efforts of certain Community. These communities exist mostly thanks to the Internet. Only a few people know each other personally, eg those who make and are responsible for Wikimedia Foundation, which created the material basis for all wiki-projects. Your voice in this discussion may probably mean that the articles on Poles need to be completed or corrected - what is always easy to say. Nevertheless I just wanted to somehow refer to your critical notes. --Robsuper (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Polesok.png

The infobox collage includes the photograph of Józef/Joseph Rotblat not in the Media related to Joseph Rotblat at Wikimedia Commons. In fact, no copy of this image can be found on Commons using Rotblat as the key-word. Please clarify if this the right person? Or, whether the portrait was taken from an internet source potentially with some copyright restrictions we might not be aware of? Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The source is already included in commons: [[20]]. But I don't know whether it has copyright restrictions. - User: Oliszydlowski (talk) - 21 February, 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic Jews listed here as Poles

Mentioning Lem, Rubinstein, Wieniawski, Rotblat and among the distinguished _ethnic_ Poles is factually wrong, as these individuals are of no Slavic ancestry, and adds insult to the injury of their actual kinsmen, who endured a long history of anti-Semitic sentiment and activity in Poland. Being a part of "WikiProject Ethnic groups" - neither a "people born in" list nor some disputable "persons of cultural affiliation with" category, - the article should definitely limit its scope to ethnic Poles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heb-ru (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

  • You seem lost to me. Please go read article Germans and post your grievance over there first about Marx and Einstein. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We can point at many ethnically Jewish biographies, which are attributed to non-Jewish nationalities. This usually applies to people famous in the world for their accomplishments. In such cases, the issue of ethnicity should not be put above the issue of membership of a particular legal group or a nation. Moreover, in Wikipedia we are committed to write exactly what say reliable sources. --Robsuper (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the author of this thread. Why ethnic Jews are listed here as ethnic Poles?
The headline of the article says: "Poles are a nation of predominantly West Slavic ethnic origin". Well, I can't see no "West Slavic" genetic origin in Jews. Polish Jews are rather Khazar (Ashkenazic), or sometimes Semitic (Sephardic). How come there are 1,250,000 SLAVIC Poles in Israel? Are you serious? 78.8.185.108 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It is easier to narrow down the meaning of the word "nation" to the solely ethnic relationship, harder to write neutral articles on Poles. --Rewa (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

To "IP: 78.8.185.108" - you are totally right! How come ethnic Jews mentioned as Slavic Poles while the definition of a Polish person is being Slavic.? 195.69.81.75 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC) "[Joseph] Rotblat was a Polish Jew, born and educated in Warsaw, who subsequently lived in Britain. To the last days of his life he spoke Polish perfectly and emphasized his ties to Poland, saying that he was a 'Pole with a British passport'." The Polish Jew Alfred Teitelbaum so identified with Poland that he changed his name to the Polish-sounding "Alfred Tarski", converted to Catholicism, and married a Polish woman. Who are we to gainsay Rotblat, Tarski or other Polish Jews with similar sentiments? Nihil novi (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they cannot feel Polish, I'm just saying that on the list of Poles there are Jews who feel more Jewish than Polish. Also, how come there is so many Poles in Israel? Because these Zionist Jews are counted! This is insane. They're not Poles at all. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I cannot understand how come so many Jewish people, also those who felt no connection with Poland and openly hated Polish people, are listed here as Poles!!!!!! This makes me sick. Those people were never and will never be considered Polish by us Poles. They are Polish Jews, which is a separate category, just citizens of Poland, but not our people, not our brothers and sisters, not Poles. By definition, Poles are a nation of West Slavic ethnic origin. A nation by definition is a group of people who share similar ethnic origin, territory, language, culture, tradition and dominant religion. Jews don't fit to both definitions in terms of being the Poles, so why are they listed here as Polish people? Explain it to me. 89.228.163.77 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, your argument is purely opinion and stereotype-based (biased). Secondly, if someone doesn't consider themself Polish yet they were born in Poland, raised in Poland and lived in Poland, then they are. Thirdly, this was already discussed as you can see in the talk page in many accounts. Last of all, if it makes you sick then don't check the article and move on. Can't help if you're media influenced. This article is not only about ethnic Poles, but also Citizens of Poland if you haven't noticed. Oliszydlowski, 18:08 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Poles

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Poles's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "wplywy":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --Rewa (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Collage

Is there any reason why the collage is that big? It included 40 "Polish" people. Not only is the number of Poles in the poorly made collage redundant, but a significant minority are actually Jews who are a separate ethnic group. By including Jews, it violates WP:V considering it's not verifiable that the people in the collage are actually ethnic Poles. Khazar (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are right about the Jews being in the collage. That will be fixed immediately, although they are "Polish Jews". But the size is not a nuisance and the next collage will be the same scale. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you still working on that collage? Khazar (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but can you please tell me what people should drop out? Thanks ;) User:Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
All the Jews. It can be controversial if you leave them in because the Jews of Poland aren't Slavic like the Poles and I can see it as potentially insulting the Jews who came from there. Khazar (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no concern about the violation of the principle of verifiability (WP:V), because the article refers not only ethnic Poles but also Poles in the legal sense, ie Polish citizens. And by the way, maybe rename the file Polesok.png to "Poles_collage.png"? Such a name is more appropriate in relation to the contents of this file. --Rewa (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. However, it violates WP:OR because it's an attempt to pass off the Jews that recently originated from Poland as ethnic Poles. Such a proposition is insulting to Jews who originated there because they're not Slavic by culture at all. As for citizens of Poland, some citizens of Poland aren't ethnic Poles; Romani, Tatars, etc. Khazar (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so do I make another collage or do we stick with the current one? User:Oliszydlowski (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your choice, I don't really care. Khazar (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Question? Dear user Al Khazar (talk · contribs), please reveal your true wiki-identity in this discussion. If you are the same user as Heb-ru (talk · contribs) from above (making identical claims again), than playing both ends against the middle is called wp:sock puppetry in Wikipedia which can result in the perma-block of both your accounts. It is not worth the hassle. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 20:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a sock puppet. If you can find out, please do and clear my name from the charges. Khazar (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It may happen that a citizen of Poland who is ethnically Romanian or Tatar, identifies himself as being of Polish nationality, or simply Pole. It may also be that such a person will be considered by others as a Pole. Where such information is available in reliable sources there can be article on Wikipedia which relies on this. Your proposal for changes in order to avoid images of Poles of non-Polish ethnicity does not meet principles of Wikipedia on verifiability – there is no such kind of regulation. Please look more closely at the earlier discussion, I recommend this. --Rewa (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That was short of enlightening. All you provided was a link to a discussion of whether someone's an ethnic Pole or note. It was obvious he wasn't so what was your point? All that passage showed was bigotry caused by Polish nationalism. Provide statistics, references, or sources of your statements. Where does it say that Polish Jews and Slavic Poles are the same? Better yet, provide statistics that show that there are a substantial number of Jews, Romani, Tatars, etc. that define themselves as ethnically Polish. Answer that question instead of pointing out the flaws in a different article [such as Germans]. Khazar (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It's your idea to remove from the collage Poles of Jewish ethnicity. I just tried to describe a principle which perhaps is not accepted by you. --Rewa (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There is now a decent photo of Stefan Banach, not showing him smoking, which should certainly be added to the portraits of notable Poles—if necessary, replacing some less notable one. However, the collection of portraits is not excessive, given the number of notable persons that Poland has produced. They should, though, all be consistently arranged chronologically by birth year. Nihil novi (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Good points, give my support to both. --Robsuper (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose we also add the great Polish logician, mathematician and philosopher Alfred Tarski who, in asserting his Polish self-identification, went so far as to change his original Jewish name, Alfred Teitelbaum, to "Tarski" and, despite remaining an avowed atheist, converted to Roman Catholicism. Nihil novi (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, excelent proposal. --Robsuper (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to propose the candidacy of Violetta Villas, which is prominent figure in the world of artists. --Robsuper (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Khazar, I'm ethnically Ashkenazi and I see myself as being from German and Polish ancestry, I never saw myself as different in any way to people of non Jewish German/Polish ancestry, we may be different genetically speaking, but these are only minor differences because, after all, we all share a common ancestry in Africa less than 200,000 years ago, and what makes an ethnicity isn't at it's core about genetics, but about culture, linguistics and self identification, and many ethnic groups have historically have added a migrating people into their ethnicity. Another example would be the Hungarians who are historically, culturally and lingustically the Uralic people known as the Magyars from the Ural mountains of far eastern Europe, however, due to intermarriage between the settled Christian Magyars and the local Germans and Slavs Hungarians today are closer genetically speaking to Germans and Slavs then to say, Finns and the Estonians and the Udmurts or the Saami, but culturally, linguistically and by self identification the Hungarians still identify with the Magyars of the Ural mountains and not with the Germans or the Slavs. Guy355 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that there's too many people in the collage. I *absolutely* disagree that we need to "remove the Jews". WTF? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in awhile (and keep in mind that this is Wikipedia so it's not like there's a shortage of ridiculous comments around these parts). "Poles" and "Jews" are not mutually exclusive categories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Very true, I agree. Guy355 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see why you would insist on keeping the 90% male domination (27/30) in the gallery of notable Poles. I've suggested 8 women (8/30) of great significance in their field, having made sure the change won't affect the balance of various historical periods and professions that the listed names represent. I haven't suggested a (50%) gender parity, considering the fact that women may have not had the same opportunity of "becoming notable" as men. I have the impression that the previous editors subconsciously excluded women (non of male Nobel Prize winners were omitted, and now you're protesting against including Szymborska). Poortutor (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A portrait gallery of notable Poles, limited to just 30 individuals, must necessarily be very selective.
If it is to represent Poland to the wider world, it should include individuals whose contributions to world science, technology, and culture have been of the highest order.
If you can name Polish women whose world-class achievements match those of Maria Skłodowska Curie and Irena Sendler (who are included in my version) and of the other individuals whom I have included, I will consider them with alacrity.
Maria Konopnicka, Maria Pawlikowska, Wisława Szymborska, Violetta Villas and Agnieszka Holland do not fill the bill.
The portrait gallery of notable Poles is not an appropriate affirmative-action venue for seeking an arbitrary "numerical gender equality."
Nihil novi (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

First let me point out that this article's purpose in not to represent Poland in accordance with what is one sexist's opinion on what should be considered honourable and praiseworthy, but to provide information about Poland and Poles. Currently it includes only men whose contributions have been significant, women whose achievements have been just as important are omitted. But if you still feel the need to argue, please explain me why, in your opinion, Stanisław Lem meets the requirements to be included while Wisława Szymborska does not. Poortutor (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The most damning thing about Wisława Szymborska is that she was a Nobel literature prize-winner. Nihil novi (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why 1956?

Why does the history section end at 1956? That seems arbitrary. Defenestrate (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

A move discussion relating to this article is open at Lech, Čech, and Rus' talk page. Khestwol (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Alleged relation to non-Slavic peoples

I strongly discourage diminishing the purpose of an ethnic group by making claims that it is related to unrelated people. The whole world is mixed to some degree. I say the somewhat murky concept of genetics which links seemly unrelated majorities differently from related minorities within is a departure from the idea of a nation. People intermarry, populations assimilate, that is the way the world is. Poles can generally be introverted with regards other nations (i.e. sod everybody else), or they may embrace pan-Slavism. What no right-minded Polish citizen does however is look upon Germans and Hungarians as cousins based on the intermixing. The population of Bulgaria and Romania share significant ancestry, but from an individual perspective this is irrelevant. While one may know his own background to be mixed, his decision to identify as a member of one ethnic group welcomes him to that group unconditionally - even if he has no known descent from this adopted race. So whilst all people are mixed in ancestral identities, can we just keep the nations related to the certified groups, those with whom they share unequivocal linguistic ancestry. --OJ (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

On that same note, I'm wondering why the related groups section was suddenly proscribed dramatically in a BOLD edit here. Is there actually a problem with being related to other Slavs? If editors feel that it's relevant to proscribe related groups, could they please discuss it here. I have no particular position on the matter, but a rationale should be presented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The wording, "Other West Slavs, including the Czechs and Slovaks", does not exclude other West Slavic communities, e.g., the Sorbs. On the contrary. The above wording is simply clearer, and better English, than the repetitive "Other West Slavs such as Czechs, Slovaks and other Slavs".
If I had meant only the Czechs and Slovaks (presumably that is your objection), I would have written: "Other West Slavs: the Czechs and Slovaks".
Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, did you mean, "Other West Slavs, including the Czechs and Slovaks, as well as other Slavs"? Nihil novi (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's the latter: I was speaking in broader terms. If you take a look at Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians you'll see that there are three different styles of presenting related groups. The Ukrainians infobox includes other Slavs in general (as does the current infobox here). The Belarusian article simply uses "other East Slavs". The Russians article uses "Particularly other East Slavs (Belarusians and Ukrainians)". What I'm trying to establish is how far flung or precise the relationship should be to be edifying for the reader. The Germans article, for example, takes a broader view in incorporating other Germanic peoples in general. As an aside, the definite article is redundant when referring to Czechs, so the structure should be "Other West Slavs, including Czechs and Slovaks". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Then, in the case of the Poles, why not simplify the wording to "Other Slavs"? That would economically include both the "other West Slavs" and the non-West-Slavs. Nihil novi (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha, touché! Impeccable logic! Nevertheless, I think you would have gathered that I'm not interested in economising on wikilinks, but how best to present related groups informatively for the reader. West Slavs narrows down the larger overall ethnic group. It isn't actually a duplication as the wikilinks take the reader to separate articles. The question is whether eliminating the broadest group assumes that the average reader would really already be aware of the number of ethnic groups Slavs encompasses. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
If I can take part in this conversation from this point with an alternative viewpoint to those cited: I am lately experiencing quite a few issues over these "related groups" sections in the infoboxes. It seems they pop up everywhere, even for nations such as Swiss people who we all know are not ethnically homogeneous. I am not referring to the actual official languages, but to the wider families of languages: Germanic and Romance (the language of the canton rather concerns which language has proven the strongest). It appears that everywhere, nations seem to be related to "unrelated" people, and too often it is not reciprocated on the matching article. Now looking at this West Slavic debate, I am radidly coming to the conclusion that I should launch a wider discussion elsewhere to have these sections removed (just like the galleries were previously removed for named individuals from the ethnic group in question). I mean, here two editors are (Iryna and Nihil novi) discussing the West Slavic situation, yet when you look at Polish language, you find along the pedigree line that West Slavic languages is one the ladder. The same classification appears in all articles for modern-day Slavic languages. Except there is one problem. The East/SouthWest Slavic classification is a later development based on how things would happen. Linguistically East and West Slavic are bound by a continuum of intelligibility whilst South is broken off from this body for two reasons: 1) their ancestors (linguistic) had reason to flee the earlier settlement, 2) when settling on today's lands, they were no longer palpable with the East/West Slavs. However, when considering that both Serbs and Croats carried forth their titles from earlier times whilst settled on more northerly territory, and seeing that Slovene and Slovak are evidently cognates, you have to ask yourselves what do we really mean by South Slavs, and West Slavic languages and so on. The three subgroups neither have an exclusive ancestor (i.e. one Slavic tribe is now three, one will be the ancestor to south, one to west and one to east), and by the same premise, I very much doubt that the categories have one ancestral Slavic language each. It is more probable that 1,300 years ago, the Slavic language was more uniform among all people, while Serbs are Sorbs may previously have been one, as with Slovenes/Slovaks, and Croats/White Croats (extinct). Nobody can be sure of these things but it is clearly the case that west, south and east are arbitrary classifications rather than separately derived national groups. Thoughts from both of you? --OJ (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. Ethnicity is a complex concept, potentially involving multiple criteria such as common genetics or common language stock. Most generally, it designates a community of people who identify with each other based on similarities. To a Slav familiar with a language from two of the three broad Slavic language groups—East, West, South Slavic—all the Slavic languages are largely mutually intelligible. So, to that extent if to no other, members of these related linguistic groups are likely to feel a mutual affinity as related ethnic groups (though, historically, this by no means always allays mutual animosities, as sometimes occurs among relatives). Everything considered, I might be persuaded to agree with dropping "related ethnic groups" from article information boxes. Nihil novi (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Very commendable suggestion Nihil novi. It starts off as nature, but when this goes astray then it becomes nurture. And as you mention "genetics", nature and nurture on the same line are a harmful combination! :)))) I'm interested to know now what Iryna thinks. --OJ (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Add diaspora population to the infobox

Please add an aggregate of the Polish diaspora. Like on the Thai page. NZVortex (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 7 external links on Poles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Poles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Genetics section

I agree with Volunteer Marek that this new section is inappropriate as written, especially in such a prominent position in the article, and should be removed. The article is meant for the general reader, for whom much of the terminology of the section will be meaningless. And even among geneticists, the idea of equating modern ethnic groups with ancient DNA lineages is controversial, and can't be addressed in a balanced way in such a short, lightly-sourced section. (Only one legitimate source is given, for a cryptic table, not referenced afterwards. Then there are two quotations from PLOS sources, i.e., from papers self-published by their authors.)

I am also somewhat concerned about the agenda of user Arslan-San, who inserted this section a few days ago, and who has now reverted Marek's reasonable effort to remove it. Please examine this user's edit history to get an idea of what he's up to. Eleuther (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I added over a dozen new individuals to this gallery but my edit has been mostly reverted, only Bronisław Malinowski was added. I think it is best to start a discussion about this here before expanding the gallery. Which of these individuals do you think were prominent enough and deserve to be added?: Ignacy Domeyko, Jan Szczepanik, Casimir Zeglen, Julian Ochorowicz, Jan Czochralski, Stefan Bryła, Rudolf Gundlach, Jacek Karpiński, Kazimierz Prószyński, Casimir Siemienowicz, Josephus Struthius, Bohdan Paczyński, Ernest Malinowski, Albert Brudzewski, Marcin Kromer, Eugeniusz Romer. Or some other suggestions? Perhaps someone from this book: http://uatacz.up.krakow.pl/~wwwchemia/pliki/ISBN_978_83_7271_768_9_From_alchemy_to_the_present_day Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

who is Polish

Rosa Luxembourg was not Polish. She was a Hebrew by birth, an atheist/communist by choice. She happened to be born in Poland. If we agree that no every Pole is born in Poland then not every person born in Poland is a Pole is clearly true. Germans, Jews, Ukrainians, Romas and others were not Poles - even if they may have had Polish citizenship - another thing altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariobrovses (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Map of knowledge of the Polish language in Europe (brown shading)

I have a few issues with this map that I have commented on at Talk:Languages_of_the_European_Union#Polish_language_map: no references are provided for it, and it seems inconsistent on whether it is tabulating knowledge only by country or is considering differences in knowledge between regions of the same country. (Several regions of Ukraine are shaded as having more Polish knowledge than the rest, but then Belarus and Lithuania should also have similar shading. The original map did have such shading, but it seems to have been incorrect, as Brest for example should not have been shaded that darkly based on File:Polacy na Białorusi.png. Could the map be remade more consistently according to referenced data? Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Poles. Krakkos (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

For the last sentence in the intro, regarding Polish emigres, could you please add “some of them Jewish” or something a month those lines? It highlights that they survived Nazi rule.--2605:6000:1526:450B:EC06:322B:4D39:F3C8 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Central European vs West Slavic

I think the lead would be improved if it stated, “West Slavic ethnic group native to Central Europe” rather than “Central European ethnic group”. In a way, very similar to the Germans article. Germans and Poles as ethnic groups existed before modern-day Germany and Poland existed, but is it not better to describe an ethnic group by the linguistic grouping (like the Germans article) rather than just the geographical origin of the ethnic group (like the article currently is worded)?--LeftiePete (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@LeftiePete:; I see your point, but it would be inappropriate to group the entire nation and all its citizens based purely on linguistics, especially considering the country's once multicultural and multi ethnic composition up until World War II. The lead already states that the 'ethnic Poles' are descendants of West Slavic Lechites. Ethno-linguistic aspects do not define culture or customs, but a geographical placement of a particular group is a fact. If anyone is interested in the language itself, they may click on the Polish language article which is already linked in the lead. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The article is about Poles as an ethnic group, not Polish citizens. Jews, Roma, Ukrainians, Germans and other ethnic minorities who were or are Polish citizens were or are not ethnic Poles.--LeftiePete (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@LeftiePete: - Not true; the article also entails citizens. Even says in the lead if you read it. Some/most Poles mentioned in the article are not pure ethnic Poles. I also feel slightly offended due to my mixed heritage. Sticking to facts, not every Pole today is of complete "West Slavic" ancestry. The current version is the most neutral. See the article French people for instance. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The article is quite clearly about Poles as an ethnic group, not the citizens of Poland. That is quite obvious considering Poland as a nation-state (country) is relatively new whereas Poles as an ethnic group have existed for a very long time. The fact you have chosen to take my statements as personal is not my problem; if anything, you strengthen my argument since you mentioned “mixed” ancestry. Also, I strongly suspect that you have misinterpreted my last post because I did not mean that ethnic minorities in Poland were/are not Poles. I never stated that every Pole is of Western Slavic ancestry, but that is the origin of Poles as an ethnic group. The ethnic origin of Germans are Germanic tribes, but for example a lot of Germans (especially in former Eastern Germany areas) have Slavic ancestry. Does that mean those people are not Germans? I would argue that idea would be ridiculous, but it is a fact that those people are not of the origin of Germans as an ethnic group. As I’m sure you’re already aware, the concept of an ethnic group is not simple anyway. Obviously some of the Poles mentioned in the article had/have non-Polish ancestry, but that doesn’t mean they were/are not Poles. Please don’t try and make this into an argument about the ethnic origin of certain individuals. The article is not about Polish citizens, it is about Poles as an ethnic group. The article about the French people is not quite the same because that article specifically mentions both French people as an ethnic group and also mentions citizenship, there is even a section about it “multiculturalism versus universalism”; as well as the section “Jus soli and jus sanguinis” which is specifically about citizenship and ethnicity. So while the Poles article mentions the fact that different ethnic groups have lived in what is now known as Poland for a very long time, the article is still specifically about Poles as an ethnic group, the same cannot be said for the French people article.--LeftiePete (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Have you studied the history of Europe? I’m not for one moment disputing that different ethnic groups and tribes have moved to different parts of Europe in the past. Celtic tribes, Germanic tribes, Slavic tribes, Romance tribes, etc, etc, have migrated to different parts of Europe for a very long time. But, Ireland is considered a Celtic country, Germany is considered a Germanic country, Poland is considered a Slavic country, Italy is considered a Romantic country and so forth. Every country has experienced different tribes invading, migrating, settling, etc. And? Every country has its own ethnic group. The Poles article has a section “National minorities” and mentions historical and modern-day ethnic minorities. I presume that the other articles about ethnic groups mention historical and modern-day ethnic minorities.--LeftiePete (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
You claim this article is most “neutral” because “Central European” rather than “West Slavic” is used, but I suspect that is because you have mixed ancestry and feel “slightly offended” that I pointed out the fact that ethnic Poles are of West Slavic origin. Remember, let’s stick to the facts, shall we? Ethnic Poles are considered to be those people descended from Western Slavic tribes (“The ethnic Polish people are considered to be the descendants of ancient West Slavic Lechites and other tribes that inhabited the Polish territories in late antiquity.”) Thus, Poles are a “Western Slavic ethnic group”. Your disapproval of “Western Slavic” due to you being “slightly offended” is not sufficient to object to it being included in the article. Perhaps someone else can give his/her input too.--LeftiePete (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
On my talk page you stated that “we” agreed that “Central European” was best used because the article describes the Poles by the geographical region. Who are “we”?--LeftiePete (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Every country, at one time or another, to one degree or another, has included populations of diverse origin. Nevertheless, we generally recognize the existence of "nations" and corresponding "citizenships".
I do not see incongruity to describing the Poles as a "Central European West Slavic ethnic group and nation".
Nihil novi (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@LeftiePete: - Poland is not "relatively new" as a nation state. Please don't distort facts. This article is about Poles and Polish citizens, regardless of race or ethnic origin and composition. Paragraph 3 in the lead elaborates on it briefly. Any kind of categorization in the very first paragraph/sentence should not be implemented. Mielnik-Sikorska and others have argued that Poles are not only descended from West Slavic peoples, but also from the tribes that inhabited Poland's territory before the "Slavic migration", including surrounding tribes; Mielnik-Sikorska, Marta; et al. (2013), "The History of Slavs Inferred from Complete Mitochondrial Genome Sequences", PLOS ONE, 8 (1): e54360, Bibcode:2013PLoSO...854360M, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054360, PMC 3544712, PMID 23342138{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link). The first sentence should state pure facts that cannot be debated or argued. I am not attempting to deny what you're saying, but I feel that categorizing all Poles as West Slavs is simply not factual. Moreover, this article includes a number of Polish-Jews and others who after all are also Poles, and contributors to Polish culture and DNA-make up. Paragraph 3 in the lead already highlights that ethnic Poles are of West Slavic origin so I do not see the point of this discussion. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
An ethnic group is probably better defined by a common language, common culture, and sense of common belonging than by mitochondrial DNA. Nihil novi (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Poland as a nation-state (country) is relatively new, considering the fact that Poland did not truly exist on a map between 1795-1918! Again, how many times do I need to post it? The West Slavic tribes are the people who settled permanently in Polish territories and who are considered to be the descendants of ethnic Poles. I’ll make this unambiguously clear: I am not arguing for an ethnic nationalist concept of any ethnic group, but simply pointing out the descendants of ethnic groups is simply stating facts.
@Nihil novi: One of the key concepts of an ethnic group is ancestry and by the way, no one has mentioned anything about DNA. I am not for one moment arguing what you seem to be thinking that I am arguing so please stop don’t create any strawman arguments.--LeftiePete (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski: Have you actually bothered to read what I have posted? I’m well aware of the different migrations of different tribes all over Europe, but we’re discussing the permanent settlement of tribes. Historically Celtic tribes migrated to modern-day Germany, does that mean that the Germans are now suddenly Celtic? I don’t think so. Germans are Germanic because the Germanic tribes settled in German territories permanently. It’s really not difficult to distinguish between different tribes who have invaded, migrated, etc, to the descendants of an ethnic group because those descendants (tribes) settled in the territories permanently.--LeftiePete (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@LeftiePete: - I don't see how tribes from 1000+ years ago are even relatable at present. In relation to your statement about Germans and Celts, did I ever say Poles are Celtic, Germanic etc? No. Poles are Poles. Grouping them into larger ethnic groups with other countries is pointless and may lead to misconceptions. Plus, it already says ethnic Poles are considered to be the descendants of West Slavic Lechites. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Is Poland a Slavic country that uses a Slavic language?
If so, what kind of Slavic country, and what kind of Slavic language? East Slavic, South Slavic, West Slavic?
If Poland is a West Slavic country that speaks a West Slavic language (Polish), then why not state that in the lead's opening paragraph?
Nihil novi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski: You’re totally missing the points I’ve been trying to make about this dispute. Let’s just stick to the facts, shall we? As User:Nihil novi has kindly pointed out various facts, then why not state “West Slavic” in the lead paragraph? I’m still waiting for you to tell me who are “we” who decided that “Central European” is more appropriate? So far you just seem to keep missing the points I’ve been trying to make and you keep going around in circles.--LeftiePete (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
What I find hard to grasp is the fact that User:Oliszydlowski reverted my edit and stated that the article “already says below”. Thus, why can “West Slavic” not be in the lead paragraph?--LeftiePete (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski: This is getting all a bit silly now. The reason why those tribes from thousands of years ago are relatable to the present is because those tribes are the tribes who permanently settled in Polish territories and who began the concept of “Poles” as an ethnic group. Why is that so difficult to understand? It’s true that other ethnic groups have been living in Polish territories for thousands of years e.g. Jews, Tatars, Ukrainians, Germans, etc, but those are descended from different peoples/tribes. There is are no misconceptions - ethnic Poles are descended from West Slavic tribes. To make things a bit clearer for you... the Polish novelist Henryk Sienkiewicz was not fully ethnically Polish because on his father’s side he was descended from Tatars, but he WAS still a Pole. I am not here to tell you who is an ethnic Pole, an ethnic Jew, an ethnic English, an ethnic German, an ethnic Irish, I am simply pointing out the fact that ethnic Poles are those people who were/are descended from the West Slavic tribes who permanently settled on Polish territories. The only reason you seem to be objecting to “West Slavic” being in the lead paragraph is because you have admitted to being of “mixed ancestry” and you have quite clearly misinterpreted my points which has caused you to feel “slightly offended”. I’ll repeat it one last time for you... I have never once said that you are not a Pole and I have never once said that Poles with non-Polish ancestry are not Poles. All I am doing and will continue to do is point out - which the article states - is the fact that ethnic Poles are descended from the West Slavic tribes who settled permanently on Polish territories.
Stop making this personal and about you and your own ancestry. Perhaps you can be kind enough to do the following:
State who are “we” who decided that “Central European” is more appropriate than “West Slavic”
Tell me why “West Slavic” should not be used given the facts that User:Nihil novi mentioned
Thanks.--LeftiePete (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
West Slavic is already used in paragraph 3. This is an article about ethnic Poles and Polish citizens. Thanks. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Rinse, repeat. You were very selective in what you decided to respond to, despite the fact I have asked you a few times to provide evidence of who are "we" who decided that "Central European" was more appropriate than "West Slavic". You keep ignoring that question when it is your claim so it is up to you to provide evidence to support it. This article is NOT about "ethnic Poles and Polish citizens". The various articles such as Germans, English people, Dutch people, Russians, etc, etc, are NOT about the citizens of those countries but the ethnic groups. This article is specifically about ethnic Poles. Again, you need to prove that this article is also about Polish citizens, but again, that is another one of your claims which is not supported by any evidence and is quite clearly wrong. You are not the only person who decides on what the article's lead (or any part of the article) should be. Also, you have contradicted yourself because if this article is also about Polish citizens irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds then "Central Europe" is wrong because many Polish citizens both in the past and present have had ancestry from other parts of Europe and even outside of Europe. I presume the reason you think "Central European" is more appropriate is because of your own German ancestry (I have checked your user page) so it fits in with your own views. But, as I have consistently stated, why don't we just stick to the facts? Be decent and respond to User:Nihil novi's arguments for "West Slavic" to be used. In fact, I have tried to reasonably discuss this matter with you after your rather authoritative "do not change the lead" statement when you reverted my edit. So, at the moment, not a single person has defended your stance on things (so much for "we") and both User:Nihil novi and I clearly can see why "West Slavic" is more than appropriate to be used in the lead of the article. It's obvious to anyone who reads your responses in this section that you're arguing from a personal point of view and not the facts. Paradoxically, the article agrees with my arguments and you admit that it's mentioned in the third paragraph of the article, but yet you don't think it's suited for the lead of the article. Absolutely bizarre.--LeftiePete (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@LeftiePete: - my personal beliefs are not part of this and that should not be insinuated. I stick to even the most covert facts, but facts nevertheless. Secondly, stop placing user Nihil novi on your side. I'd gladly have a discussion with him too if he could join. Thirdly, are you now arguing Poland is not Central Europe? The claim of Central Europe was based on where Poles predominantly reside nowadays and where the actual country is located. I don't see why West Slavic grouping is necessary in the very first sentence as it does not define the way Poles are today. What I see is that even Poles of non-Polish origin are being marginalized in favour of those ethnic ones which is a shame. I'll adjust the lead sentence and see if it "pleases" you, although I do not find it factual or neutral at all. And don't say you have proven your point. You proved nothing. And you should not add content before a discussion is finalized per Wikipedia:Consensus. It is unprofessional. Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you that personal beliefs should not be used as a way to construct an article, but it was YOU who mentioned your own ancestry when discussing this dispute. And, yet again, you have created more strawman arguments and ignored my points. By the way, I have not tried to get anyone on “my side”, but at least have the decency to response to the user’s points. Rubbish like, “What I see is that even Poles of non-Polish origin are being marginalized in favour of those ethnic ones which is a shame.” clearly demonstrates that you are using your own personal beliefs to coincide with how the article should be. And, no, you will wait until you have thatcher a consensus before you start tweaking the article to suit your narrative.--LeftiePete (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski: Learn to practice what you preach! It’s not okay for me to edit the article before a consensus has been reached here, but it’s perfectly acceptable for you to do so? I don’t think so. There isn’t one rule for you and one rule for everyone else.--LeftiePete (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The current sentence has been structured by you, I only rephrased it. You are now engaging in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I think maybe a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Requests for comment are good idea to allow other users to express their opinion. We will respect the rule of vote and its outcome. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, it is “disruptive editing” when I edit the article, but it’s perfectly acceptable for you to edit the article. I see that you’ve still ignored what another user has pointed out to you. Yes, go for it, because it’s a waste of time trying to debate with you. There is no reasoning with you so we’ll take it further and elsewhere.--LeftiePete (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Term in the lead

In the lead paragraph, should “Central European” or “West Slavic” be used before “ethnic group”? .--LeftiePete (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the latter term should be used. Poland is a Slavic country that uses a West Slavic language. Ethnic Poles are descended from West Slavic tribes. The article covers the origins of Poles throughout the article. In pretty much every article describing the ethnic group then the ethnolinguistic term is used e.g. Germans, Ukrainians, Dutch people, Russians, Czechs, Italians, etc, etc. I don’t see any argument for the geographical origin of the ethnic group to be used in the lead paragraph. Thus, I believe that it’s perfectly acceptable and accurate to describe the ethnic group as “West Slavic”.--LeftiePete (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I venture to suggest that both our colleagues, Oliszydlowski and LeftiePete, are right.
Poland is a Central European country. So are Czechia and Slovakia (and several other European countries).
The Poles are a West Slavic people who speak a West Slavic language. So are the Czechs and Slovaks.
Why not, then, cover all the bases – geographic and linguistic – and just keep the current lead wording: "The Poles [...] are a Central European West Slavic ethnic group and nation [...]"?
Nihil novi (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment: @Nihil novi:, @LeftiePete: - The nation as it is now inhabits Central Europe. The ethnic Poles and descendants of West Slavic tribes. Not all Poles share that ancestry and Polish culture is eclectic, mostly inspired by its western neighbour Germany and the Latin church. Therefore, the best option would be stating "Poles are a Central European nation and a West(ern) Slavic ethnic group native to Poland". It is the most neutral and factual. That's all I can say. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Depending on how much of the sentence's current content you wish to retain, you might consider reversing the order:
"The Poles are a West Slavic ethnic group and a Central European nation whose inhabitants share a common Polish ancestry, history, and culture and are speakers of the Polish language."
Would that convey a meaning that you and LeftiePete, as well as others, might find acceptable? Or could there be a more preferable wording?
Nihil novi (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment: @Oliszydlowski: We’ve already been through the same points time and time again. You seem to be contradicting yourself because your objection to “West Slavic” is because not all Poles are descended from the West Slavic tribes, but not all Poles are descended from the tribes from Central Europe, yet you have no problem with “Central European”. Your arguments against “West Slavic” make no sense and are for personal reasons (see above), nothing else. With regards to your other claims about Polish culture, those are your opinions and are not “factual”.--LeftiePete (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment: @Nihil novi: I don’t see any reason to emphasise “Central European” in the lead paragraph because there are a couple of problems with it. 1) Whether Poland is geographically a part of Central Europe or Eastern Europe depends on the definition of those terms. 2) Ethnic groups typically don’t tend to be described by their geographical regions, but rather their origins e.g. Germans are a “Germanic ethnic group”.--LeftiePete (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Brockhaus Enzyklopädie include Poland within Central Europe, specifically in East Central Europe.
That seems sufficiently convincing for me.
Nihil novi (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the geographical division of Central Europe and Eastern Europe is an ongoing debate. Poland, and a few other countries, are often considered to be part of one of them or even both, depending on the definitions used. Anyway, my point was that an ethnic group is not usually described by its geographical location. This article is about Poles, not Poland. I think that the Czechs article format could be used:
“Poles are a West Slavic ethnic group and a nation native to Poland in Central Europe”
@Oliszydlowski: What do you think?--LeftiePete (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I think you are right. No information will be left if we move the location to the end of the sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Oliszydlowski: Do you have any objection to the proposed sentence above which Piotr agrees is acceptable because it includes both “West Slavic” and “Central Europe”?--LeftiePete (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Let it be. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus: As you can see quite clearly, I have tried time and time to be reasonable with the person who contested my edit. Do you think I should just let this RfC run its course (30 days) or do you think it’s possible for it to be closed earlier? No one else is contesting my edit (see above). Should I make the edit to the article and see if anyone objects to it?--LeftiePete (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@LeftiePete: Wait a day or two, and if nobody objects, WP:BRD applies. As long as there is no edit warring and we WP:AGF one another it will work out in the end. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

In 2019 there lived 195000 Poles in the Netherlands Source: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond/2019/44/poolse-en-syrische-immigranten-per-gemeente 80.112.15.230 (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

According to the newest researches, historians say that the association of Lupiglaa with the town of Głubczyce is wrong. Please remove the mention of it in this article. 5.173.64.15 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish_people/Archive_1&oldid=1228043197"