Talk:Edmund Charaszkiewicz

"This article needs to be cleaned up."
I have edited this article, sectioning it, pruning dispensable matter, and adding explanatory information.

I would appreciate any suggestions for further enhancing the article's readability and communicativeness. logologist 02:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The article contains a lot of details like unit names, personal names places, exact dates. Pavel Vozenilek 22:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR
This gentleman has been listed on the new can someone add a reference on the Category talk:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR when he predicted this?

Thanks for the addition, I am interested in hearing from you.

Thanks, Travb 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

 * Ohconfucius, I appreciate your good intentions in regard to "Edmund Charaszkiewicz", but he was not a "British person of Polish descent". He was a Pole who ended up in Britain due to the vicissitudes of history.  He could not return to Poland, so he stayed in Britain.  That is not sufficient reason to change the spelling used by the article's original author.  Please do not change the spelling again to British.  To prevent further confusion, I have deleted the "British persons of Polish descent" category.
 * Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a strong national tie. American English doesn't make any sense in that context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  03:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stanton. I also tend to feel the period of enforced residence British Isles still counts as a strong national tie. It's not like the Philippines, which was colonised by the USA and thus Philippine articles tend to be in US English. Poland has no such ties with the US. It's not down to whether he voluntarily spent time there, but the fact that he did that makes a difference. If an individual was educated in Britain in their youth and without any other sojourns in US territories, it would be the same. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 11:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I propose applying Oxford spelling, which uses the suffix -ize in words like organize and recognize because -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo (-ιζω), of most -ize verbs. Oxford spelling is used by many British academic and science journals (e.g., Nature) and many international organizations (e.g., the United Nations and its agencies), and in many British literary works, including the King James Bible, the works of Shakespeare, The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie, and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis.
 * The -ize spelling is common for academic, formal, and technical writing for an international readership. The spelling affects about 200 verbs and is favored because -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo, of most -ize verbs.  The belief that -ize is exclusively an American spelling is incorrect.  In Britain, both the -ise and -ize spellings are used.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ohconfucius, for introducing Oxford spelling into the "Edmund Charaszkiewicz" article!
 * Nihil novi (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)