Talk:History of Poland/Archive 2

Piast concept/Undue
I am reverting this edit because this is a very general level article. While the new version of the text, at least as far as I can tell after a quick glance, does not include the close paraphrasing/copyright violation problems of the previous similar edit, it is still simply WP:UNDUE in a broad topic article such as this one. Perhaps a better way to deal with the issue would be to start a dedicated article on the "Piast concept".  Volunteer Marek  22:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Polish nationalism, the forced change in boundaries after WW2, and the ethos of the Communist regime are central issues in Polish history. The text I added closely follows the argument of Norman Daviess and other scholars. Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, these issues are important, but that's not what your added text was about. This is a general level article. It should follow more or less general texts about Polish history not miniutea.  Volunteer Marek   22:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And now it looks like we're into straight up POV pushing territory:. "Joseph Stalin at the 1943 Tehran Conference rejected Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belorussians." I'm sorry, what?? Is that in the source ? No, it isn't. A neutral, and accurate, way of putting it would be something like "At the 1943 Teheran Conference Stalin refused to hand back the pre-war Polish territory the Soviet Union had seized while allied with Hitler". The sentence as inserted is pure original research and very tendentious one at that. And it clearly misrepresents the source which is provided.

The second sentence is "He instead endorsed the Piast Concept, which justified a massive shift of Poland's frontiers to the west". This is less blatantly POV but it is ALSO not supported by the source provided. That source, the Tony Sharp article in the Journal of Contemporary History is about how the allies - in particular Great Britain - came to endorse the "Piast Concept", not Stalin.

And on top of that we still have the issue of WP:UNDUE.  Volunteer Marek  00:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The other portion of the added text, based on Norman Davies Heart of Europe is also problematic. It states: "After 1945 the Communist regime wholeheartedly adopted the Piast Concept, making it the centerpiece of their claim to be the true inheritors of Polish nationalism. After all the killings and population transfers during and after the war the nation was 99% "Polish.".

The first part of the text, the phrase "After 1945 the Communist regime wholeheartedly adopted the Piast Concept" is fine and supported by the source.

The second part of the sentence "making it the centerpiece of their claim to be the true inheritors of Polish nationalism" is not really in the source and somewhat of original research but I guess it falls within the realm of reasonable interpretation.

It's the first part of the second sentence which is problematic. There's no "After all the killings and population transfers during and after the war" in the source. And this statement, presented in an out-of-context manner such as this also appear to be highly dubious form of POV (who did the killings? who did the population transfers?). What the source actually says is just that TODAY the population of Poland is 99% Polish.  Volunteer Marek  00:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * the reason the population was 99% Polish was that the non-Poles had been killed or moved out; this article in the adjacent section already explains in great detail exactly how that happened and there is no need to repeat it. And yes Davies did write about the "population transfers" on p 326 as cited (he talks about the "mass deportations" by the Communists & the Nazis).  The term "making it the centerpiece of their claim to be the true inheritors of Polish nationalism" is my paraphrase of Davies who says on p 326: "communists could claim that the People's Republic was the natural culmination of a thousand years of Polish history."  Instead of erasing the text perhaps Volunteer Marek can suggest a change that makes it more precise? Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, your citation did not mention page p 326. And like I said, THAT part was maybe a reasonable interpretation of the source. It's the other parts of the inserted text which were problematic, which your response comment fails to address.  Volunteer Marek   02:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the source makes specific claim about Stalin's concern over who rules the Ukrainians and Belarusians (he was a Georgian) may be it's best not to assume it... Orczar (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On the Belorussia & Ukraine--was it geography Stalin wanted or people? Stalin focused on ethnicity.  Here is a useful statement from Snyder: "Soviet irredentism towards Poland in the 1920s and 1930s had been framed in the ethnic terms of "Western Belorussia" and "Western Ukraine." .... "Stalin may have reasoned that returning Galicia and Volhynia to Soviet Ukraine would help co-opt Ukrainian nationalism. Stalin perhaps saw a way to give both Ukrainians  and Poles something they wanted, while binding them to the USSR."  Rjensen (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Difference source. That doesn't excuse the misrepresentation of the original source used.  Volunteer Marek   03:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue here is revising the article to meet any objections. If Snyder gets the job done then we can use him. Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is, that what Snyder says is an altogether different thing than what you were putting into the article supposedly based on another source, which was in fact misrepresenting that source.  Volunteer Marek   03:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No i think I did not misinterpret Sharp's article. Sharp clearly states that Stalin wanted to reverse the Polish control of western Ukraine & Western Belorussia. Sharp uses ethnic terms (Poland "took into her state German, Ukrainian, and Belorussian minorities.") Snyder makes the same point in greater detail. Rjensen (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that Stalin wanted to keep the territories he grabbed in Sept 1939 while allied with Hitler is trivial. That's not what your edit said.  Volunteer Marek   04:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Stalin wanted those ethnics back, as Sharp and Snyder both make clear. Stalin's solution was to move the frontiers west, and Sharp says that at Tehran US & UK dropped their support for the Jagellon concept & accepted the Soviet proposal to use the Piast Concept to justify moving the borders west. Rjensen (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, your problem is that the Sharp source is about the Allies coming around to the "Piast Concept", not about Stalin. It doesn't say anything about Stalin wanting any "ethnics" (???) back. Second it's obviously true that the Allies agreed to the shift of Poland's borders at Tehran. But that is not what your previous edit stated. Third, this info actually ALREADY IS in the article, in the section "Changing boundaries and population transfers". Now, because of your addition (made better and more reflective of the source by Orczar) we have the article say the same thing twice. For example, "Because of the changing borders and of mass movements of people of various nationalities, sponsored by governments and spontaneous, the emerging communist Poland ended up with a mainly homogeneous, ethnically Polish population (97.6% according to the December 1950 census)." and then again "After 1945 the communist regime wholeheartedly adopted and promoted the Piast Concept, making it the centerpiece of their claim to be the true inheritors of Polish nationalism. After all the killings and population transfers during and after the war the country was 99% "Polish."". Never mind that the sentence about "killings and population transfers" is not in Davies and is lacking context. What's the point of being redundant?
 * Like you said, our mission is to improve the encyclopedia. That edit went in the OTHER direction.  Volunteer Marek   04:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * wrong. the Sharp essay has key statements about Stalin's goals on pp 381-2. He says Stalin wanted the Ukrainians & Belorussians--that is the "ethnics." There's some overlap (the 97/98/99% gets repeated unnecessarily) but more important Davies makes the key point, which is not in the article that the Communist State wanted the Piast solution in order to stake its claims to achieving 1000 years of Polish historic goals. [Davies p 326]. It's important to say that the 98% was arrived at after millions of murders of civilians (not merely "'Because of the changing borders and of mass movements"). My edit emphasized what many historians (and people at the time said): the choice was between the Jagellon and Piast concepts. These terms were used at the time and readers need to know there was a huge fight over them, and the Piast approach won out. None of that was in the article. Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the Sharp essay DOES NOT say that "Stalin wanted the Ukrainians & Belorussians" on pp 381-2. I'm staring at the article right now, and that is simply not in there.  Volunteer Marek   05:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's on p 382 as plain as day for people who know that Stalin was in charge of the USSR in 1939. "[Poland] took into her state German, Ukrainian, and Belorussian minorities. The resultant territorial claims against her were settled by Germany and the USSR in the Soviet-Germany Non-Aggression Pact in August 1939 and by the subsequent German and Russian invasions.   " I read that as saying Stalin made those decisions regarding the return of the Ukrainian and Belorussian ethnic minorities (Germany got its ethnic  Germans back).  Stalin's deal with Hitler returned them to USSR in  Sept 1939. Rjensen (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's is not the same thing as the edit you made. Look. Your edit stated "At Tehran Stalin rejected Polish control over Ukrainians and Belorussians". As if you he was going out of his way to do Belorussians and Ukrainians a favor or something. What that is, is just a very strange and POV way of phrasing the fact that at Tehran Stalin wanted to keep the lands of pre-war Poland which he grabbed while allied with Hitler in 1939, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. And that is not supported by the source.
 * By your ... "reading" of that one line, one could as well say that "Hitler rejected Polish control over Germans so he invaded and occupied Poland in 1939". Which would be blatant nonsense. Same thing here.  Volunteer Marek   12:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek does not tell us where he gets his particular ideas about Stalin. Snyder says that he DID want to do a favor to the Ukrainians to tie them to the USSR: Snyder says: "Stalin may have reasoned that returning Galicia and Volhynia to Soviet Ukraine would help co-opt Ukrainian nationalism. Stalin perhaps saw a way to give both Ukrainians and Poles something they wanted, while binding them to the USSR." The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (2003). Volunteer Marek needs to read up on Stalin, especially his goal of spreading Communism to Eastern europe. Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you didn't address me in third person (hey! I'm right here talking to you) and if you'd cut it out with the obnoxious edit summaries while we're having this discussion. Anyway. You can suggest that "I'm ignorant" that I need to "read up" and engage in all the passive aggressive condescending insults you want but at the end of the day:
 * YOU copied almost verbatim a whole paragraph from a copyrighted work and failed to put it in quotation marks.
 * YOU added highly POV text which was not based on the source you tacked on at the end. At best that's just POV WP:OR, at worst it's misrepresenting the source.
 * YOU added another piece of text only part of which was supported by the source and provided the wrong page number in addition, apparently.
 * And honestly saying something like "Volunteer Marek needs to read up on Stalin, especially his goal of spreading Communism to Eastern europe" is so silly it's... never-mind. Has anyone here argued that Stalin's goal wasn't to spread Communism to Eastern europe? No? Then what in the hey are you talking about, unless this is supposed to be some kind of red red herring.   Volunteer Marek   20:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying not to debate Marek here but to make a better article. His sources are unknown and that makes his credibility pretty low. His technique is to erase material that affronts his personal POV views. He has difficulty understanding the text of a scholarly article and therefore accuses me of misreading it. Rjensen (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Insults are not a substitute for an argument, nor any kind of excuse for misrepresenting sources or committing copyright violations.  Volunteer Marek   00:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to build a better article here and it's hard to believe that Marek has the same goal. He has made zero positive suggestions for improvement. Rjensen (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to build a better article here as well and it's hard to see how inserting copyright violations, POV or OR which misrepresents the underlying sources is any kind of "improvement". "Editing" also means removing nonsense from the articles (in fact that's mostly what real life editors do).  Volunteer Marek   00:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * alleged copyright violations should be taken to the copyright violations page where Wiki editors can evaluate the allegation. As for "nonsense," that's a new allegation! Which text is "nonsense"?? Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a sentence utilizing the suggested Snyder material and moved the section to Notes, because I'm concerned with the proliferation of subsections and blocks of text in the main body of this general article. Orczar (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This concept is certainly not important enough for a section here, and I am not sure if even a brief passing mention has its place, it seems pretty much like a footnote to a footnote in importance for a topic of this scale (so, WP:UNDUE as a relevant policy seems relevant). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

the Polish economy weathered the crisis, in comparison with many European and other countries, relatively unscathed
This sentence is incorrect and unbalanced. Polish unemployment since 1992 is on average around 15%(for two decades basically), 2 million people have fled Poland abroad, and most of industry that was build in 1945-1989 has been dismantled after West won confrontation with Eastern block and successfully eliminated economical competition. Most claims about alleged Polish success in economy are based simply on GDP growth-which is easy in impoverished countries basing their growth on exploitation of mass cheap labor. I believe that massive flight of Polish population and inability to reduce unemployment should be mentioned for balanced view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You need sound, reliable, sources for all of that. The reason why Poles "fled" Poland was not that the economy hasn't been successful but rather simply because the Schengen visa was introduced. The Western European countries had a higher standard of living to begin with an you can't make up fifty years+ of economic stagnation in just a decade. If I start out making 10000 $ per year and you start out making 30000$ per year but from then on my income grows at 4% while your income grows at 2% it will still take about 60 years for me to catch up (and the disparity in 1989 was probably greater than that 1:3 ratio). Because the catch up doesn't take place over night does that mean that the 4% growth economy is "not successful"? Only if you believe in Santa Claus and miracles.
 * It's true that unemployment is high but that has to do with all sorts of structural issues which I don't want to get into here.
 * The claims about Polish success based on GDP growth are very real. GDP growth means that the average person's income is increasing. You would have an argument if inequality dramatically rose over the period. It actually did, a little bit, but you'd basically need it to rise so much that the MEDIAN person's income didn't grow or fell even as average went up. That hasn't happened.
 * The rest just seems to be pure rhetoric.  Volunteer Marek   01:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Unemployment is part of economy, and the sole reason Poles fled from Poland was that they weren't able to find a jobs there.Thus its an example of failure of Polish economy which has experienced continuous high levels of unemployment since it accepted Western demands regarding reformsunemployment levels since 1989 till 2013 Official statistis. You may argue the reasons, you may not like the data, but it is official statistic and notable. High level of unemployment since 20 years should be mentioned for sake of NPOV. Currently we have a highly POV claim that Poland is prosperous, which is incorrect. Reasons for failure of Polish economy to reduce unemployment are irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is that unemployment high. Then perhaps we should add a sentence that Poland still has to reach success of Niger or Sierra Leone where GDP growth is in double digits. " an you can't make up fifty years+ of economic stagnation in just a decade" There were never fifty years of economic stagnation in post-war Poland. "You need sound, reliable, sources for all of that" I trust professor of economics Witold Kiezun of the top rated Kozminski University [ who states that modern Poland is a new model of economically and politically exploited colony would be ok? If not I can add several other top academics and researches voicing that opinion.
 * The reason why Poles "fled" Poland was not that the economy hasn't been successful but rather simply because the Schengen visa was introduced.
 * "It's true that unemployment is high but that has to do with all sorts of structural issues which I don't want to get into here"
 * "The claims about Polish success based on GDP growth are very real. GDP growth means that the average person's income is increasing."

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Unemployment is part of economy, and the sole reason Poles fled from Poland was that they weren't able to find a jobs there.
 * Rather it's because jobs abroad paid a lot better. Why look for a job that pays 10k a year when you can go to UK and find one that pays 30k? (or whatever). Unemployment in Mexico is and has been lower than in US for the past 20 years (or roughly equal). Still Mexicans go to US for jobs.
 * Thus its an example of failure of Polish economy which has experienced continuous high levels of unemployment since it accepted Western demands regarding reforms
 * First, it's true that unemployment in Poland has been high. But if anything it's because of lack of substantial reforms rather than vice versa. Second it's partly a Europe-wide problem where unemployment in general tends to be high. Third if you look at that data you link to you can see that the official unemployment rate actually bottomed out at close to 10% - and if it hadn't been for the global financial crisis it would've probably stayed there. Fourth, a very good chunk of that unemployment rate is youth unemployment, particularly among young people with only a vocational education, itself a left over from the communist time. Fifth we both know that some of that "unemployment" is people who go and work abroad for a half a year then come back and report themselves as unemployed in order to get assistance (or similar situations). So yes, you're right that the high rate of unemployment can be regarded as somewhat of a failure but its existence implies something else than you think it does.
 * Then perhaps we should add a sentence that Poland still has to reach success of Niger or Sierra Leone where GDP growth is in double digits.
 * Nice try. If Niger and Sierra Leone could sustain GDP growth rates in double digits for any prolonged period of time then their economic policies most certainly should be described as successful. But actually their growth rates tend to fluctuate between negative numbers to double digits positive ones, as their economies make up the ground lost in previous years.
 * And of course you're equivocating. If an economy such as Sierra Leone, where average income is something like 500$ per year (about 1.35$ per day, adjusted for prices) is growing at 10% it's obviously not a "successful economy", because, you know, income per day is 1.35$. However it is an economy with successful growth and successful economic policies. Unless you really think that it is possible for an economy to go from having 500$ per capita annual income to one with 30000$ per capita annual income overnight. Like I said, Santa Claus is more plausible. "Being successful" and "doing well at achieving success" are two different things.
 * Anyway, most of this probably belongs more appropriately at Economy of Poland unless you want to specifically talk about Polish Economic History.  Volunteer Marek   01:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather it's because jobs abroad paid a lot better. Why look for a job that pays 10k a year when you can go to UK and find one that pays 30k?
 * Are you sure you are writing about Poland? People here are lucky if they have a job, finding one that pays 10k a year is a privilege of a selected few. When EU borders opened, unemployment was at around 20%, people were fleeing to find work so they could earn a hot meal, not even 10k.

"Fifth we both know that some of that "unemployment" is people who go and work abroad for a half a year then come back and report themselves as unemployed in order to get assistance (or similar situations)" I really don't have an idea where you got those ideas VM. Nobody does that, because A-you don't get assistance if you quit your job(for 3 months at least, so that leaves you with 9), the assistance in question would barely allow you to pay for food, C-most immigrants never return to Poland at all(can be sourced) D-why would anyone want assistance in Poland if he would get more in the West.You seem to be basing your views on immigration on very out-of touch ideas.It seems it it is worthwhile expanding this information to counter misinformation and myths.

"Most of this probably belongs more appropriately at Economy of Poland unless you want to specifically talk about Polish Economic History"

We already have highly POV and incorrect information that Poland has experience economic success. This needs to be counterbalance by well sourced data of continued high level of unemployment in Poland, low wages, and massive flight of impoverished population. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But it's not a "highly POV and incorrect information". It's simply how sources (and common sense and experience too) describe post communist Polish history.  Volunteer Marek   02:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Economist on Polish economy: strong (2009), good but slowing (2012),. Most sources I am familiar with tend to describe Polish economy as in good shape. By the way, I would really like to read more reliable sources on the conspiracy theories about "foreign interests are buying up Polish XXX and impoverishing Poland". This probably deserves a nice Wikipedia article, too. (And of course, all good conspiracy theories have a kernel of truth to them...) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a simple case of selection bias. You can find quite a lot of reliable sources informing about bad state of Polish economy. Now, I am no opposed to this information staying, if is attributed, but to provide neutrality we need to provide other views, such as as unprecedented flight of Poles, huge debt, high unemployment and low level of modern industry.I assure you this can be done by using reliable and mainstrean sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2013

Pre-GA comments
B-class review passed. This article is almost GA ready, but there are few issues to fix that the main author (User:Orczar) would be best placed to address. Namely, (1) page ranges for some topics are a bit too large, ex. "Derwich & Żurek 2002, pp. 1–143", "Wyrozumski 1986, pp. 1–177." I understand we are summarizing here, but nonetheless we should try to aim for shorter ranges. Instead of end-of-para cites, end-of-sentence cites could be introduced to reduce those gigantic page ranges. (2) I also expect the GA reviewer to point out WP:OVERLINKING.(3) I find the paragraph last paragraph in the "Reforms and loss of statehood (1764–95)" section ("Despite the long history of close relations...") out of place; it discusses the Prussian partition, but not others. I suggest that it is moved to Prussian partition, it seems to me to detailed for this article. (4) The "Formation of modern Polish society under foreign rule (1864–1914)" section should probably mention the concept of the Polish nationalism (an article I just finished recently, on a concept of significant importance). (5) Recentism: the section about recent developments ("Civic Platform rivalry with Law and Justice; Civic Platform-led government from 2007") is longer than those about Piast and Jagiellon period combined. This is problematic; I think that new developments should be trimmed down, while the oldest sections expanded. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote short early sections (Piast, Jagiellonian etc.) because I had already written the more detailed articles on those period, so I felt they were "covered". They can be expanded and different cite ranges used. I'll wait till this copyedit is finished. Orczar (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The quality of other articles is of no relevance to this one; those sections need to be balanced. In continuing my c/e of the article, I have concerns about the interwar sections - they seem to read like communist propaganda, portraying almost everything in negative light. Pilsudski and sanacja are presented in the traditional communist style as incompetent dictators; outside of a brief mention of Kwiatkowski, almost everything is criticized. I think this section needs to be rebalanced for more neutrality. 1935 constitution Central Industrial Region (Poland), Polish-German trade war, Upper Silesia plebiscite and East Prussian plebiscite are some few big missing topics to be added, if briefly, through short sentences and wikilinks (I've already added the Polish-Lithuanian war). In WWII, the significance and uniqueness of a Polish Underground State deserves, IMHO, a dedicated paragraph. PS. In the recent history section, Balcerowicz Plan and related policies are discussed in a non-neutral fashion (only criticism is present). "unemployment in Poland remains high and only managed to drop briefly below 10% in 1998 and 200" claim is misleading; in 2012 according to "The overall unemployment rate in the EU-27 reached 10.5 % in 2012, marking an increase of 0.8 percentage points in comparison with 2011, after remaining stable between 2010 and 2011.", so the 10.5% or so does not seem "high", but rather, average. Significance of joining NATO and EU needs elaboration, at least in few sentences. The recent history section is also missing a number of cites. The "impoverishment of large segments of the society" is dubious, I wrote a dedicated article on Poverty in Poland and to cite from it "Overall, the levels of poverty in Poland have been reported as stable or on the decrease in the past years, but it is still a significant concern". Lastly, few ideas for shortening this section: think about recentism - we don't need election percentages, a speech by Sikoreski's is given a treatment almost as long as the Piast-era history of Poland, there's some footnote to footnote stuff like " The Eastern Partnership summit", Polish LGBT politics, Polish military budget trends or Russian patriarch visit that nobody heard of and nobody cares, mostly irrelevant details about modern Polish foreign politics, minute EU stuff like the fiscal compact - all of this should be moved to the dedicated history of Poland after 1989 article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pilsudski was never a competent politician or leader-he was a fluke, who gained power mostly due to French and German intervention in Polish affairs.Polish independence was already secured long before he came to Warsaw.He also largely neglected modernization of Polish economy and military,grabbed mostly non-Polish and impoverished Kresy, while failing to ally with Whites against Soviets, and then had to build the whole Polish defense in the East, when the main threat to Polish existence was Germany. You really don't need communists to judge him accordingly. If anything, he was one of the worst political disasters Poland faced in history, as he ruined its restored independence ;) I could source this, but touching on that failed chance and the man responsible is just too depressing topic. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of historians and scholars who disagree with you. In fact, most of the public opinion does, which is why statues of Piłsudski's are not controversials, but those of the real mastermind behind interwar's Polands failure, Dmowski, are... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Piłsudski "masterminded interwar Poland's failure" surely no less than Dmowski. In 1926 he perpetrated a criminal coup, as if he had never heard of the May 3 Constitution and long struggles of Polish patriots for a representative and legitimate government. The coup wasn't needed for anything, but changed the course of history. Had it not been for the coup, who knows how history would go. May be we would have a several million strong thriving Jewish minority in Poland now. Piłsudski established an incompetent but arrogant military dictatorship that led Poland right to the brink in 1939. He and the Sanation regime that he installed are officially but wrongly glorified by the Third Republic, for reasons such as nationalistic and Russophobic Polish historical propaganda. The democratic state builds a museum for the destroyer of democracy with huge amounts of public money. The views of the "communist propaganda" on his regime were close to those of the Sikorski's exile government faction, Mikołajczyk's post-war agrarian movement and numerous Western historians and observers. Orczar (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

New citation system
I'm trying to reference a sentence in the Prehistory section with a page from the first volume of God's Playground, but it isn't quite working, the issue year 2005 is the same as for the second volume, already used in the article. Orczar (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now all God's Playground citations refer to Volume I, including those that should be pointing to Volume II. Orczar (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This number would have likely been
Is it the right place for speculations? Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue of the possible "alliance with Germany" in 1939 is of extreme importance and some commentators have noticed the grave potential Polish-Jewish aspects of it. The German Nazis spared no effort to conceal the death camp in Treblinka remnants after the extermination was done. They would have surely preferred delegating the whole extermination of Jews business to someone else. In what position would Poland be now (and for ever) if the puppet Polish Nazi government followed Hitler's orders that they take care of their own Jews? Orczar (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia speculate? Where?Xx236 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Komornicy
The "Komornicy", state-empowered, commission-paid private debt collectors is not somebody's pet complaint, but a major defect of the Polish democracy. It perfectly demonstrates the disrespect shown the common people by the post-Solidarity right wing establishments. A komornik can quickly confiscate your bank account or retirement pay basically without due legal process, based on his judgement or information, and the damage cannot be easily reversed, even if a mistake or criminal scheme is recognized to have happened. Often it requires the victim to file a full civil law suit with all the cost and efforts, which the victim may be unable to afford or not be competent to do. The decisions of a komornik citizens appeal to the Komornik Council, which is another disgrace. The Komornik Council should be concerned with issues such as disciplining its members, not being a court of appeals. A commission-paid state-empowered debt collector is like a commission-paid police officer. Image a policeman being paid per ticket issued or arrest made, instead of being paid a fixed monthly salary. You couldn't cross a street! A sejm committee is working on a reform, but if they don't abolish the commission rewards and bring back the court-employee status of debt collectors, no real progress will be made. This is a major violation of basic human rights and, in the absence of meaningful parliamentary reform, it should be taken to an appropriate European tribunal. Orczar (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking that whole "Civic Platform rivalry with Law and Justice; Civic Platform-led government from 2007" is a complete mess along several dimensions. A lot of it's mostly people fighting out present day political rivalries and trying to score political points. It's not encyclopedic, never mind relevant to a broad article such as "History of Poland". It's degeneration of information which occurs through editors/commentators inserting more or less random tidbits along the lines of "I read somewhere that...". And sometimes even including that "somewhere" as a "source". But who cares? This is an article on the History of Poland and who did what in some month in 2008 or other to somebody else has very little bearing on that. That goes for the "Komornicy" or any of that other stuff. Either we're trying to write a serious article on the History of Poland here or we're providing a comments section for present day political debates. It's just simply ridiculous that this section is now longer than some of the other sections in the article which cover decades and centuries.
 * I'm deleting it wholesale. Any proposals for a concise summary of post 2007 developments (keep it to a couple of sentences) can be proposed first here.  Volunteer Marek   01:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or to put it in blunt terms, the "History of Poland" from 2007 to 2013 represent less than 1% of the total "History of Poland" (actually probably less than 1/2 of 1% if we go back to prehistoric times). That's about the portion of the article that should be devoted to it. Let's drop all this nonsense about modern Polish politics.  Volunteer Marek   01:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In further work with this article I'm just going to ignore the Third Republic. Orczar (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's give it ten years and if Wikipedia's still around we can put it in.  Volunteer Marek   23:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The partitions brought, in many respects, progress and modernization, processes antagonistic to the traditional Polish identity
Modernization of Wielkopolska, but nothing of that kind in Russia. It's obvious for Polish readers but should be explained to Western ones.Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Progress and modernization in some respects also under the Russian power. Already the Repnin Sejm of 1767 banned szlachta's imposition of the death penalty on their peasant subjects and restored the rights of religious minorities. Significant industrialization and peasant enfranchisement processes took place also in the Russian partition, even though the Prussian partition was of course much more advanced in both respects. Orczar (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Nazis constructed Autobahn and the level of life of former sklaves in the USA is generally higher than their families in Africa. Does this Wikipedia present such aspects of history? Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm expanding the issue of economic and social development in partitioned Poland because Sowa's work brought it to my attention (writing history of not only political events but also broader trends). However, the subject is normal and legitimate and routinely covered in textbooks. Orczar (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick note. Are you sure you're not conflating Andrzej Leon Sowa, a historian, with Jan Sowa, a publicist and a "kultoroznawca" (which I assume means "sociologist")? First one's fine. Second one has some... fringy views and probably doesn't belong in a general level article such as this. That note - by Jan Sowa - doesn't really add much to the article either. Otherwise, excellent work.  Volunteer Marek  23:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Jan Sowa's interview is linked to the note. He questions some tenets of Polish historiography, others have done it in the past too. Polish history is a contentious field. Orczar (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unlike the other Sowa, he's not a historian (nor does he represent Polish historiography correctly).  Volunteer Marek   16:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Article expanded
The article has been expanded and information verified using mainstream sources. Orczar (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Chrobry's Polish Church province
Church province speaking informally, meaning archbishopric. Prague had to wait centuries more for one of its own. Orczar (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

image
Re I did not mean to twinkle undo the edit. Wikipedia did that little "jump" when loading and wrong button got pressed. The intended edit summary was "This image is inappropriate for an article at this level of generality".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.styl.pl/magazyn/wywiady/mistrz-i-malgorzata/news-polskosc-nosze-ze-soba-w-plecaku,nId,360909

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Exaggerated war losses
Polish historians and publicists have in a considerable majority of cases been giving exaggerated figures regarding Polish World War II losses. It's been going on from the end of the war until now. It's like a martyrdom contest. More recently many Polish historians have noticed this trend and worked on providing reasonably correct figures. 200,000 ethnic Poles killed by the Ukrainians is not a mainstream figure, 100,000 is. English language Wikipedia is of course full of those nationalistic propaganda figures (and interpretations), because that's the way many Polish editors like it. Orczar (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Poland article
To my mind the WWII section of the Poland article could be improved. Anyone with a view either way about that, please chime in on the Talk page there. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Poland. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021092115/http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Crimean_Tatar_-_complete_report_01.pdf to http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Crimean_Tatar_-_complete_report_01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050416165253/http://ornatowski.com/maps/rzeczpospolita1773.jpg to http://ornatowski.com/maps/rzeczpospolita1773.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050416165257/http://www.michalowo.ug.gov.pl/bip/image/wojewodztwa.jpg to http://www.michalowo.ug.gov.pl/bip/image/wojewodztwa.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Poland 567897223.jpg

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

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


 * Do you want to quote her on antisemitism as well?... François Robere (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * François Robere, you should consider these points from Teahouse. --E-960 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just locate Ppt2003 or my user name on the Teahouse discussion page — it's quite clear that the Freedom House statement was POV-ish, and at this point a number of editors agree. Also, I don't think your last point is relevant in this discussion. --E-960 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to discuss it there if I've already started a discussion at WP:NPOVN where "a number of editors agree" with the opposite position. Also, as I've already said "POV" is irrelevant, as this is a mainstream organization and attribution is enough.I'll rephrase the last point: the upper echelon of the current American administration is a ridiculous ensemble of incompetent plutocrats who shouldn't be trusted with anything more complicated than boiling an egg. I wouldn't give a single one of them whose title starts with "business-" the benefit of assuming they're literate. If you wish to cite any one of them as an RS for the purpose of this article, bear in mind you'd be opening the door for citing them on completely different matters elsewhere. François Robere (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * François Robere, Wikipedia is not a forum for your political views, or an medium to push your political or world narrative. Whether you agree or not with the Trump administration or the Law and Justice party is besides the point, in Wikipedia neutrality is paramount. Your last statement about the Trump administrations clearly demonstrates that your general approach here is not balanced. As stated in the Teahouse discussion by another editor in reference to the way this statement was first written, confirming that this might be the instance where there is "a POV perspective and an inability to write neutral statements". --E-960 (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The latter point is an aside, ; I'm fairly convinced that while you accept the ambassador's opinion here (as irrelevant as it may be), were an editor to quote it somewhere else on the subject of Poland's role in the resurgence of antisemitism, then you'd reject it. But you can't have it both ways: either it's NOTABLE and DUE, in which case we should quote it on both subjects, or it's not.
 * The teahouse discussion is irrelevant, as it was opened by a different editor about a different edit, and only one of the comments is about the text. We've already discussed this in another, more relevant forum where opinion where different (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING).
 * As things stand (and correct me if I'm wrong) - you've now claimed that this isn't DUE in Poland (see talk); that it's about current affairs; that it's only DUE in History of Poland; that it isn't DUE in History of Poland; and that it's POV. You've yet to explain why attribution isn't enough, or why a statement on current affairs is due here but not in the main article. François Robere (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Not just me, at this point on the Poland page, it's four editors who did not agree with you. Also, the Teahouse discussion was about your Freedom House statement, which was re-added on this page by another editor, in any case there too several editors though the tone of it was not neutral. --E-960 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not "mine", and two of the three commentators comments on the OP's language, not about the source.
 * 2) Who are the four editors? I can only see you and  disagreeing.
 * 3) You still haven't answered my third and fourth points. François Robere (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Umm, three editors digressed with your edit on the Poland page (see also reverts and comments there - one revert, I though was for your edit was in fact for another change that's why I initially said four), and three editors on the Teahouse page (when the issue was raised there on the side), who though the statement was not neutral. Also, I'm really taken aback by your Trump administration rant, saying things like "ridiculous ensemble of incompetent plutocrats" clearly come across as partisan, coarse and raises issues of editing objectivity and Wikipedia etiquette. --E-960 (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which editors? We seem to disagree on who said what.
 * Firstly, my opinion of the Trump "administration" can be backed by so many sources, we might as well state it in Wikivoice. Second, drawing from one issue to the entirety of the Wikipedia enterprise strikes me as disingenuous, as does the pretense that "real world" politics aren't mirrored in Wikipedia even when no one states it. Third, and just to reiterate the point: if you're claiming that a Trump appointee with no background in history, diplomacy, sociology or political science - in other words, a representative of a failing organizational with no relevant academic credentials - is qualified to rebut a detailed report by a highly regarded think tank, then the onus is on you to prove it.
 * And you still haven't answered my points (You've yet to explain why attribution isn't enough, or why a statement on current affairs is due here but not in the main article). François Robere (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see Neutral point of view. --E-960 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NEUTRAL is about content, not editors.
 * Are you going to answer my questions? François Robere (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, I also disagree adding to the Hungary article, it's not a big deal what Freedom House says, as well many of her statements are biased, typically fitting to the recurrent attack of those circles who symphatize with the opposition, etc., so I can understand those who diasagree also here. These organiztaions, media outlets silenced and did not cry for democracy in the past decade (in Hungary), when it should have been really immminent and why? Because their favorized political group was at the Government. Double measure, as the recurrent attacks. In case the same or similar policy would be conducted of a left-wing government, they would be celebrated as champions of democracy. Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC))
 * Your input is appreciated. Freedom House is critical of China, Cuba and Venezuela, which by some measures are "left-wing". I'm not sure what you mean by "the past decade (in Hungary)" - the oldest report in series, from 2015, is critical of Orbán's gov. It isn't as critical as later reports, but then many of the changes they criticize today simply haven't been enacted then. François Robere (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you as your's always! I meant 2002-2010. Left-wing may have different connotations in some other countries, cultures or continents, as having their special aspects (i.e. the criticism of Communist China is sideless, etc.), but where we may really distinguish between clear left or right affairs, there is not doubt. Well, the fact some changes weren't enacted then, it's not an excuse, since many changes should have been done even in 1990s, that was not done and some Communist skeletons still remanined in the countries legislation, constition unrepaired, etc. A few points bear some "eligible" criticism, but changing the constitution not, it has been made by fully democratically, replacing the old Communist made constitution, and i.e. regading the media, the "right-connected" media is only now reached cca. 50% comparing to the "left-connected" media, so its near equal yet. All in all, the one who dare to change, will have ths stakes, it's been always like so.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC))


 * Excuse me, what am I disagreeing on> Kind reminder I placed the information you provided here. I just do not see why it is "yet" essential on Poland page if the status of democracy remains unchanged. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. It's a reasonable approach, even though I personally disagree. Regarding the addition - it's no longer in the article, so someone must have removed it. François Robere (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


 * That part is not obvious to some. There is a huge discrepancy when it comes to what is western civilization, in this case we mean western culture. No puffy text that I recall either. That's POV. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Like whom?
 * "thousands of years of human activity", "an inseparable part of western civilization", "intricate history", "innumerable tribes" and "brilliant period of economic prosperity" is a whole lot of WP:PEACOCK. François Robere (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the language looks like something out of a tourism ad. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just because an encyclopedia is free to edit, doesn't mean you can turn an article into a tourism advertisement. Notrium (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a "tourism advertisement" at all, and it's in line with articles about other countries (Germany) GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * do you really think that "an inseparable part of western civilization" is encyclopedic in tone? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For that particular one (I agree that the “brilliant” and innumerable” are peacock terms) it depends on how sources talk about it. Is there a way to say the same thing in what you’d consider a more encyclopedic tone?  Volunteer Marek   20:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The "inseparable part of western civilization" is too vague to go into a proper encyclopedia. For a better description one would have to peruse to sources, but note that the ref with quote that was used to back up the statement does not even correspond to the statement. Notrium (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "thousands of years of human activity" is irrelevant as most of europe has over 45,000 years of human activity. "innumerable" could be better rendered as "numerous". "brilliant" could just be removed entirely. "Western civilisation" is such a nebulous term anyway, see this AskHistorians thread such that I don't think it is worth including at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notrium - What do you suggest to replace the information (as it was before) about the connection of Poland to Christian Western Civilization? @Hemiauchenia www.reddit.com is not a RS source. GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reddit itself is not a reliable source, and I was not suggesting to cite it. r/AskHistorians is notable enough to have its own wikipedia article and is run by credible historians and provides context on why I personally don't like the term. Here are some other articles criticising the term in The Conversation The Guardian and Times Higher Education Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominate for deletion Western religions, Western culture, Western World? GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I could see deleting Western religions as it seems meaningless as a term, but Western culture and western world are clearly notable as concepts, even if I disagree with them. Western world and "Western civilisation" are notably distinct and not the same, with Western world clearly being notable in a geopolitical context. The "western civlisation" article is pretty bad though, as it doesn't really treat the origins of the term and doesn't incorporate any criticism the term has received. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "the information (as it was before) about the connection of Poland to Christian Western Civilization" - are you referring to just the "An inseparable part of western civilization" part? I think that's too vague too call it information (also there is the issue I mentioned of it not being supported by the source quote...), but there may lay something behind that claim that could be worthy of inclusion into the article, something more concrete: for example something about the economy, culture, scholarship, theology, etc. However, I find it very unlikely that such a (less vague) claim would be well placed within the first paragraph of the lead section. I am imagining something like (just hypothetically) "In this period, the Kingdom of Poland was strongly linked by trade to other European states, with Polish product A being used in France and German product B in Poland". This particular example is maybe matter-of-fact to the extreme, but you get the idea. Also don't forget sources. Notrium (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


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


 * - Please do not remove or change content per personal view or opinions unless a discussion has been achieved and a consensus has been agreed on. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You were the one who added the disputed language diff, which is disputed, it was removed and should remain so per WP:BRD until the discussion is resolved.
 * - The dispute concerns the use of "western civilization" and not what follows. Western civ can be removed. I am for keeping the sentence "Poland's intricate history extends from ancient tribes, Catholic baptism, rule of kings, cultural prosperity, expansionism and becoming one of the largest European powers to its collapse and partitions, World War I, World War II, communism and restoration of democracy." Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As a separate issue: Which version of the article do we think is better? The current version or the version prior to Oliszydlowski's editing? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * :) you know what?... Both are fine. You realize people that we are arguing about a minor thing here... GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Style is important for a reference work such as an encyclopedia. It has to be informative, without vague or puffy words or idioms, to emphasize facts. Notrium (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You did’t change the “style”, you reverted to the “not a tourist pamphlet nonsense” version off your liking without addressing question and (edited later) you removed a bunch of additional information without achieving the consensus.  GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

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


 * - your edits on History of Poland page without achieving a discussion are unacceptable. Until a consensus is reached here on talk page, please do not edit the main article page. It violates the guidelines of Consensus, Neutral point of view and Edit warring. As you can see, a few users have objections to your edits, which are not constructive at all. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only that but also not an improvement at all, in my opinion, we need a consensus if we are going to perform any additional edits at this point. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and have my support (which I've already justified), which means it's a 3:1 consensus. François Robere (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The text in the lede downright comical, with colour and tone of an advert. I am removing it.--Iron Thain (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * a voting template needs to be inserted for all users to cast a vote. Let me remind everyone that creating double accounts is violating the Sock puppetry and results in an immediate ban. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CON doesn't require a vote, you can count for yourself based on the discussion.
 * I don't see why anyone here would feel the need to create a "sock" given the above. François Robere (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What are the exact changes you propose? Can you list them? We'd appreciate it. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You've already reverted me a couple of times, so you should know.
 * I'm okay with Notrium's current revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by François Robere (talk • contribs)

Please explain why in :
 * the link to planned economy was removed?
 * the longitudinal summary "represents over 1,000 years of recorded historical events and 500,000 years of human activity" was removed from lead?
 * the etymological explanation of Polanie being the "people living in open fields" was removed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the wikilink to planned economy, the edit summary of the edit that removed it has the answer for you. BTW, you should know that it is disruptive to clutter the discussion here with such questions if you're not gonna bother even reading the edit summary. Think about how every paragraph you write will be read by many people many times. Notrium (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, perhaps my question wasn't clear enough. I understand why the link was removed, I don't understand why it wasn't replaced with a better one? Anyway, the link is a minor issue, still waiting to hear the answer to my two other questions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The "500,000 years" is off-topic as far as I see (not within article scope). "over 1,000 years of recorded history" seems useless to the reader (but I think it would be good to be specific and give a more exact range for when recorded history begins for Poland). Both of those are a bit too vague, they are not specific enough claims to be refutable, thus verifiability issues ensue. On a higher level, both of those are part of a style issue, which was already discussed.
 * The etymology of the name of Poland is a nice little bit of information (although I didn't check verifiability), but it's not nearly important or relevant enough to be in the lead section of this article. Notrium (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

might I be so bold to suggest a dispute resolution request like an RfC that is properly closed (on the strength of arguments rather than a vote tally). Maybe the next thing you all do is discuss how to construct the question for such an RfC in a manner that's clear, concise, fair to all sides of the dispute, etc.? El_C 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you will base the lead purely on your personal opinion (which we disagree to) then the content will be disputed and not reasonably valid. Your actions show that you do not engage in proper discussion and edit the article at your pleasure. This is a second warning. I will be sending your details for investigation for sockpuppetry and the content for dispute resolution. I already suggested RfC, as outlined by the admin above. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with Oliszydlowski that the style issue seems purely personal - otherwise please point to a guideline that states that the lead for such article should not provide a time period range. I think such an estimate is vital for any history of-type of an article. As for the etymology of Polanie, I see your point; this is a detail that might be better placed in the article itself, where of course I concur it should be referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But Oliszydlowski, one minor issue: why do you restore the bad link to planned economy? As I noted above, I now believe that the best solution is to wikilink the term communist state. Could you fix this minor problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I did not see the removal of that link. Oliszydlowski (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can stop with your warnings now, and state your claims at this ANI case. Notrium (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that both Oliszydlowski and Notrium have been warned at ANI (by me), let's get this process moving forward by focusing on content. El_C 09:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggested reading - review of nationalism in modern Poland
François Robere (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

File change
Could anyone replace file File:Gierymski Feast of trumpets I.jpg with File:Aleksander Gierymski, Święto Trąbek I.jpg? Thanks. Gytha (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2022
The image of Augustus II on horseback is very blurry and a very low quality image I think might look better in its place Orson1234 (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Soviet evacuation of Poles
"... to the east" - needs fleshing out. Material should be added explaining where were they taken, and what became of them 50.111.40.110 (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Jaroslaw Kaczynski
please change ((Jaroslaw Kaczynski)) to ((Jarosław Kaczyński)) 2601:541:4580:8500:65A5:A6C6:49BC:2247 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Merangs (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolute nonesense, as many things in this article.
"The roots of Polish history can be traced to the Iron Age," Hahaha yeah right. Maybe go back a bit further i'm sure there were "poles" around in the stone age as well. Jokes aside, if anything the article should follow the facts of what is known and start at the first mention of the polani and their duke, so somewhere in the 10th century i suppose. English wikipedia has slowly but surely turned into a polish state propaganda output. So much lying on the polish editors side, quite bizarre really. The sources are lacking as well, if there even are any at all.


 * Instead of incorporating vile comments on talk page maybe you can be more productive and highlight what needs change and how it can be changed. Much appreciated. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * None of the comment was vile. It simply pointed out the truth. Polish articles are infested with propaganda and lies. A shame really. If anything your response shows that instead of staying factual and sticking to wiki guidelines you rather resort to name calling and shaming tactics. 2A02:8108:9C0:1B5D:787D:934F:91BB:8370 (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)