Talk:Irreligion in Poland

Communist secularisation
Barely mentioned yet very significant. No discussion of atheism and secularisation in Poland should exclude aggressive and violent anti-religion in the Communist period. It still impinges on what happens today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.153.195 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Irreligion in 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/20121202023700/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gazetawyborcza.pl/1%2C82709%2C4460640.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pewinternet.org/css/layoutstyles.css
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://polska.newsweek.pl/bezbozna-krucjata%2C9689%2C1%2C1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/tokfm/4%2C73715%2C%2C%2C%2C4464888.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://galeria.ateistyczni.org.pl/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://warszawa.naszemiasto.pl/artykul/marsz-ateistow-w-warszawie-inscenizacja-egzekucji-na-rynku%2C2216224%2Cartgal%2Ct%2Cid%2Ctm.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524004644/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202023700/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf

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) 00:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

English grammar in this article
There is a lot of detail in this article, which I cannot dispute and seems to be backed up by links, however, the actual writing reads like a very badly google translation. Most of the sentences do not use English grammar properly. I am not experienced in this regard, although I may give it a go if nothing else happens. I wonder if anyone knows how to flag this for someone more experienced to try.

Konjecture (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)