Talk:Poland/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Lead : Eastern Europe, metropolis, topography

@Merangs: Explanations for my changes :

• Central/Eastern Europe : Yes, Poland is considered to be part of Eastern Europe by several sources which I provided. Both Central and Eastern Europe deserve a mention.
• Metropolis : The term "metropolis" is often taken as a synonym for world city, which Warsaw is not. However I think it is acceptable to use the word "metropolis" here because it might refer to the Union of Polish Metropoles (Unia Metropolii Polskich).
• Topographically diverse : This needs a source. Poland is no more topographically diverse than, say, France or Spain.
• The beaches along the Baltic Sea: This is not a tourist brochure. No need to mention beaches. "Poland's territory extends from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Sudetes and Carpathian Mountains in the south" is more encyclopedic. --Nacho del ruiz (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nacho del ruiz: - Thank you for explaining.

• It is not for me to decide nor for the sources, but for the greater Wikipedia community per an RfC. This topic (Central vs Eastern Europe) is extremely sensitive and cannot be changed by single users. I suggest starting an Template:Rfc, though this has been discussed already.
• Yes, Warsaw is a major global city and can be described as a metropolis. See sources within the global city link you posted.
• Topographically diverse means it has access to sea, mountains and varying open terrain, but I agree this can be removed. Instead, one can mention longest river, highest peak etc. basic facts which are important, but absent from the lead.
• In terms of beaches, I agree that it can be removed.

Merangs (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Eludes --> alludes

To whoever is able...please search for 'eludes' and replace with 'alludes'. 68.50.150.234 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Merangs (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Holidays and traditions

@Merangs: why you mentioned in the section Armed Forces Day as "government-approved annual public holiday on 15 August" instead Assumption of Mary if source clearly reffers Mary, and does not reffer to Armed Forces? Akt prawny - read this again by Ctrl+F 15 sierpnia - Wniebowzięcie Najświętszej Maryi Panny, where is pl:Święto Wojska Polskiego after Ctrl+F? Of course Armed Forces Day can be mentioned elsewhere in the article but current describion is wrong because of suggests that armed forces day is mentioned as "government-approved annual public holiday" what is not true according to the refference which you used in that section, because of this holiday is not mentioned there, this should be somehow corrected, please reply after reading my message and discuss. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: - Thank you for pointing this out. Not sure how this mistake originated and my apologies if it was my doing. If the source describes it as it is then there is no need for discussion and can be altered immediately. Merangs (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Corrected per request. Merangs (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Merangs: Thank you for admit that. I have pinged you and started discussion because of either way I belive that "Armed Forces Day" still deserve to be very shortly mentioned in that section and is due. How would you feel to we very shortly mention that 15 August Assumption of Mary is on pair with "Armed Forces Day" and we also very shortly mention that 3 May Constitution is on pair with either of Polish National Flag Day and The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland? Look, you added in that edition details about Opłatek for Christmas Euve, and Turoń for Christmas season... In all honestly these two are bit less celebrated in Poland than those three which I suggest to keep/add (these suggested by me are also less rendundand to Constitution Day/Mary Assumption than Opłatek is redundand to Christmas Euve). Section for holidays/traditions (which have always academic/book sources) is currently by far smaller than for example section aobout sport (which is always biased in toward recentism and less academic), not mention to that these public holidays gets on PLwiki more hits than "Żużel" which is described in that article about Poland literally as "very popular sport in Poland". IMHO currect size of "Holidays and traditions" more "fine as is" than "too small" but personally I would add else few more informations about 3 May/15 August which are mentioned in "goverment-approved..." (just as we have shortly Święconka for Holy Saturday and shortly Opłatek for Christmas Euve), I would replace Turoń with wieder, more universal/rocongnizable concept Kolędowanie and I would mention (in the shortest possible way) something about non-goverment Kupala Night and Name day (Is not it usefull to forgein readers know that in Poland name day is more integral than birthday?). I really see/feel this is odd to mention in article about Poland four Polish companies which produce video games, some obscure Polish universities for art but not just few more sentences about things related to dates which are mentioned as "goverment annual". Tell me please what is convincing for you, what no, which idea you like, which not, I hope I could help. Cheers.Dawid2009 (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: - I do see your point. The particular information about games and żużel I did not add, it was someone else. However, I thought of cutting back on some of those sections. As for the traditions, perhaps Armed Forces Day could be briefly mentioned in the military section, in the very first paragraph. For more church-related celebrations, perhaps in the religion section? What do you think? As for Kupala Night, it is really uncommon and certainly not [that] well known. I'd avoid adding pagan rituals unless they really do have an impact (e.g. dyngus). Kolędowanie is just carols, as in the rest of the Western world. Warmest regards. Merangs (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Merangs: perhaps Armed Forces Day could be briefly mentioned in the military section - I am OK with that. For more church-related celebrations, perhaps in the religion section? - I can agree with briefly mentioning "Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland" (3 May feast day) in religion section where is content to Catholic Church, also after thinking about it more, perhaps "Polish National Flag Day" does not need be mentioned in article which has +300 000 bytes as it is more reduntand/too similar to Consittution 3 May Day than day of Mary. Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland is the only "more church-related celebration" not mentioned on its own in "akt prawny" which I would like add to this article as this one has similar recognization to the Assumption Day. As for Kupala Night, it is really uncommon and certainly not [that] well known. - after thinking about it more, I changed opinion, I must agree with you. Kupala Night gets so extremally high hits on Wikipedias but it is most likely caused due to facts that person will come to Wikipedia when find elsewhere information about "Kupala Night" to "know what it is" but will not come to Wikipedia if hear in TV informtion about Saint John's Eve on 22 June as print book can be better source than Wikipedia about Christian topics (in contrast to niche neopaganism), so let keep just Dyngus as influential custom with pagan origin as you suggest. Kolędowanie is just carols, as in the rest of the Western world. - OK then, so lets keep just links to Christmas Carolers and Turoń which is more specific/representing purely in Poland. The only custom which is wiedly recognised abroad but is mentioned in that section is "Christmas Tree" which is fine as it fits to context of Chrismas Euve (which is unique/specific in Poland if we compare it with other countries). I would add else to this section Name Day, this one is example of custom which is specific/popular for Poland, Poland is country where Name Day is more popular than Birthday (there are sources for that, we can discuss this). Name Day is here one of ways to keep contact with members of family, you do need birthday to visit close family friends or Mother Day/Grandparents Day. Warmest regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If there will be no opposition in next few days (by people who read that discussion), I will be bold to: add briefly information about Armed Forces day to military section, about 3 May to religion section, and about Name Day to "Holidays and tradition"; due to historical importance these things are more due than many things included in the article. At least more due than obscure universities for visual arts, video game companies and newsweeks covered already by linked "Mass media in Poland" for that article. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: - Sorry for my late response. I will attend this issue shortly (this week). Regards. Merangs (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: - I have added a passage on Armed Forces Day in the Military Section as requested. In relation to Name Day, can you provide some sources which state that it is more important than birthdays? I think (personal opinion) it has been in constant decline and the younger generation (under 40) does not really celebrate it. I will also include a passage on the Feast of Mary, Queen of Poland when I restructure the Religion Section. Merangs (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting many interests into that. What fo you think about source In Your Pocket [1]? Is this guide book enough reliable for that core article (look how positive feedback it has in In Your Pocket City Guides#Reception)? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: - To be fair, I wouldn't classify a guide- or tourist-oriented book as reliable. Having read it, I must say it seems exaggerated and fluffed up for tourist purposes. Perhaps another source? Merangs (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

[2] - Here is book source focussed on Cultural stuff but from 1980. If this is still not enough we can eventually menton name day without comprasion to birthday based on reliable source which claim that it is influential and important. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Merangs: Somehow I forget about this discussion and I had less time to constribute into Wikipedia (on higher level with searching soures etc.) during last few months but will try come back into this before bot will archive this discussion. I hope this week or near future time. Warmest regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: - I am planning to update this to a Good Article status very soon so there will be much rewriting, trimming and rephrasing. Please list anything (in dot point form) that you'd like added or changed. Merangs (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Merangs: Per discussion above:

• I would bit cut section where are Polish Universities for art, jut not neccesary to mention those specifi universitis if we everything mention briefly in that top article.
• I would remove some newspapers and keep short link to mass media in Poland (too trivial for that article IMHO and yet someone could say that too biased/controversial to choose which newspaper is more important which not)
• I would mention briefly armed force day in milirary section as we discussed here that Constitution mention one of Marian Feast on August instead.
• I am OK to mention Marian Feast in article on "Religion in Poland" but I would briefly mention that feast from August in the article on Poland (the only mentioned in Constitution), briefly in religion section and about feast on 3 May, briefly in religion section too, just those two. I would even not mention Fatimah day despite fact is conneted to John Paul.
• I would briefly mention name day in holiday and feast section as there is source that it is common and was extremaly popular (see my last comment).
• I was wondering about moving De revolutionibus orbium coelestium from history section to "Science and technology".

That is everything from me in light of feedback to constribute to GA. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

Poland is a country in Eastern Europe not central Europe. There is little to no reason for why some choose to call it a central European country aside from the fact that western side of modern day Poland geographically is "central". CherrykoolaidYT (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Will also need consensus seeing as it has been quite a discussed topic over the years (check the archives of this talk page.) --Ferien (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@CherrykoolaidYT: - For any queries or doubts, please see the Central Europe article where all is clarified and explained. Merangs (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

'Beneficence' of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for Lithuanians

'The partnership brought the vast multi-ethnic Lithuanian territories into Poland's sphere of influence and proved beneficial for the Poles and Lithuanians, who coexisted in one of the largest European political entities of the time.'

The article on Polonisation explains in great detail how within the Commonwealth, Lithuanians as well as Eastern Slavs, especially their elites, underwent cultural and linguistic assimilation, Poles formed large parts or majorities of the people occupying many elite positions in the Lithuanian portion and Polish soon became the only language of administration and literature. (As a result, as late as WW2 even Vilnius had a Polish majority, and its area was occupied by Poland until then.) Calling this 'beneficial' entails that the extinction of a nation is beneficial to it. In addition, much of the Ukrainian possessions of Lithuania was transferred to Poland. All of this is very reminiscent of Norway's position in Denmark-Norway at the same time - hardly something to remember fondly.--178.249.169.67 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In other words - count the above remarks as a 'citation needed' tag.--178.249.169.67 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Official name

Hi all. I have never used Wikipedia talk page before so apologies if I may not be using it correctly, and I understand this is a niche. In Poland's official name in Polish, "Rzeczpospolita Polska", "Polska" is an adjective describing the rzeczpospolita not a noun, so the literal translation to English would be "the Polish Republic" not "the Republic of Poland". I think that the former is more correct than the latter and should be used instead - case in point for other countries, we use the literal translation from their respective languages ("Česká republika" -> "Czech Republic" , "Republique française" -> "French Republic"). Should this be changed in the article, or is "Republic of Poland" set as the standard in English. Klarigi (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The 'Republic of Poland' is a conventional name used by all major international institutions, and in the English transcript of the Polish Constitution I believe. I can provide sources if needed. Merangs (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Update to B and GA status.

Hi fellow Wikipedians.

I was thinking that it would be beneficial to improve this article first to a B status and then seek an assessment to determine whether it is suitable for a Good Article (GA) status (or FA if we aim higher). Recently, when browsing through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Assessment, I have noticed that more and more country pages are being rewritten or upgraded.

As part of the criteria, it is important that the article:

• Has footnotes/citations after each full stop;
• Correct grammar and punctuation;
• Shorter sentences (not in all cases) and shorter sections;
• Mostly-English language sources and publications (books, journals etc. instead of web sources).

I am going to begin with cutting some of the content and changing references. Please feel free to make adjustments and help out. Also, leave comments if anyone opposes the idea. Merangs (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The article's size needs to reduced, and more reliable sources are needed. I would suggest the usage of summary style a lot more across the article. Large portions of the article remain completely unsourced, so its absolutely impossible for this article to get GA status for now. Thesickreservoir (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for trimming the article. Yes, I am aware of the size and sources; for now only the Etymology and parts of the History section are satisfactory. I will resume work on it next week. Merangs (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

DNA studies

Merangs, can you point me to the exact text in the sources, which unambiguously backs up your statements that say: "They were predominantly Slavic in origin, but also comprised assimilated ethnic groups" and "Those earlier tribal communities may have been associated with the ancient Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures.". The problem with this is that the sources talk about evidence of DNA mixing, in pre-history and medieval periods. However, they do not specifically say what you wrote. So, when you say "they were predominantly Slavic in origin", it is not correct. The Polish tribes were all Slavic. In this case, we do not have the same situation like say in Sumer where two separate ethnic groups created one culture (in the north Semitic peoples, and in the south the indigenous non-Indo-European peoples). You need to be careful in how you present the sources, DNA mixing does not automatically imply large scale assimilation. Tribe identity is not the same as DNA studies - The Polish tribes of Polans, Mazovians, Pomeranians, Vistulans, Silesians and Lendians were all Slavic tribes in origin. --E-960 (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

What you are saying is neither wrong nor truly accurate. Moreover, nobody is claiming that DNA and tribe identity are the same. Nobody is questioning that the Polish tribes were West Slavic, but there was much more to it. It is important to highlight that these tribes encompassed other assimilated groups (or individuals) which inhabited the region long before Slavs migrated and mingled. By stating "predominantly", we are being more accurate, factual and thorough. There are plenty of Polish-language sources which state so and I don't understand how it can be questioned:

• Polska w obliczu globalizacji, page 46
• Dzieje Śląska, page 18
• Śląsk: zabytki sztuki w Polsce, page 1
• Pejzaże kultury
• Antropologia fizyczna, archeologia i etnogeneza Słowian (mentions Wielbark and Przeworsk)

Merangs (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Merangs, the problem is that that modern Slavic gene pool also contains traces of Iranian and Mongol DNA due to invasions (Sarmatians and Mongols). Also, if you look at R1A gene you will notice that after Poland and Ukraine the second biggest concentration of it is in Afghanistan - you may have seen this map:[3], which suggest that Slavs may have originated from there and migrated to area between Vistual and Dnieper rivers some time before the 1st century AD, then spreading out in all directions across the eastern half of the European continent during the 5th century AD. In short, that's why I'm not a fan of highlighting one particular DNA branch within a gene pool. --E-960 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Fix Second Polish Republic Interwar map

Germany only regained the Memel territory in 1939. So they did not have it from 1921. Can correct this small error and also it should say Map of Poland during the Interwar period, 1923–1937. When Lithuania in 1923 got the Memel territory and before the Munich agreement in 1938 when Poland got a small part of Czechoslovakia. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Article trim

Thesickreservoir and Merangs, I think that at this point the trims are starting to become detrimental to the overall content of the article, and we are starting to remove some key pieces of information and pictures. At this time I don't think we need to chop the article any further. --E-960 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

See Japan and Germany articles. These are GA and FA standards. This article is still much too large and also with the pictures, hence why I introduced the concept of multiple image template. I'd like to see Kościuszko in the "era of insurrections" section but I just don't see the space, unless the map of the partitioned territories is shifted to the "partitions" section and Poniatowski is removed entirely. Merangs (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet

@E-960: The trims were necessary to push the article towards GA status, and obviously, to reduce its large size. In my opinion, the trims haven't in fact harmed the article's quality, but have rather improved it significantly. The article's biggest issue is currently the economy section, which is mostly underdeveloped, and backed by very old sources. Major changes can still be done in the article, such as in the culture section, where the media and cinema section, and the art and architecture section could be merged—as done in GA and FA class articles such as Germany or Russia. The tourism section looks bloated, which is unusual for GA or FA class articles. It can be also reduced and improved if a sentence is put to list the most popular tourist attractions, instead of a large para. Thesickreservoir (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet

@Thesickreservoir: I agree with you on all points, except for the merging of art and architecture together. It would become too clustered and both are notable in their own right. I will trim the art part and provide sources for the Economy section as well. Merangs (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Templates

I guess you don't understand WP:BRD, Saturdayopen. You removed a few templates, which were status quo for the article, I reverted, and now you want to edit war over them instead of having a discussion. The normal expectation for editors is that if you are reverted, you take it to the talk page, as the edit is obviously contentious. Now do the right thing, self revert and start a discussion instead of trying to communicate via summaries or edit war. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, what are you talking about? Saturdayopen (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

Poland is an eastern European country. 91.192.199.12 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Is that what you wish to add into the article or you just expressing the opinion. Please clarify. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not use more updated demographics?

https://stat.gov.pl/en/infographics-and-widgets/infographics/infographic-religiousness-of-polish-inhabitiants,4,1.html

 Catholicism (92.9%)
 Eastern Orthodoxy (0.7%)
 Jehovah's Witnesses (0.3%)
 Protestant (0.2%)
 No religion (3.1%)
 Unanswered (2.7%)
 Other religion (0.1%)

I don’t think jehovah witness, orthodox, and Protestant should be grouped together since they both have unique and separate histories while also having deep roots in Poland (less so Jehovah witness though) Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The information is based on the very detailed, accurate and official census from 2011. There hasn't been one since. Merangs (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

These stats are detailed and accurate as well? Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

ethymology "Poland/Polska/ect."

The section 'Ehtymology' requires some serious review. The narrative is unconvincing, and amateurish. Mezza Vita (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Amateurish is this post, without any constructive suggestions on how to improve it. The section looks fine to me. Merangs (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Republic Of poland" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Republic Of poland and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 18#Republic Of poland until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

The article describes Poland as being in Central Europe, but Poland is also widely considered to be an Eastern European country. At the very least, I would advise putting "Central and Eastern Europe" in there. 109.145.64.214 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The United Nations Statistics Division classes Poland as Eastern European. 109.145.64.214 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

How sad and inconsiderate. Moreover, there are other more reliable sources which counter that argument. Merangs (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the history of this talk page and it seems the discussion has been stonewalled somewhat. Consensus of the last RfC was that both descriptions are fine, and sources stating that Poland is in Eastern Europe are numerous, yet the lead only mentions Central Europe. Merangs, what exactly would be your objection to using both descriptions? Croatia for example is described as "at the crossroads of Central and Southeast Europe". Romania has a similar description. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have made the change to this article. Poland is in Eastern Europe. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kiev Why? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps y’all should look at Central Europe first? Good idea? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a dead horse, check thee archives, thiss has been disscussed many times. IMHO Poland is both a Central and Eastern European country. Frankly, we probably need another RfC (see last one, or ones, from 2015: Talk:Poland/Archive_7#RfC:_Should_Poland_be_described_as_existing_in_"Central_and_Eastern_Europe"? and Talk:Poland/Archive_6#RfC:_Eastern_vs._Central_Europe). That said, if we have to chose one, since RS are divived, Central is preferred as it is less pejorative (that is also why the term Central and Eastern Europe exists). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources and POV push

Merangs, you need to stop Germanizing this article, it's a POV push to remove the fact that Polish cuisine has Slavic roots. Also, you are blatantly misrepresent the sources, as oftentimes they do not say what you then write in the article... like this source says "Polish cuisine displays its German-Austrian history in its sausages", but you write "Poland is eclectic and shares similarities with other Central European cuisines, especially German and Austrian". Same here, "but also encompassed assimilated peoples who previously inhabited the area." where does your source actually say that??? --E-960 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Another great example of this is you going in and Germanizing Polish names of some of the rulers.. so stop it. It's a blatant POV. --E-960 (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You also need to stop "Slavicising" where unnecessary and denying certain facts. And since when is Boleslaus the German version? It's Latin. I have not been altering any names whatsoever after the revert. Merangs (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but Polish is a Slavic language, and Poland as a nation originated from Slavic tribes. Also, I'd like to ask you to provide the quote which backs up this statement "but also encompassed assimilated peoples who previously inhabited the area" I tried to find this conclusion in the two sources you provided and I'm not seeing it just some stuff about DNA tests. If you can't provide a clear statement which backs this up, I'll ask you to remove this statement or I'll start a RFC. --E-960 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Merangs, same here you include kaiser roll instead of bread rolls. Kaiser roll is just one type, but you have to highlight it as it was the be all end all bread roll in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You have not contributed to this article at all in order to make it GA. You only engage in disruptive edits, image and content change. "But also encompassed assimilated peoples who previously inhabited the area is a sourced fact. I suggest you do start an RfC. Merangs (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, the current version of the cuisine section is fine and neutral so thank you. I just added mushrooms to the food staples and sourced it. Merangs (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Merangs, pls consider that I contributed a lot to this article well before you became involved, and fixed a lot of the text and images beginning in 2014. You want to improve it further I have no problem with that, but adding your personal slant to the article and misrepresenting sources is nothing but a POV push. This section is a great example of this because to argue that Polish cuisine has all this German influence and not say that it's Slavic in so many ways is simply omitting obvious facts. --E-960 (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@E-960: - Please understand that I am attempting to make strong differences between Polish [culinary] culture and that of other Slavic countries as well as that of Germany. That is my agenda and I did not intend to Germanise anything. The truth is that Polish cuisine by today's (not 1000 year ago) standards resembles Central European cookery over than any other region. I never stated it is not similar to that of other Slavic countries, although I must say that the term "Slavic" is much too broad, for instance the cuisine is hardly similar to that of Macedonia. Moreover, you say about omitting facts, but the earlier statement about assimilated peoples is a fact and it is sourced. Why would I push for something that isn't. I do not base my beliefs or writings on POV, only on sourced content. Merangs (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but for example polish cuisine especially in Małopolska has a very strong Hungarian influence, so it makes it rather note worthy, however when you don't include that, but have Austrian it's a stretch. --E-960 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Merangs (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

E-960 is only trying to erase everything about Germany in Polish articles for years. Nothing new.. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84 You were warned and asked [4] to talk about the content not editors? Didn’t you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh I do. I'm just talking about content, like this on [5]. It's not my fault, that there is always the same editor who erases content like this. --Jonny84 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonny84, again very selective analysis. You claim POV against me, but you did not look at this earlier edit I made [6], where I kept the reference to the German influence on Polish cuisine and also added a note referencing that many Polish dishes have a Slavic background. It was reverted, and a more neutral sentence set in its place (the one you referenced as an example of bias). I think that you will agree that it's very odd to say that Polish cuisine is similar to German, but make no reference of its Slavic ties... I'm not sure how many pierogis or borscht do Germans eat, but you can't argue those are German dishes, and Poland is famous for pierogis... a very Slavic dish. --E-960 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

All European-style dumplings, including pierogi, can be traced to China so we should avoid the details. Plus, the ethno-linguistic term "Slavic" cannot be imposed on cuisine. Guys come on let's be civil. The issue has been solved and currently the section looks appropriate. Merangs (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Merangs, please note Category:Slavic cuisine [7] — btw, pierogis are a specific type of dumpling, just like spaghetti is a specific type of noodle, with both having ascribed roots in Asia, yet both having a specific place of origin within Europe. In case of pierogis, they are a staple dish in many Slavic countries of Europe. --E-960 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

E-960 Pierogi is already plural (singular pieróg), so "pierogies" is unnecessary. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Outdated statistics

Statistics concerning religion and ethnic/national origin of Polish citizens are from 2011. I think this is outdated (if not misleading) considering the changes in the recent years, especially after Russian invasion on Ukraine. 77.222.241.40 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Distortion of Polands History?

Preliminary: I (Steue) dare placing the German Magazine "Der Spiegel" (The Mirror) on the echelon of the "New York Times" and "The Washington Post".

The "Der Spiegel" has published the following.
(The following is only the short RSS version of a larger online article.):
(Translation by me, Steue)

(Header:)

Geschichte Polens: Historiker erkennen 'Holocaust-Verzerrung' auf Wikipedia
Polands history: Historians recognize 'Holocaust-distortion' on Wikipedia

(Main Text:)

Durch die Nazis wurde Polen völlig zerstört.
By the Nazis Poland was completely destroyed.

Bildet die englischsprachige Wikipedia die historischen Erignisse korrekt ab?
Does the English language Wikipedia represent the historical events correctly?

Zwei Holocaustforscher werfen jetzt einer Gruppe polnischer Nationalisten gezielte Geschichtsverfälschung vor.
Two holocaust researchers now accuse a group of Polish nationalists of intentional (aimed) falsification of history.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

There is already Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case #Holocaust in Poland, at least since 13 January 2023.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

After I have found out that the "Der Spiegel" has published his online article about six weeks after the en.wp started an arb on this issue, I can no longer uphold my comparison of "Der Spiegel" to the "New York Times" and the "Washington Post".

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the Central Statistical Office, at the end of 2022 Poland's population amounted to 37.767 million people. The just published UN report for 2023 shows that the current population of Poland is 41,026,067.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/poland-population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/POL/poland/population W.Kacper (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

Previous version of the page was more up-to date. The current one is outdated (2023 GDP estimate vs 2022 GDP estimate) Youlol7331x (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

change

| GDP_PPP = $1.637 trillion

| GDP_PPP_year = 2022

| GDP_PPP_rank = 22nd

| GDP_PPP_per_capita = $43,480

| GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank = 41st

| GDP_nominal = $688 billion

| GDP_nominal_year = 2022

| GDP_nominal_rank = 23rd

| GDP_nominal_per_capita = $18,280

| GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = 56th

to

| GDP_PPP = $1.664 trillion

| GDP_PPP_year = 2023

| GDP_PPP_rank = 22nd

| GDP_PPP_per_capita = $44,249

| GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank = 41st

| GDP_nominal = $754 billion

| GDP_nominal_year = 2023

| GDP_nominal_rank = 23rd

| GDP_nominal_per_capita = $20,045

| GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank = 56th

| Gini = 27.2

| Gini_year = 2020

| Gini_change = decrease

| Gini_ref = Youlol7331x (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Deported

It is written in the article “ in 1939-1941 hundred of thousand of Poles were deported…..” it should be written that they were deported to Siberia. How can the readers know where they were deported? 49.190.243.58 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have information that any of them were sent to Siberia? It's probably a natural assumption to make, but it's not necessarily a correct one. Of the three imprisonment locations I happen to know about: Kozelsk and Ostashkov are very much in the west of Russia, near Belarus; and Starobilsk is in Ukraine. Those are hardly Siberia. Uporządnicki (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What?!

Why poland government system was changed from parliamentary to semi presidential on the wikipedia article? Who change this written text on the article database? according to world map, poland is classified as a parliamentary republic as in colored orange. correct me if i am wrong. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:BDFB:EC65:5566:B0C4 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding "climate change" as a topic on the page

Hi! A friend and I are now working on a project to include climate change as a topic on the page. We plan on adressing some of the predicted changes in temperature, precipitation, hydrology in general, ecological effects, and shifting climate zones. If you have any comments, questions or recommendations, we'd love to hear them! ILoveWisents (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Perspiration?? Uporządnicki (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Precipitation, oops ILoveWisents (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess perspiration and precipitation have a certain amount in common. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I might add that we will make a seperate page on Climate Change in Poland, but when that is done, we think it would be nice to refer to it on this page. ILoveWisents (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The Climate change in Poland page is live! ILoveWisents (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Etymology section

This should include why the name "Rzeczpospolita" exists and why it is technically interchangeable with the Polish name "Republika" which is used for other countries but not Poland; and why the direct translation into English as 'Commonwealth' is and isn't correct. 82.19.153.78 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Jesus being the king

This is just disruptive at this point.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
since my addition of jesus as king of poland to the infobox seems to be controversial and since User:Maxwhollymoralground reverted it, i will discuss here איתן קרסנטי (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC) There is nothing to discuss, stop trolling. Marcelus (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC) More and more, I feel like "trolling" actually means, "saying something I strongly disagree with." Uporządnicki (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC) He did cite a source. Maybe it's Not the best of sources (although I'm the last person to dismiss a source because it happens to identify as Christian), but in the final analysis, all it says is that the thing happened. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC) I am not trolling. this is a serious matter and I want to know why you and other people are against my edit and hopefully achieve a consensus איתן קרסנטי (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Without comment on the merits and speaking only to the policies on titles here: be aware that for an entry to be in the info box as an official position, a title must be something accepted by the local public and world commmunity, not just an informal "man of the year" or similar. "King of England" is a title established within the law of England, as another example. Just saying a source proclaimed someone a "king" isn't sufficient, you will need to provide sourcing showing the office exists, then showing who occupies that office or position. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC) I do have two sources which state that there was a vote in the polish parliament about this and that the bill passed, and if the title of king of Poland was given to someone, it means the title exists. https://www.vice.com/en/article/7bmwgq/jesus-christ-king-of-poland-876 https://ucatholic.com/blog/did-you-know-jesus-is-officially-the-king-of-poland/ איתן קרסנטי (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Your comparison of the 'King of England' title to this situation is a bit apples-to-oranges, wouldn't you agree? Just as England has its own unique legal and historical frameworks that shape its monarchial status, Poland too has its unique cultural, religious, and even legal nuances that, believe it or not, go beyond the scope of Wikipedia's 'official position' definition. You've cautioned against using a 'man of the year' analogy, but I must also point out that the proclamation of Jesus Christ as the King of Poland wasn't a mere symbolic title awarded on a whim, like a whimsical annual honorific. It was an official recognition, given by the Polish Bishops and the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, himself in 2016 with numerous witnesses and news outlets attesting to it. It was officiated by the highest-ranking representatives of both the Polish state and the Polish Catholic Church. If that's not public acceptance, I'm not quite sure what is. 'accepted by the local public and world community' - While I do see the logic behind this for a secular, geopolitical title, applying this to a religious title in a predominantly Christian country seems a bit overreaching. Are we now also subjecting faith and belief to the trial of global public opinion? Wikipedia's role is to reflect what is verifiable. And the Kingly title of Jesus Christ in Poland is as verifiable as it gets. WordSwimmer901 (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Yes, Poland did indeed declare Jesus as their King. Darncoolcreeper (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC) @AzseicsoK, @Darncoolcreeper, @איתן קרסנטי; That's incorrect, never such bill was passed, it was just a purely religious ceremony in November 2016, and even it wasn't specific enough to claim that. Marcelus (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC) what do you mean? I showed you two sources showing that there WAS a bill. In addition, if it was purely religious, why was the president involved and why was there a need for a vote in parliament? איתן קרסנטי (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC) You didn't show any reliable source. Give me the name of the bill and date of the voting. Marcelus (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC) I am pretty sure this is the bill: https://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm8.nsf/PrzebiegProc.xsp?id=C3C772E7286D47DBC1257F930036E831 איתן קרסנטי (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC) And this bill doesn't seem to say anything at all; it seems (from my poor understanding of Polish) to be just a call for the celebration of the 1050th anniversary of the baptism of Mieszko I and the founding of the Polish state. No kings. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC) No, there is no mention of Christ being king of Poland. For you own good let's end it here. Don't make edit like this without actualy sources anymore, because it looks like WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Marcelus (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) I can't couldn't any bill on SEJM regarding this. I found this article on the Polish journalism website OKO.press: https://oko.press/jezus-krolem-polski-sie-wydarzylo-lagiewnikach-robil-prezydent-duda It would be helpful for a Polish speaking wikipedian to verify this but it seems to include quotes from spokespeople of the Polish Church that it was not a politcal act but an act of faith. Minimarshoo (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC) This is an unnecessary step. Whatever is written there, dead people can't hold offices, Poland is a parliamentary republic with a President as head of state and this is nonsense. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Well that’s not true even if you are ignoring that Jesus is not considered dead to Christians. In the US George Washington holds the highest military title past present and future. A title/office is not dependent on whether you are alive. Life and office are not dependent on one another. https://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/george-washington-kind-six-star-general/ 2600:1700:62C0:34A0:B467:C9C3:41E:A39C (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC) You know what's nonsense? Having a mental breakdown because someone suggested something. My source is my polish friend and indeed Jesus was proclaimed King in 2016 not only by the government but by the people of Poland, and no Jesus is not dead, that's why the government type should be renamed to constitutional theocracy or a regency, because Jesus will return. NikaUbi (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC) "my friend said so" is as reliable as a source as "trust me bro". Take your Christian fundamentalist nonsense elsewhere, because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Good thing He isn’t dead. Darncoolcreeper (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC) This is an encyclopedia, not your bible reading club. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC) In the eyes of Poland (Catholic Country), Jesus Christ is not dead, though. Why do you think they had this ceremony in the first place? WordSwimmer901 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Poland is a secular state, with a secular constitution and freedom of religion. The vast majority being of catholic faith has NO bearing whatsoever on this. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC) The amount of mental gymnastics required to put "King" under "President" and "Unitary parliamentary REPUBLIC" is truly astonishing and this is either ignorance or trolling. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Because the presidency here is more like Horthy's regency that's why it's no longer a parliamentary republic, it's a constitutional theocracy, or a regency. Plus Poles were always known gor the weird way of ruling the country so. NikaUbi (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I see you ran out of arguments and resorted to calling us ignorant trolls איתן קרסנטי (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC) You failed to provide any reliable source; there is no reason to consider your actions anything else than trolling Marcelus (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I don't see a problem with this change to the info box. Most Polish people accept that Jesus Christ is the King of Poland since 2016. Given the religious and theological consensus of Poland, Jesus Christ is 'Risen' and not dead. Titles are not a zero-sum game. The existence of a 'President' and a 'Unitary parliamentary REPUBLIC' doesn't negate the title of 'King.' They are not mutually exclusive, just as your lack of understanding doesn't exclude your potential to learn. Look at the info box most of Poland is Christian! Also, can't help but notice the paradox here: according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, 'Verifiability, not truth, is one of the principal thresholds for inclusion'. You can verify the Kingly title of Jesus Christ in Poland in countless news reports and documents. Yet, because it doesn't fit with your secular worldview, you'd rather remove it? Seems like 'verifiability' is only relevant when it doesn't threaten your bias. Adding 'King' in the info box isn't about literally positioning Jesus Christ in Poland's political structure; it's about representing a significant aspect of Polish identity and belief. Your attempt to reduce this to a simplistic debate about governance structure betrays your own 'astonishing' ignorance of the complexity of human culture and spirituality. The question of legislation arises when something has legal implications or when it changes the functioning of the state apparatus. Recognizing Jesus Christ as King does neither. Wikipedia is a platform to share knowledge, not to impose the narrow constraints of bureaucratic thinking on the vast expanse of human experience. It's not every day you come across a country recognizing a spiritual figure as its king. It's unique, it's different, and it's distinctly Polish. And isn't that the beauty of this world? The diverse, sometimes confounding, yet always fascinating ways we humans express our identities and beliefs. Wikipedia should reflect this. Not trim it down to fit a one-size-fits-all mold. That's not knowledge sharing; it's knowledge reduction. WordSwimmer901 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC) You are new to Wikipedia, so let me explain something to you. Talk pages aren't forums, they are to discuss content not to present your own opinions etc. (read WP:NOTAFORUM), in order to make a change in article you need to provide reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE). Marcelus (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) However, it seems you may be the one in need of a refresher. What we're discussing here isn't about my opinion or your opinion, it's about recognizing a societal fact in Poland, a country that has officially acknowledged Jesus Christ as its King. This is not a personal belief I'm imposing, it's a factual event. You see, WP:NOTAFORUM goes both ways. Your rejection of this valid point based on your own ideological perspective is just as misplaced as you accuse my statements to be. This is about the accurate representation of a cultural and societal reality, not a battleground for personal beliefs. Revisit WP:AGF. It stands for "Assume Good Faith." This principle encourages us to believe that fellow contributors are trying to help Wikipedia, not harm it. It's a call to stay open-minded, to give each other the benefit of the doubt. A concept that seems to have eluded you and Max in this instance. Lastly, while we're on the topic of Wikipedia guidelines, let's take a moment to consider WP:NPOV, or "Neutral Point of View." This pillar of Wikipedia encourages us to represent fairly and proportionately all the significant views that have been published by sources. Jesus Christ was celebrated as King of Poland in a ceremony attended by the country's president, Andrzej Duda, in 2016. This event took place at the Church of Divine Mercy in Krakow and was echoed in churches across Poland the following day. The timing of this declaration was no accident - it coincided with the end of the Catholic Church's Jubilee Year of Mercy and the 1050th anniversary of Polish Christianity This isn't so far fetched considering the Virgin Mary is celebrated as the Queen of Poland since 1656 (a whole paged dedicated to it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Holy_Virgin_Mary,_Queen_of_Poland Like I said, no political ramifications. Here are both Christian and secular sources and there are more out there: https://www.vice.com/en/article/7bmwgq/jesus-christ-king-of-poland-876 https://godskingdom.org/blog/2016/12/poland-declares-jesus-christ-as-king https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/poland-declares-christ-as-king/ https://wwrn.org/articles/46352/ https://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/jesus-christ-has-officially-been-declared-the-king-of-poland/33323/2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/religion-and-power-reunite-in-modern-poland http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2016/november/poland-declares-jesus-king-of-the-country Logically, with a country that is 88%+ Catholic - something like this needs to be at least discussed and mentioned. WordSwimmer901 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC) https://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/7,114883,21000510,tlumy-na-intronizacji-jezusa-na-krola-polski-uroczystosc-trwa.html Wanted to include the source from gazeta.pl WordSwimmer901 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC) There seems to be quite a sufficient number of English-language RS saying Jesus Christ was declared the King of Poland: Poland's Bishops, People, and President Formally Declare Christ Their King by National Catholic Register. Poland Declares Jesus King of the Country by Christian Broadcasting Network. Jesus Christ Is Now Officially the King of Poland by Vice (magazine). Furthermore, parameters like "Patron" exist for military unit pages and those patrons are frequently people that are universally considered to be long dead in body, no matter one's religious views. There is really no reason to not include Jesus Christ as King of Poland. Perhaps this whole situation of Jesus being King of Poland might warrant an explanation in a note about what the people who did it mean by it and its significance. Also, there's this: Polish parliament recognizes coronation of Mary as nation's queen by Catholic News Agency.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC) What you and the other Christians in this thread don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia infoboxes, in particular the governance section, have to purpose to inform the reader about a given country's govermental structure, including the current head of state, head of government, system of government etc. Not to acknowledge nonsense trivia; ESPECIALLY if it contradicts everything else. A republic can't be a monarchy, dead people can't be "incumbents" and you can't have two heads of state. This is completely irrespective of the country being predominantly Christian. You are pushing your religious beliefs onto an encyclopedia. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I think at this point, @Cukrakalnis, @WordSwimmer901, and @איתן קרסנטי should be ignored, unless they provide, reliable source (legal document) stating that Poland is a monarchy and that Christ is currently king of Poland. We provided them with enough information to assume that if they still will be pushing this fringe agenda, they are trolling and performing disruptive editing. Marcelus (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Exactly. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Point 1: I am a believing Catholic. Point 2: I am of very immediate Polish heritage. Point 3: While I haven't seen anything thoroughly convincing (I can't open the Bloomberg, and don't trust them anyway, since they once "reported" that NASA had sent a probe to the center of the Sun), I'm actually inclined to believe that the declaration was legally and officially passed. NEVERTHELESS, I happen to think it does NOT belong in the Infobox (notwithstanding the fact that I've implied here that the OP might have a more valid point than s/he was credited with). HOWEVER, it could perhaps lead to easier consensus IF some of the comments opposing the idea didn't seem to have, if not an anti-Catholic tone, then at least a sort of turn-up-our-noses-at-those-Christians undertone. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM, stay on topic. Your personal believes are irrelevant. Marcelus (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Too add to WP:NOTAFORUM, nobody here EVER showed an anti-Catholic tone. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC) The tone of the discussion is perfectly relevant to the discussion; and I mentioned the Points to say where I'm coming from in my opinion on the topic. And anti-Catholic, maybe not--sort of dismissive of people who actually believe in that stuff called Christianity. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC) @Marcelus No one was saying that Poland is a monarchy. The declaration saying that Jesus Christ is King of Poland was literally done by the President of the REPUBLIC of Poland. Reminder: WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Trolling have specific definitions, and accusing others of purposefully editing for the sake of provoking others (which is what trolls are) without serious evidence is a case of WP:Personal attack. Please refrain from doing so, in accordance with the WP:NPA. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) President doesn't have that constitutional power, he can as well declare you emperor of the universe, equally meaningless. Stop pushing this ridiculous agenda. If you want to report me, feel free to do so, my pleasure. Marcelus (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC) 1. Two people can be heads of state, look at San Marino for example 1.5 in the case of Poland: in the 17th century Mary, Mother of Jesus was declared queen of Poland, meaning there were 2 queens of Poland at the time 2. "dead people can't be incubments" I think someone else here mentioned that George Washington got a rank in the US army even after he was dead, proving it's possible for a dead guy to be an incubment 3. You claim to have no anti-christian bias yet you refuse to consider the fact that Christians do not believe Jesus is dead 4. even if we agree to your idea that dead people can't be kings, it doesn't matter in the case of Poland since they are Christians, meaning that it should make perfect sense for the majority of polish people that Jesus is the king of poland 5. "A republic can't be a monarchy" say that to the President of Poland who was present in the coronation of Jesus in 2016 איתן קרסנטי (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Jokes or symbolic declarations don't belong in infobox. This is not a Jokepedia (see also WP:BJAODN). In the spirit of things, however, I am willing to change my mind if the subject in question states, in the interview, that they accept this position. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC) We do list many " ceremonial " heads of states. I can understand the resistance here as an academic this seems nonsensical, but they should be covered in the article.... perhaps best moved to the religion section. Moxy- 15:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC) That would be OK. I mean, people all over the world proclaim "Christ is King", and even a government might make this proclamation, but "render unto Caesar" applies here. Caesars belong in governmental infoboxes, Christs don't. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I think this is trivial/finge-ish/WP:NOTNEWSish enough that it belongs only in subarticle, perhaps about Religion in Poland or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC) That would be a good place for it, yes. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 04:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Good idea, does anybody object to this proposal? איתן קרסנטי (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC) How can something that the highest level of political and religious leaders in Poland fervently believe be considered trivial/finge-ish/WP:NOTNEWSish? When I read that section, none of the four points in WP:NOTNEWSish sound applicable to this case. Perhaps a solution would be to have a note in the religion section of the infobox, which would be next to Christianity saying something along the lines that "Jesus Christ, the central figure of Christianity, was declared King of Poland in 2016 by the President of Poland Andrzej Duda and the Polish bishops." Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC) 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” -Jesus Christ in an interview with Pilate (John 18:37) Looks like He accepted it in advance :) JackPrime4481 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC) User:WordSwimmer901 and User:JackPrime4481 have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 04:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Again, this is an encyclopedia, not your bible reading club. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC) It seemed to me that he was responding to Pirotus, in which case the Bible verse was definitely relevant. Am I wrong? F1907 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There are new statistics

Look up Główny urząd statystyczny for results from 2021 census. 83.1.144.180 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

Population • 2022 census 38,036,118

Population • 2023 census 41,026,067 TheKamines (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Xan747 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Location of Poland

I provided the more precise geographical location of Poland, which was reverted twice by user NeonFor.

The user claims that Poland has no strong ties with Eastern Europe. I hope there are users that agree with me in that this is a false claim. Poland is classified as Eastern European by a number of official sources, included the United Nations. Poland has been traditionally classified as Eastern European, and colloquially continues to be referred to as such.

Poland’s cultural and historical ties with Eastern Europe are extensive. As of the 21st century, the countries in Central Europe that have significant cultural ties with one another, are the East-Central European countries, and then, independently, the western Central European countries. There certainly is a cultural and historical relationship between these two parts of Central Europe, but the divide is still notable. East-Central European countries also have strong cultural connections with their bordering Eastern European countries, whereas western Central European countries do not. Central Europe is made up of historically Eastern and Western European countries, that continue to be widely regarded as such. I believe the lead is worthy of some form of clarification to account for this.

Talk archives have a history of similar appeals to recognise this connection, and replies agree that that there is a point to be made, but advise that an RFC should be started.

Retois (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all Poland is geograpically located exactly in Central Europe. No west-central, no east-central but central. A lot of middle points of Europe (there are different views about the topic) as a continet are located in Poland, some of them are even located east of Poland which puts the country even more western than eastern geograpically. :Oh, and please remember that Poland's border has been shift westward tens of years ago thus historical and present geographical location (it been also followed by cultural, deomgraphic and econominal changes) of Poland are two different things.

Poland is a part of western civilization thus it has extensive ties with Central (which is intergal part of) and Western Europe. There is a very remarkable border between Central Europe and Eastern Europe in 21 century. There are plenty examples in this matter and they embracing every aspect of particular country's existance (cultural, demographic, economical..): 1. Poland is a part of Western world (same as whole Western and Central Europe), eastern european countries are part of Ortxodox (eastern) World, according to Clash of Civilizations. 2. Poland uses latin script (same as whole Central and Western Europe), eastern european countries uses cyrlic script 3. Poland is a part of all major western organisations (incl. EU), eastern european countries are not. 4. Poland represents Western Christian (Catholic-Protestant) countries, eastern european countries belongs to Eastern Orthodox Church. 5. Economically there is a huge difference between central european and eastern european countries under almost every aspect of this term (incl. quality of life, infrastruxture etc.). And so on, and so on, so on.. There are more of them.

I'am not saying that there are no ties between Poland and Eastern europe, but there are even more cultural and organizational connections between Poland and the west. You can not push Poland more into one of these sides because there are too many strong arguments not to do so. Thus Poland is a Central European country. Same as Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Since last over 30 years, the difference between Central Europe and Eastern Europe has became very remaraklable and there is significant border (a deep rift I would say) on the eastern border of Central Europen countries like Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. Central Europe can be described as a kind of "mixed region", a mixture of Western and Eastern Europe but definitelly we are not allowed to push countries into one side or another or artifically divide this region, because the diversity (which means a country is not western nor eastern either) and mixed nature of this region is perefctly describe as being "central". Thus we have Central Europe. As you can see above, there are even serious arguments to put Poland into west-central Europe but we shouldn't do that because such a diversity is self-included into idea of being central european country. And of cource, you can go deeper and deeper into this topic and put some further observations but such a detailed view can be placed in individual chapters covering geography of particualar country, definitelly it does not belong to the lead section. NeonFor (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Poland is in central Europe

Poland is in central Europe, same as Hungary and Czech Republic. Look at the map of Europe. Greece is located in south-east of Europe. It is a mistake we hear in the west only. It is probably due to lack of the proper education. Ukraine and Belarus are in eastern Europe. 49.190.245.106 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Poland work permit 223.123.84.110 (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Can somebody add borders in the first paragraph?

Can somebody else add borders in the first paragraph of Poland? Poland borders seven countries. 36.82.99.180 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This has already been mentioned in the appropriate geography and topography-related section of the lead. Merangs (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Donald Tusk new president

Hi Donald Tusk won the polish parliamentary election and is credited by almost every source with doing so I'm going to edit it so he is now president,

my problem is i can't add References properly so i'm asking if anyone can add these sources to presidency bit at the top the links are https://ft.com/content/50198396-4ea0-41cd-b7db-67bb0df700b2 it's a credieted source as it';s the finacal times. Infomanfromearth (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Tusk isn't a president (it wasn't a presidental elections), he most likely will be a prime minister, but it will take a couple weeks before he assumes such position. So far nothing have changed. Marcelus (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok got a little bit confused. thanks. Infomanfromearth (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No, he's not president. Andrzej Duda is President of Poland. Duda will (most likely) appoint Tusk Prime Minister of Poland. But not yet. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Area of Poland

The recent edit is misleading because sources don't usually say that Poland is 313,931 sq km. Both BBC News and Poland's official website say that Poland is 312,696 sq km. I know that there might be sources saying that Poland is 313,931 sq km, but which source is more reliable? Just a random geography fan (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The updated 2023 GUS source. Malecide (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of secularization from the article

Hi, @E-960:. There's no reason to remove updated demographic information for Catholics in the article.

I'm perplexed how it could be interpreted as a "left-right" issue. The drop in weekly mass attenders is especially notable and there's been widespread coverage in reliable sources about the matter.

• Source #1
• Source #2
• Source #3
• Source #4

Portraying Poland as overwhelmingly Catholic is no longer factual. Why was this information + updated information surrounding demographics removed from the article? KlayCax (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, the text already says "However, church attendance has decreased in recent years", which makes the point that religion is not as important as before. Also, there is such as thing as Wikipedia guidelines on length of section and article, this article was already trimmed some time ago because over the years editors were adding way too much text about their pet topic and the article got way too long. Finally, people that look up country articles on Wikipedia want a quick glance at basic country facts not left/right options and politics. --E-960 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have particularly strong feelings about whether it should be included or not. However, it has widely been cited as a cause for the country's secularization. (Per the above four articles.)

• The newer version of the edit, in which I removed the individual policies they have pursued but left The Polish Catholic Church has had significant political influence since 1989, seems indisputably true.
• The numbers are no longer 38% weekly attendance per the Catholic Church. They're 28%.
• The fact that Poland is the fastest secularizing society on record is especially notable. Ireland's, Quebec's, Canada's, and many other country's articles note that they have secularized. It appears to me to be in line with other articles.

Is there anything in the new wording that you object to? I don't think the length (at least in the new wording) is especially problematic. KlayCax (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, I really don't feel like getting into a lengthy and exhausting debate about secularization in Poland based on a few magazine articles, because it is a complex issue. Sure, less people go to church, and many are more liberal in their views, but that does not mean they are atheist or stopped being Catholic. Great example of this is... I keep reading news articles about abortion and how PiS tightened the rules, however what most of these articles don't say is that though the overwhelming majority of Poles were against further restrictions, HOWEVER they were not in favor of loosening the already strict rules, they were for the status que that was agreed upon after 1989. Even now with the new government coalition that's being formed, PO and PSL do not want to include abortion in their coalition talks with the Left. So, this is not the article to analyze and present all those details in, just some basic and easy to digest facts about a country. --E-960 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, @E-960:.

Without getting into the weeds, that's no longer mentioned in the newer version I submitted. Is there any particular reason that you're objecting to the updated weekly mass attendance stats (38% -> 28%) being added? Or secularization? If this is mostly a dispute on whether recent political matters should be excluded for now, then I wouldn't object, but saying the Polish Catholic Church has significant political influence is uncontroversial and definitely notable enough to include.

Why do you object to: 1.) The updated weekly attendance figures 2.) Mentioning secularization 3.) Mentioning that the Catholic Church has political influence? KlayCax (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me explain... you raised this point: "The Polish Catholic Church has had significant political influence since 1989". This has to be some simplistic caricature statement repeated in other countries about Poland. If you look at past elections in Poland since 1989 you would not have figured this, because Poland was not governed by some staunchly pro-Catholic Church parties, in fact back in the day a couple of such parties existed and they polled very badly. So, with the exception of a issue or two, I'm not sure what "political influence" this relates to. --E-960 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise for now, this content can be added to the religion in Poland? I don't think it is controversial to say that RCC had significant influence on Polish politics and certainly culture ([8], [9]). Arguably, even during the communist times, although back then it was strongly opposed by the government ([10]). And it had significant influence on the politics of the interwar Poland too ([11], [12]). And during the partitions... ([13]). This is a complex issue but to argue that any point up to including today the Church had no significant impact on Polish state and politics seems folly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal states the following: Poland is known as Europe’s last Catholic bastion, the only major country on the continent where the church still heavily influences political, social and cultural life. I'm uncertain what's the specific objection to the wording. Both mainline and evangelical Protestant Christianity has had an immense influence on the United States without an actual political party for either de jure existing.

I'm okay with leaving it out for now, but it definitely appears to me to be notable enough to mention, and the objection to the updated demographic information is something I'm still not getting. KlayCax (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want to update the attendance figures in a short statement that's fine, but as for the other topics the sources there really state an opinion or a point of view. This is not a subject matter that can be captured using one or two magazine or newspaper articles, and this requires several sources and views in order to present a full unbiased perspective. Just as with the term "secularization" in Poland, this really makes me laugh, because it sounds like Poland was like France under Cardinal Richelieu or something. After regaining independence Poland was a republic, not a theocracy, and just because most Poles are Catholic this does not mean the Church has concrete political influence. Now, many people do follow church teaching on social matters, but you can't confuse this with a lack of separation of church and state, every person has the right to follow religions teachings or secular ideologies, however in modern Poland there was never a time when the church was part of the government. So, Poland has been secular since 1918. --E-960 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I partially reinstated the non-controversial aspects. Of course Poland isn't a theocracy... but Catholicism has indisputably had an immense cultural, social, and political influence on Poland. I don't believe that this is disputable. A legal establishment of religion is not required for this. In fact, many countries have established religions that have almost no cultural or political influence .

• Denmark, the United Kingdom, Norway, et al. have established churches with little influence/cultural impact.
• The United States, Poland, et al. are secular (strongly in the case of the United States per the First Amendment) Western states with significant religious influence/cultural impact.

Does that make sense? KlayCax (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, can we please have a consensus template pasted here so individual Wikipedians can vote? Unless the discussion is not yet complete. Following the consensus, the changes can be re-entered. Merangs (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Merangs:. @E-960: was fine with updating the church attendance and (to a lesser extent) shifts in religious beliefs. His objection (if I'm understanding it right) was to the "Catholic Church has influence" part. RFC's are measures of last resort and I don't think that this is a situation that would necessitate it. KlayCax (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Major cities: Katowice and Lublin

@Merangs I advise to put Katowice and Lublin as major cities in the lede. Katowice is the center (by population, culturally, historically, logistically) of the 3-5 million large Upper Silesian metropolitan area, as such it is a very major city. Lublin is in the top 10 largest cities, it's the 9th largest city and is a major Polish city that is located within Eastern Poland. It also has a metropolitan area and is important logistically and economically, being the center of the Central Industrial Area since the 1930s i.e. since the Second Polish Republic. It's also a historically important city. Galehautt (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point, however, it should be the Upper Silesian metropolitan area or the Metropolis GZM of which the city of Katowice is a constituent (see Germany article for example i.e how the Ruhr urban area is mentioned instead of individual townships). As for Lublin, there are also other important large cities in Eastern Poland such as Rzeszów and Białystok. If we continue adding places it will become less and less relevant; we already have seven listed in the very first paragraph (Wikipedia:Relevance). There is a considerable jump in population and economic output between Lublin and for example Gdańsk, whereas, Szczecin is a major port. Merangs (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Rzeszów gained significance since the War in Ukraine but otherwise it is not a significant city and it doesn't even have 200k inhabitants. Białystok has fewer inhabitants than Lublin, it's in the top 10 (it's tenth) but has "only" 295k inhabitants within the city limits and also doesn't really have any significance besides regional/cultural. Lublin has over 300k inhabitants and has the perks I mentioned, it was the city where the Union of Lublin (the founding act of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) was signed and it was the first capital of the communist occupation authorities where the PKWN Manifesto was proclaimed. There's also the Central Industrial Area I mentioned, which started in the 1930s and continues til this day: aeronautic industry, mines and agriculture.

Katowice is the clear core of the Upper Silesian metropolitan area in all respects including cultural (Silesian culture) outweighing other cities in the area unlike in the Ruhr which is larger and more decentralized, where there's no major representative because there are several. Galehautt (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the reason for Lublin's post-war significance is due to the fact that Bolesław Bierut was born there. Moreover, the Union of Lublin is a poor reason for placing a city in the lead; there were plenty of other equally-important unions/acts/agreements in the course of Polish history. Regarding Katowice, I absolutely understand its economic importance but it still is the 11th largest city in the country as the article suggests; it just wouldn't make sense and it's does not align well with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Maybe other users can have a say in this matter? Personally, I do not mind your proposal for adding these two but we just don't want others to insert more and more cities in the future. Ideally, I would not include any city below the 400,000 pop. mark, for example Szczecin, but that's my POV. Merangs (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I get your concerns and I totally agree, at one point I thought why not just write down all the cities in the top 10, but then again Bydgoszcz and Bialystok are in the top 10 but aren't major cities at all, while Katowice is technically 11th (going by city limits). However, the Silesian metropolitan area is bigger than even the Warsaw metro. So I think Katowice should have a place in the article, as does Lublin, and no other additional city. Szczecin technically has many inhabitants but it's not really a major city at all and many Poles forget it even exists, just to get my point across, meanwhile Katowice and Lublin are well-known and quite essential. Since there is no solid opposition, I will apply the changes. Thanks for your time. Galehautt (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There is strong opposition as you can see. Katowice is a small town. The GOP has not been the largest in Poland for a long time. Many people left Upper Silesia. The most populous metropolis in Poland is currently the metropolis of Warsaw. We either decide on a specific number (a small number, e.g. 5 cities) or we set a limit number of inhabitants (e.g. 500 or 400 thousand inhabitants). The remaining cities are listed in another section. Urabura (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Cities list

Malecide, you need to stop edit warring as there is no consensus for these changes. Also, in the past this issue was discussed and we are listing cities here, so stop mixing the two categories because they are not the same. The city of Gdańsk and the Gdańsk metro area are two different things, don't mix them together. Also, there is a Demographics section where you are more then welcome to add more details there about the various metro areas, however the Introduction section is not a place to add endless amounts of side information. Finally, I see no hard rationale for including Lubin. E-960 (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a list of major cities that goes by how major they are, I would assume. All listed cities are the most major ones. I see the issue as having been settled in last July in the "Major cities: Katowice and Lublin" discussion. The arguments there have convinced me too. Excluding Lublin would make it seem like there were no major cities in Eastern Poland. Of all the cities in Eastern Poland, Lublin is arguably the most major and it's in the top 10 largest cities in Poland. If you want to focus strictly on population, you should try to force through a change of the lede, from "other major cities" to "most populous cities." Malecide (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Malecide, pls see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You introduced these changes, including mixing up the order of the cities and adding Lublin. You were reverted because it makes no scence to include Lublin, which is 9th in population size, but skip over the 8th largest city. You need to stop mixing the categories of "cities" with "metropolitan areas", they are not the same, and the text clearly says we are listing cities in the Introduction section. Also, I mentioned in the comments that this was already discussed ad nauseam in the past. --E-960 (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Malecide, I'll ask that you self revert or you will be reporter for 3rr. Again, if you add new changes and they are reverted, you need to understand that there is no consensus and discuss, the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is clear on this. "Kraków, Wrocław, Łódź, Poznań, Gdańsk, and Szczecin" has been the order for months now, until mid-July when back and forth edits started to be made, such as adding Lublin and changing the order. --E-960 (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

WHat? I did not introduce these changes. I checked the edit history - the lede stayed in this form from July until October when, for a few days, it was changed. I reverted that change, and it continued to be in the July form until November. A new user Urabura started an edit war a few days ago without picking up a discussion in Talk. You're now defending him. That's how things stand. Malecide (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Malecide, I see that there was a discussion back in July and no consensus. Also, this is what you get when you disrupt a longstanding order (that lasted for months if not years), which was based on one simple category largest CITIES up to 400,000 (no mixing in of metro areas or adding random cites like Katowice or Lublin). Now, every few weeks or every other month someone will come up with their own criteria, that we should also include this or that. So, yes, I'm asking you to self revert and restore "Kraków, Wrocław, Łódź, Poznań, Gdańsk, and Szczecin". You can compare diffs and see just how longstanding this order was. --E-960 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This order goes back to 2018, see here: [[14]], with one change where Wrocław moved past Łodź. --E-960 (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Motto of Poland: God, Honor, Fatherland (Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna)

This is the most common motto of the Polish people and is the official motto of the Polish Military and therefore can be considered the motto of Poland, even though it is not explicitly inscribed in the Constitution. It should be included in the infobox for Poland like "In God We Trust" is included in the infobox for the United States (not to mention the other "traditional mottos" included in the US infobox). 2A00:F41:1C15:1CE7:11B2:420F:5040:4835 (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Food of Poland

The most famous food in Poland are pierogis, and they are widely known to be one of the best foods to exist. 131.239.200.165 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Formation list

HetmanWL, you need to stop edit warring or you will be reported, so get familiar with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guidelines. Also, more importantly Wikipedia is based on quality reference sources not your own POV. It is a universally accepted fact that Poland became a recognized country when it's rulers were Baptized and what was then a tribal state became a duchy within the Christendom, even the communist authorities in 1966 celebrated the official formation of Poland in that year. This kind of obnoxious personal POV push degrades Wikipedia and is not based on any reliable sources, just your own revisionist interpretation of history. E-960 (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica states "Mieszko accepted Roman Catholicism via Bohemia in 966. A missionary bishopric directly dependent on the papacy was established in Poznań. This was the true beginning of Polish history, for Christianity was a carrier of Western civilization with which Poland was henceforth associated."[15] Also, if that's not enough for you, pls see Millennium of the Polish State article and check out the references cited there as well. --E-960 (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The Polish state obviously existed before Mieszko accepted Christianity. Every single historian agrees on that, 966 is just the symbolic start date because with Christianity came a more advanced and complex administration. It was a process. In the pic you yourself added, it says: Poland 960-992.

• Furthermore, it is important to note that before Poland became a Kingdom, it was a Duchy. It didn't spring up out of nowhere.

HetmanWL (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

HetmanWL you did not provide a source that actually says that Poland became a formally recognized state before 966 AD. What you added is your own WP:OR and you are engaging is disruptive behavior by adding dubious claims to longstanding material and accusing others of disruptive behavior when they reverted your unsourced and dubious claims. --E-960 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Piotrus as you are well versed on topics related to Poland and its history, can you comment on this edit and if there is any validity to it? --E-960 (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I assume this about the infobox and whether it should link to Duchy of Poland (c.960) before baptism of Poland (966) in the formation/establishment? Frankly, I don't have very strong opinion here. Maybe someone else does: @Orczar @Merangs _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that in any case, there would need to be several reliable sources presented, which clearly say that Poland was a recognized state before 966 AD. Please remember that the Infobox presents hard dates, which are the majority view accepted by historians, not alternative interpretations debated by editors. --E-960 (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: User HetmanWL has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of user Urabura. --E-960 (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet of Urabura. I'm suspected to be a sockpuppet of Urabura and have been banned on this ground but it's an absurd accusation coming out of nowhere and I've already objected to it and the request to be unbanned is pending and based on this fact, as HetmanWL, I am informing you, to clear this false accusation. 2A00:F41:4C9F:BB52:3577:15DF:312E:6096 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion. --E-960 (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect GDP (nominal) per capita ranking

Minor edit request - As of 2023, Poland is estimated to have the 45th highest nominal GDP per capita in the world, at $22,393, and not the 44th as is wrongly given in this article. It is actually Greece that has the 44th highest nominal GDP per capita, at $23,173, unless List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita is mistaken (using IMF figures), and the Greece page on Wikipedia is also wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:BC16:1901:9DC1:24EF:79D4:69FC (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)