Talk:Poland/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

LGBT status in Poland

Mentioning that Poland is the only European country to have never criminalized homosexuality[1] is pretty misleading if we don't also mention that it's the only European country to have "LGBT-free zones".[2] Comments? François Robere (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: Poland is a country full of contradictions and a very divided society, and this has always been the case throughout history. There are lots of Polish LGBT activists, organisations, and openly gay people play a big part in public life e.g. Robert Biedroń, Anna Grodzka. Throughout history it accepted huge Jewish and Protestant minorities kicked out of of other European countries. Similarly it was one of the first countries to give women the vote. However, the anti-Jewish, anti-Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Catholic fundamentalists have also been a significant force since the inter-war period and are now in power, building on their ideology to include eurosceptycyzm and anti-LGBT movements. However, even the most far-right groups would not criminalise homosexuality in Poland, the current populist traditionalists are treading a line along the lines of "out of sight out of mind, we don't want to hear about it". However LGBT rights issue in Poland is framed it will have to balance or at least highlight the massive contradictions and divisions in Poland. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: So you support mentioning both? François Robere (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere I would yes. Unfortunately a bit like the UK, Brazil and the US, Poland has succumbed to a populist-right wing frenzy where what the government and media are saying more often than not does not correspond with real-life at all. Having said that, Poland is still far-ahead of lot of the world in LGBT rights (compared to the Islamic world or Russia for example), despite being far behind by Western standards (e.g. UK, Canada, Netherlands) . Abcmaxx (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

One is a historical fact, the other just a recent pre election stunt by some local politicians. This is a high level article and this kind of detail is UNDUE. Additionally, this is just Francois Robere, once again, trying to cram his indef banned friend’s Icewhiz’s article into as many places as possible. Volunteer Marek 22:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Tell that to the LGBT community in Poland.[3][4][5][6][7] François Robere (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that the LGBT community in Poland is aware who Icewhiz and Francois Robere are, but your attempt to attack me personally is noted. Volunteer Marek 06:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Why was User:Icewhiz banned? Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisdevelop: [8][9][10] François Robere (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Volunteer Marek Firstly, just to be clear, I do not want to be dragged in into personal drama or motivations for raising the point; a question was raised and I answered it. The recent developments may be a political stunt but the harsh truth is Poland is currently full of anti-LGBT rhetoric and is at odds with the EU and the vast majority of the developed world on the issue, and Poland is not as LGBT friendly as it may seem from these basic historical facts. The "LGBT-free zone" scandal is still ongoing. A brief short sentence on LGBT rights with wiki-links to relevant articles is the appropriate weight, it doesn't need any more than that. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with including something regarding recent events that is more general, rather than this sensationalist stuff. I have no problem whatsoever with including well sourced material that is (deservedly) critical of recent developments and political posturing and scare mongering by some sides of the political scene in a Poland with respect to LGBT rights. But this stuff here is not that. It’s just sensationalist headlines and within the context of Wikipedia itself originated with a now indef banned user trying to grief Polish editors. Volunteer Marek 22:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere and Abcmaxx, I agree that the statement on decriminalizing homosexuality should be removed, I took it out sometime ago, but it was re-added recently. Also, regarding "LGBT-Free Zone". Unfortunately, we live in a post-truth world and the way this issue is reported on in the west is bias at best. Those municipalities declared support for "family values" just as others like Warsaw declared support for LGBT by passing the "LGBT Card", and none called themselves "LGBT-Free Zone" banning gays. This reminds me a bit of how the CIA coined the term "Viet Cong" because Front National de Libération sounded too "inspiring", subsequently the term Viet Cong started to appear in the newspapers, despite the fact that it was a totally made up name designed to conjure up negative and crude emotions about the enemy. --E-960 (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What are the sources it is the only country to have not made homosexuality illegal?Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Source

From Szulc, Lukasz (2017). Transnational homosexuals in communist Poland: cross-border flows in gay and lesbian magazines. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-3-319-58901-5. OCLC 993598494.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link): Same-sex acts continued to be formally criminalized in Poland after the First World War, when the penal codes of the former occupants (Austro-Hungarian Empire, Imperial Russia and Prussia) remained in power... The new penal code of the independent Poland from 1932 decriminalized consensual same-sex acts, which have not been recriminalized ever since... This new law... reflected the Napoleonic Code of 1804, which had been used as a model for the 1808 law of the Duchy of Warsaw... it was also influenced by the prominent Polish sexologists of that time... Mikulski and Wachholz, who promoted the interpretation that homosexuality is innate... The most liberal provisions were introduced in communist Poland in 1969, when the new penal code... did not mention homosexuality at all... He continues: The liberalization of homosexuality-related laws in the PRL did not translate into state's distinctively positive attitude towards homosexuals... At least since the 1960s, the police forces and criminologists started to pay special attention to homosexuality, viewing it chiefly as a social pathology... The secret service, in turn, saw homosexuality as an opportunity, a tool, which could help the agents to do their job... [gives as examples Michel Foucault, who was forced out of Warsaw; Jerzy Andrzejewski, who was slandered; and Operation Hyacinth]. On public discourse: In the PRL's public discourse until 1980, male homosexuality was usually represented in stereotypical ways, either in a criminal context... or in a comical context... Not rarely, homosexuality was also depicted as characteristic of the perverse Western Bloc in contrast to the healthy Eastern Bloc: 'a foreign novelty, and imported disease, or the decadent hobby of the bored Western bourgeoisie'...

The latter quote is particularly interesting in the context of the current discourse in Poland - it's another example of how many contemporary Poles, despite their contempt towards the former communist regime, (naively) re-hash its arguments. We've seen this phenomenon before in the context of WWII ethos. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, this is not a forum. Statements like "we've seen this phenomenon before in the context of WWII ethos" come across as you trying to insert personal views into every comment — this is not a WWII issue. In any case you have my support to remove the statement because I also think that it out of place. --E-960 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: Coming from the guy who brought up the Viet Cong..?[11] François Robere (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

uhm... referencing an example of how media can manipulate perceptions is a bit different then making a broad generalization which stereotypes an ethnic group, as you did by saying that "many contemporary Poles" hold such and such views. --E-960 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: And how is that inaccurate? Gomułka promoted the idea that Jews have divided loyalties (Cooper, 2000, p. 209), and today some 64% of respondents in a recent survey still believe it (Q1 here); Werblan suggested that Jews don't care about Poland (p. 213, there), which is mirrored by 48% of respondents stating that "they only care about themselves" (Q5, there); and the theme of the "ungrateful Jews" (which was promoted during the 1968 Polish political crisis (p. 212, there), but actually originated much earlier) seem to underlie the public discourse on restitution, though only as a second fiddle to more traditional antisemitic stereotypes (see eg. here, and some of the questions on secondary antisemitism here). And of course, there's the claim that the Western press fabricates news (p. 222, there), used as a defence by government representatives... François Robere (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Francois Robere, I’d appreciate it if you refrained from expressing your opinions about “many contemporary Poles” as these kind of ethnic generalizations and stereotyping smack of prejudice and bigotry. Especially for someone with your editing history. Consider this a warning. Volunteer Marek 05:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Marek, stop WP:HOUNDING me. You've been following me around and personally attacking me for two years (!). ArbCom admonished you, you've been T-banned,[12] and you're still at it. I don't know what you're thinking, but this won't go on forever. If you take issue with me quoting reliably sourced material on current and historical thinking vis-à-vis minorities in Poland (which I'm the only one to do so around here, apparently), take it to the boards. Otherwise, keep to yourself. François Robere (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not been hounding you, neither now nor for two years. You know very well that my interest in this article goes back more than a dozen years and you also know why I have an interest in this particular issue. Your accusation is simply false and made in bad faith. Likewise, your contention that I am topic banned from this article or topic is utterly and demonstrates false. Worse, you know that it is not true. So why are you making false statements?

You were also not “quoting reliably sourced material” but rather expressing your own personal opinion (in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM) regarding what YOU think “contemporary Poles” are like. Expressing such an opinion which involves such gross generalizations and stereotyping can easily cross into vulgar ethnic based bigotry. That is why I asked you to stop doing it. Predictably, you responded by making a series of completely false and untrue allegations against me. Volunteer Marek 17:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 The example you gave is not quite the same. Polish media and the EU quite clearly refer to "LGBT-free zones" in exactly those words, those municipalities and various media and organisations were giving out "LGBT-free zone" memorabilia. The "family values" is just a cover to legitimise and rationalise an anti-LGBT stunt, the same way many far-right organisations are "not racist or fascist but traditionalist patriots", far-left militants are just "fighting fascism", the anti-abortion movement calls itself "pro-life", anti-vax is "pro-choice" etc. etc. The move was a direct reaction to Warsaw declaration of granting more rights to the LGBT community, and that was the motivation. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, I disagree, in your statement you automatically assume that everyone has radical views, and the mild language is just a cover. Also, this is a bit of a POV push, it's no secret that there are different cultural norms in Western society (based on religion, ethnicity, demographics, etc.), and that needs to be neutrally covered, not throwing around media jargons. In any case, as I stated before this is a secondary issue and should not be included in this article. --E-960 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@User talk:E-960 I see it as calling spade a spade; I would see targeting a significant part of the population because their sexual orientation is an extreme measure. I disagree that this is just media jargon, this furore is entirely of the making political establishment who bought the media scrutiny upon themselves. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Because this article is more or less a summary, I'd suggest a solution - "Poland is the only European country which never criminalized homosexuality and its legality was reconfirmed in 1932. However, recent LGBT-free zones have caused much controversy in relation to the country's LGBT rights." True, unsophisticated and does not question anything. Simply states the facts. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Oliszydlowski Support. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, I think the issue has a bit more depth to it than how you articulated the point, I'm not entirely sure the the aim of those resolutions was to "target" any one, again that kind of language only serves to sensationalize the issue. In any case, I recommend that the "1932" statement is removed because it was only of symbolic nature, and I do not support adding even more text regarding resolutions which in reality had no practical impact - I think we just had a discussion earlier about adding statements regarding symbolic resolutions in this article. --E-960 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 I'm not sure the Polish LGBT community, the EU, the populist right or the inhabitants of those municipalities would agree with you. It does have a practical impact not only on social attitudes but on the people who both made such resolutions and those who the resolutions concerns. It has had a practical impact on the amount of EU subsidies allotted to Poland, city twinning, the general societal attitudes, political discourse in the country and on LGBT rights movement as a whole already. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the king of Poland discussion regarding symbolic statutes. --E-960 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Except these people aren't made of stone.[13][14][15][16][17] François Robere (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I clicked on one of those (and seriously man, WP:NOTAFORUM). What I see is that in Poland police protect protestors who march for equality and disperse violent thugs who try to attack the LGBT marchers. Meanwhile, in US, the police brutally attack protestors who march for equality, and hobnob with the violent thugs who try to attack the BLM protestors. So you’re kind of making the opposite point of the one you think you’re making. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Abcmaxx, the question is whether this info is DUE for a general level article like this one. Which verrrryyy general. It obviously belongs in articles like LGBT rights in Poland. But here?

For comparison consider that last year a significant number of US states passed laws effectively outlawing abortion. Of course none of that matters at all since the US Supreme Court has ruled that the right to choose is a constitutional right. So this was just empty posturing by some local state representatives and senators, appeals to their base, shoring up their conservative constituencies before the election. It had no practical impact what so ever. Same thing here. And this is the key - while that info does belong in articles about abortion rights in US, no one is running over to the article United States and trying to cram that stuff into that article. They’d be reverted and told to do something else if they did. So why is it ok to do that in this article? Or a better question, why are a couple editors (I’m not talking about you), one of whom has been topic banned and then indef banned for making ethnically discriminatory and prejudicial statements (about Poles), so insistent on putting it in here? Volunteer Marek 05:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski and Abcmaxx: Problem is it's as true for Poland as it is for Kosovo and Slovenia - all three were part of a larger organ that did criminalize homosexuality (see source re: Poland above), and all three rejected it when they re/gained their independence. In other words, if that's the criterion, then Poland isn't unique like the text claims. François Robere (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: - I don't see how Slovenia ever existed as a true independent state before its independence and Kosovo is not really a unanimously recognized country. Regardless, I think there should be balance between claims eg. in the suggestion I made earlier. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: It doesn't matter. Poland as an entity in the modern sense didn't exist either (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth isn't the same as the Second Republic). Anyway, I've managed to load the source, and AFAICT it doesn't say anything about Poland being the "only" country to do so in Europe, as the text claims. Am I wrong? François Robere (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: Ok, saying that it was the only one can be cut I guess. But what about - "Poland never criminalized homosexuality and its legality was reconfirmed in 1932. However, recent LGBT-free zones have caused much controversy in relation to the country's LGBT rights." Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: François Robere (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"1932 decriminalized consensual same-sex acts", forgive me, but for something to be decriminalised it must first be criminalised. As Poland existed before 1932 this cannot be used to say Homosexuality was always legal.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Not necessarily; if its status is unknown or uncertain then we use the word "reconfirmed" which I just did. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No as reconfirmed implies it was the case, we have no evidence it was decriminalised is the word that should be used.

decriminalize

/diːˈkrɪmɪn(ə)lʌɪz/

verb

past tense: decriminalised; past participle: decriminalised cease to treat (something) as illegal or as a criminal offence.

The word literally means it was an offence prior to this point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I do not support the latest text suggestions. Poland never criminalized homosexuality because in the 19th century (when this was a trend) Poland was not a sovereign state. As for the "1932" resolution and the "LTGB-free zone" those are just symbolic statutes. Also, François Robere you need to stop using every dissuasion to make unfair remarks about Poles, again every issue for you is an opportunity to drop a snarky comments such as "many contemporary Poles" think this way or that way, and so on. What does WWII or antisemitism have to do with this issue? Again, this is not a forum for random thoughts. --E-960 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: You know, I was offended by your comments diminishing the effects this has on Polish LGBTs and implying a dichotomy between LGBTs and "family values", but you know what? I deal with it. We're all adults here (I think?) and we should be able to handle other people's thoughts without assuming the worst about them (eg. that they're prejudiced rather than informed). That's not to say we should throw out WP:NOTFORUM (I certainly didn't intend to start this discussion), but we should be able to contain a passing comment. If you're offended, I apologize; but realize this isn't prejudice looking for an "easy dunk", but the product of a lot of reading coupled with personal familiarity, on a subject that by its very nature connects with many layers of social and historical context. Friends? François Robere (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, you do realize that most of those municipalities passes non-legally binding resolutions supporting "family values" their term not mine (that's why I used quotation marks in my comments when referring to this term). Also, this discussion is starting to sound like a forum. Again, the reason why these statements should not be included is because both were symbolic in nature, as user Volunteer Marek suggested this type of information is more appropriate for the LGBT rights in Poland article, but not here. --E-960 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

These "symbolic" decision have very real repercussions, as Abcmaxx stated above, and more coverage than the fact Poland hasn't criminalized homosexuality in 1932. At any rate, I never objected the removal if you remove the other bit as well; this is less important now that we've removed the "only" phrase, but I'm not yet convinced that they shouldn't be mentioned. Would you like to wait for other editors to opine, and perhaps help form a consensus? François Robere (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason why this is called a "culture war" happening not just in Poland. LGBT advocates object to the legally non-binding resolutions, and the Polish Catholics are offended by the recent desecration of religious symbols by LGBT activists, and so on. If we open up this avenue we can also inset text on anti-Christian acts and their impact. I would just like to leave out this type of subject matter from this high-level overview article, it can be discussed in the main articles on those subjects, but not here. --E-960 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. My only problem is with balancing different aspects - having had that statement on "the only country in Europe" etc. was risking giving a false impression to the reader; now it's less of a problem. I think we do need some coverage of the situations of minorities, not necessarily through the "zones" (at least not yet). François Robere (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to take a jab at resolving the dispute. I think the issue is really about what exactly the sources say, and whether those sources are reliable, rather than what we think about the subject matter. So far, attention to the sources has been obscured by personal opinions. I think if Poland does not criminalize homosexuality in law, but expresses social intolerance towards homosexuality in certain regions, then both propositions should be presented (assuming that is what the sources say). It will be misleading for one to be presented without the other.

I looked at the sources cited in the original diff, and cannot find direct support for the proposition, "Poland is the only European country to have never criminalized homosexuality" (I might be wrong).

On the other hand, I do see a lot of support for the LGBT-free zone controversy. My issue, however, is that the phrase "LGBT free zone" is vague. What does it mean? Does it mean that no LGBT is ever allowed to step foot in that region? Or does it mean that the region declares official support for an anti-LGBT position? Is the exclusion of LGBT in word or in deed?

I prefer the explanation at LGBT ideology-free zone that says, ""LGBT-free zone motions" refer to resolutions passed by some of Polish gminas (municipalities),[1][13] powiats (counties),[31] and voivodeships (provinces)[14] who declared their attachment to conservative values in reaction to the Warsaw declaration.[32][33] While unenforceable, activists say the declared zones represent attempts to exclude the LGBT community[13][14] and called the declarations "a statement saying that a specific kind of people is not welcome there."[13]

This explanation should be included in the mention of LGBT-free zone. The article does not necessarily have to make Poland a paragon of tolerance for sexual minorities, nor a violent, regressive state. I think the truth, based on the sources, is somewhere in between. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

HollerithPunchCard, I definitely, agree with your assessment that Poland is not "a paragon of tolerance for sexual minorities, nor a violent, regressive state". Having said that, I still think that it's better not to include these texts, as this is high level overview article, and these are symbolic statutes. Also, I am not comfortable with the approach that some editors take to this topic, at the end this is part of a "culture war". From an academic (neutral) point of view, civilizations form their cultures. Greeks and Romans widely accepted homosexuality, yet did not allow for gay marriage. In the Islamic world polygamy is practiced. Yet, here this issue comes across as a value judgment "Poland and its LGBT-free zones" (a term coined by media no less). If you are going to be neutral simply say Poland does not criminalize homosexuality (in contrast to some countries that do), and in contrast to western European countries Poland does not allow for gay marriage, partnerships or adoptions by gays — that's all you need clear to the point, not basing the text on media headlines, but simple and direct facts. However, I still think that's a bit much, since we could also insert texts saying that Poland does not allow for polygamy, etc. --E-960 (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM? François Robere (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, the above statement is regarding the topic in question (though indeed a bit long winded). Raising the issue that some editors are inserting value judgment is appropriate, as is the fact that instead of covering non-legally binding motions, we should address what the Polish law and the constitutions actually upholds. --E-960 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is, but you see how nuanced this whole thing is? Even you can't avoid WP:FORUM. The bottom line, though, is that "LGBT-free zones" are the most WP:COMMON name, and everything else is beyond Policy. François Robere (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@E-960 Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree that we are in a midst of a cultural war, fought on many fronts, in different parts of the world (sometimes if I wonder if the highest good is not victory, but the ability to co-exist). Whatever it is, I think we can all agree that neutrality requires compromise, especially in a conflict ridden topic such as this.

Would anyone take issue with a formulation along the lines of: "Poland does not criminalize homosexuality, but societal attitude towards the LGBT community is mixed"? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard: I'd rather we stated outright that it's a conservative society.[18] We can state, however, that attitudes are changing. François Robere (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:HollerithPunchCard's assessment and its broadly what I was trying to say. As for User:E-960's point whether this does belong in the article? As I stated before, one sentence is the appropriate weight and length, the question is content, which is why I supported User:Oliszydlowski's suggestions. As for User:François Robere; Poland is definitely not a conservative society. There are of factions of conservatives, liberals, religious zealots, nationalists, communists, anarchists, LGBT-rights advocates, militant atheists and everything and everyone in between all those examples of the very ends of the spectrum. It is no more secular or conservative than let's say the UK for example. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, I don't think this "LGBT Zones" reference is appropriate in this article. I just added two sentences related to the issues: "Also, Poland does not criminalize homosexuality and its legality was reconfirmed in 1932. The Polish Constitution defines marriage as an union between a man and a woman." This is the Law section, not public opinions/views section. Just as a practical example, in other country articles, we don't write about "no go zones" in some western European countries or the "autonomous zones" in the US (both media labels, btw) and tag on some reference that some citizens are worried about safety and security issues — this would be POV-ish. This topic can be discussed at length with the full context in the LGBT rights in Poland article, as originally recommended by user Volunteer Marek. --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the LGBT-free zones have no legal recognition or status; they are a mere reaction by anti-LGBT groups. Hence, they are more of a controversy rather than an actual problem or hostile action undertaken against the LGBT community. Nevertheless, I'd think it is best to stick to facts and keep it simple. I will rephrase what is on there as it sounds a bit odd. Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Symbolism is super important when you're a disenfranchised - and often physically abused - minority. And it's not "anti-LGBT groups" as in NGOs, it's local politicians and governments. François Robere (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue of disenfranchisement and physical abuse is definitely something that affects many groups, even in Poland radical-left/anarchist activists vandalized church exteriors and statues, in places like Argentina or Chile there were instances where protesters vandalized churches and physically assaulted priests. Again, these topics can be appropriately covered in subject specific articles, but here we are dealing with just a high-level article. --E-960 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the status of a 5%-10% minority is "high level" enough. François Robere (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: I'm sure there are factions like in every society, but opinion polls still show a conservative majority on LGBT issues; a conservative nationalist still won the presidency; the country is still deeply religious; abortions are still mostly illegal; etc. etc. So that's pretty conservative. François Robere (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: I'm going to echo what the others have told you already that you seem to be adamant on insisting your view onto the article, and the way you're phrasing your arguments does look like your personal beliefs seem to cloud your judgement, and bordering on the offensive to Poles. For the record, UK voted Brexit and Johnson, Italy Salvini, Le Pen went into presidential run-off in France; Ireland, Greece and Malta are still "deeply religious", abortions are illegal in Northern Ireland. Duda won by an incredibly very slim majority and he might be a right-wing populist but is not an extremist in any academic term, nor does one vote mean that necessarily people agree with him, they just liked him more than the other candidate, for a host of unrelated reasons. Your argument is neither here not there. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: This is the last message I'll leave you here, just so you don't accuse me of "bludgeoning":

You can agree or disagree that we should mention it, but you can't really deny Poland is a conservative country: Poland consistently ranks below the European average on acceptance of LGBT marriage, right to adopt and public displays of affection; on measures of discrimination and inclusiveness on the basis of ethnicity or skin color, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religion, immigration status and disability; and on agreement on the importance of a free press and diversity education. Ireland - where abortion reform is under way - consistently ranks above average, Italy below average, and Malta is inconsistent. Hence my objection to the phrase "mixed attitudes", which is a nice compromise, but not exactly accurate. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, really quick (I dont have time to check every single claim), FR contends that this source says that Poland "d consistently ranks below the European average" on "importance of a free press". Yet, that source SAYS NOTHING about free press. Rather the source says that in Poland the EU is quite popular, as is democracy (above EU average) and that most Poles rate their life satisfaction much higher than they did in 1991, right after fall of communism. Like I said, I'm not gonna waste my time fact checking every single claim, when the VERY FIRST source I checked doesn't say anything like what FR claims. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the support for FR's claim that "Poland is a conservative country" is three sources which state that... the conservative candidate won the Presidential election. Just barely (he got 51.2%). By that metric, US, UK, Israel are "conservative countries", and if we throw parliament in there we also get Germany and a few others. Again. Weak. Volunteer Marek 18:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The first source:

To be fair, Poland has never been an easy place to live for LGBT people. This is due to at least two factors. First, decades of Communist rule left behind a conservative and homogenic society. Second, the Roman Catholic Church, which took credit for supporting and nurturing the nation’s democratic opposition before the collapse of the Soviet Union, has created an environment in which it is close to impossible to pursue an LGBT-friendly agenda.

The second:

...Mr Trzaskowski, who as mayor signed a declaration in favour of [LGBT] rights in Warsaw. However, in conservative Poland, he has been careful not to go too far; he said on the campaign that as president he would favour civil partnerships, but avoided making any commitment to legalising gay marriage, as is true of his party in general.

The third is titled Liberal Presidential challenger hopes to reverse Poland's conservative drift ahead of Sunday vote and mentions that much of the country’s 38 million still live in poorer and conservative small towns in the rural heartlands.

Per Pew, only 64% of Poles support the statement "it is very important that Media can report the news without state/government censorship", only 61% support a similar statement on freedom of speech, and only 60% on internet access.[19] Only 49% support the statement "it is very important that opposition parties can operate freely [in Poland]", and only 57% support the same on human rights organizations.[20] @Volunteer Marek: Please apologize for your attack. François Robere (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, just a reminder that while I'm not the only one to graze WP:NOFORUM around here, I'm certainly the only one who had taken it to talk,[21] checked the cited source,[22] brought sources of their own,[23] and sought outside input from the Boards.[24] I'm happy you at least took the sass off of my hands! François Robere (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not "attacked" you. Please stop being hyperbolic. I'm not going to apologize for pointing out that the sources you used don't actually support the claims you are making. THAT is the issue here. If you wanted to use a different source, you should have used a different source. And even your new source doesn't support your claim. Same % of Poles agree with the statement "Media can report the news" as the # of Dutch or Frenchmen. The word "only" before "64%" is not in the source. It's your own addition to make it seems like this is something out of ordinary. It's not. Volunteer Marek 19:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But... you were wrong. You basically accused me of either sloppy editing or outright lying, and you were wrong. It's not a new source, it's just the "zoomed in" graphics from that same report, and they shows exactly what I claimed: that Poland is at the bottom half on each of these metrics. So please apologize, and next time WP:AGF. François Robere (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Lol, no I wasn’t. First you gave a source which didn’t even mention freedom of press. Then, after I pointed that out, you falsely claimed I “attacked” you (and remember, false accusations of personal attacks are themselves personal attacks) and gave another source. which STILL didn’t support what you were claiming. To make it seem otherwise you added the word “only” to your description of the source’s content and conveniently omitted the fact that the % of Poles here is same as % of French and Dutchmen. Why? Because you wanna shore up your gross ethnic stereotyping which you continue to engage in despite my request that you stop it.

Seriously man, you’re the one who should be apologizing here for BOTH trying to play fast and loose with sources (you should know by know that I, unlike “most people”, do always check) and for pushing ethnically based stereotypes. But since you probably won’t, how about we just settle for you refraining from doing this in the future, ey? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll stop this now, as there's no point in arguing with someone who outright ignores what you write. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

@HollerithPunchCard: As I said before the discussion was derailed, I disagree with the phrasing Poland does not criminalize homosexuality, but societal attitude towards the LGBT community is mixed, as it seems to be slightly too cautious in describing a society that by most metrics - and especially those that pertain to gender and sexuality - is still fairly conservative. I also don't think that at this day and age not criminalizing homosexuality is something particularly notable (though the fact that we're having this discussion is). I would prefer, as before, something along the lines of while homosexuality is not illegal, a third of Poland has been declared by local government "LGBT-free" or "LGBT-ideology free". François Robere (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, we link to LGBT rights in Poland and/or Human rights in Poland from Poland#Law, and Women in Poland from Poland#Demographics. François Robere (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, this is POV. You are trying to present the issue as if Poland is some kind of a oppressive country for women and gays. I think user HollerithPunchCard rightly said that Poland is not "a paragon of tolerance for sexual minorities, nor a violent, regressive state". With all the negative references you included about Poland on this talk page, please be aware that EU's own statistics show that Poland has a very low levels of violence against women, and Poland has one of the lowest pay gaps between men and women in the EU. Perhaps we should reference the fact that on a number of occasions liberal activists physically attacked anti-abortion protesters, and many Catholics feel like they are being vilified and disenfranchised (Persecution of Christians) by the "main stream media" — because there is such a thing where a minority oppress a majority. However, this is not the article for such details, and more suited for topic specific articles. --E-960 (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I completely agree with HollerithPunchCard's statement. And I didn't say anything about the wage gap (though you really ought to read p. 7 here on the Pew poll cited above, if we're at it). Why do you assume that mentioning Women in Poland is bad? Why shouldn't we mention women?

WP:POINTY on your side, but if you want to mention that, then bring a concrete statement and we can discuss it. ^^ François Robere (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• François Robere, just stop, like with the "Jesus Christ King of Poland?" discussion you won't let the discussion close and keep bringing in more side issues to run this discussion indefinitley. Now, you raise the issue of adding article links, and pinging other editors just to start things up again. Also, you turn up the emotions by making blatantly inaccurate statements like this "Why do you assume that mentioning Women in Poland is bad? Why shouldn't we mention women?" I never said that, that's just what you want to assume (I think Jordan Peterson called out Cathy Newman for doing the exact same thing in an interview — "so you are saying we should organize our societies like lobsters?"). I was commenting on your actions, when you were only providing negative stats about Poland, one after another. --E-960 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• This issue is RESOLVED, the original phrase in question (which was the subject for this thread) "only European country to have never criminalized homosexuality" was changed and the word "never" was removed, per above. François Robere, pls drop the WP:DROPTHESTICK. --E-960 (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue was one of balance; that statement was only refuted later (by me). Now we now state, along with "not illegal", that the Polish constitution defines marriage in a certain way, which is near-adequate for balance purposes. Are you okay with that phrasing? François Robere (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you changed the statement and tied the definition of marriage to just one issue — that's POV — what about polygamy, it's legal in some countries? So, you went ahead and changed a neutral statement to one that is not. Also, this is just like the "Jesus Christ King of Poland?" discussion, you keep forking the issue. --E-960 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you on that. You made the explicit connection when you added that statement in order to resolve this disagreement (thanks for pinging, BTW).[25] I literally just added the word "while".[26] As for polygamy - if you have sources on this, please share. Those I found (eg. Johnson, Paul (2015-04-01). "Marriage, Heteronormativity, and the European Court of Human Rights: A Reappraisal". International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 29 (1): 56–77. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebu016. ISSN 1360-9939.; Kulczyk, Marcin. "Family rights and family policy in Poland." Torun Social Science Review 1.1 (2016).) make no mention of it. François Robere (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly believe this discussion should close already. Completely satisfactory information is already on the page which purely states facts. I am a supporter of LGBT rights, however, François Robere, you are taking things a bit too far just like in the History of Poland dispute which makes me question your point of being here. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: Except that it doesn't. Poland couldn't have "reconfirmed" the legality of homosexual conduct in 1932, since at the time it was illegal (see quotes from Szulc above). The fact that you're defending this statement as "purely factual" and saying that "no source needed for obvious"[27] is questionable, especially since you're also the one who made the false addition on Poland being "the only European country which never criminalized homosexuality".[28] Now that you mention it, your additions were also at the center of the History of Poland discussion, where - just like here - they were removed. Do consider that before you question others. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You claim this is OR. Can you please quote the source that states that "[homosexuality's] legality was reconfirmed in 1932"? François Robere (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't make false accusations - there's a difference between WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. Now please explain. François Robere (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @François Robere: The statement is not verbatim supported by the quoted sources but it is correctly inferred from the (sourced) lack of such a crime in the 1932 Polish criminal code combined with the universal legal principle of Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. Can a Wikipedia editor draw such conclusions? I would argue it's not beyond standard editing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, application of legal principals in order to deduce a legal state is the very definition of WP:OR.

Second, I've already shown ten days ago on this very thread that:[29]

Same-sex acts continued to be formally criminalized in Poland after the First World War, when the penal codes of the former occupants (Austro-Hungarian Empire, Imperial Russia and Prussia) remained in power... The new penal code of the independent Poland from 1932 decriminalized consensual same-sex acts, which have not been recriminalized ever since (Szulc, 2017).

So not only is it OR, but it's explicitly contradicted by a peer-reviewed, book-length RS. The other source, as you know, is an archived web page. François Robere (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

FR, there’s like 5 or 6 editors here who disagree with you, you’re edit warring against multiple editors. Please stop. Volunteer Marek 20:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Marek, we've changed the phrasing several times throughout the past two weeks, so I'm not sure exactly who you're counting as for or against a particular one. Now can you please answer my question on which source states that "[homosexuality's] legality was reconfirmed in 1932", and how does that settle with at least five sources that state that that wasn't the case? In other words, if you could elucidate how something that is illegal be "reconfirmed" as legal, that would be most beneficial for resolving this little disagreement. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at the discussion editors should be remained that Wikipedia isn't a forum. The information that Poland never criminalised homosexuality is certainly notable, but overall this shouldn't be more than one sentence at most in the article. I think sentence along Poland never criminalised homosexuality,and its legality was reconfirmed in 1932 but societal attitude towards the LGBT community is mixed is acceptable. I believe this is in line with what other editors stated.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I took out the "re", can we go ahead and end the discussion over two letters. --E-960 (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

References

WP:PLMOS

Can someone please point to the guideline on use of diacritics with Polish names please? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Christianity in Poland

I was wondering if it would be worth making a note of this in articles relating to Polish government https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/poland-declares-christ-as-king. Does this mean that Poland should be reclassified as a constitutional monarchy with a state religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.100.102 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Although Poland is predominantly a Christian nations, in this case the title is not official, so including it in the article does not make much sense. --E-960 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Although the fact that there's been a vote in parliament on it makes for a good bit of trivia.[30] François Robere (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Trivia is appropriate for stub and start-class articles. This whole process is a joke. Luckily, this won't last forever. In this case, "king" would be a titular and purely ineffective title, with a strong notion of religious unity. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, I take it you are for the inclusion of this reference — not sure what's the point you are trying to articulate? --E-960 (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Joke or not, the involvement of parliament makes it newsworthy for some article, eg. Religion in Poland, the BLP MP who initiated the vote, or civilians or organizations who supported it. If you have sources that can clarify what exactly went on it we be useful to check. François Robere (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, so you are arguing for the inclusion of the text? Please be mindful that Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum for random topics. Still not every point is relevant to a high level article such as this even if it has a reliable reference. --E-960 (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, François Robere you mentioned in your last comment that "involvement of parliament makes it newsworthy" - I gauge that you are not fully informed about parliamentary customs and the fact that parliaments pass random resolutions on just about anything, such as national this or that day, or honorary so and so, etc. So, when put into full and proper context this is not really newsworthy. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbolic resolutions aren't "random", they're representative of a country's zeitgeist and often mentioned on Wiki (see eg. Mother's Day, Earth Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day). The only question is where to put this[31][32][33] and in what form. François Robere (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just no. Undue etc, it shouldn’t even have to be said. Volunteer Marek 08:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? Isn't an event attended by the PM and the President, and approved by parliament, notable? It's clearly not DUE here, but wouldn't you put it on eg. the initiating MP's page ("So and so led the move for a symbolic recognition..." etc.)? François Robere (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There is already an article on The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just realized we have a suitable section right here: Poland#Religion. It's already full of interesting details (mostly) about Christianity in Poland, so why not?[34] François Robere (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, UNDUE for this article, especially with the sources being borderline stuff like Vice or whatever cbn is. Volunteer Marek 17:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Better?[35] You don't dispute the facts of the edit, right? So why isn't it DUE? François Robere (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a feeling on this one way or another. But I did just notice that a remark, the most recent one, was removed by someone other than the person who made it. That remark argued for the position contrary to the one being argued by the person who removed the remark. It wasn't abusive; it presented a reasonable argument about which reasonable people could reasonably disagree. I hope it wasn't removed because someone felt that it tended to support the "wrong" view, Uporządnicki (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not walking back on what I just said. But I do notice that the person who added the comment that was removed here NOT ONLY added substantial text about the declaration naming Jesus as King of Poland, but also inserted the data into the infobox in the Government section along with the President and Prime Minister. Whatever the right answer might be about the article, I hardly think it belongs there. And in any case, centuries ago, the Blessed Virgin Mary (Our Lady of Czestochowa) was crowned Queen of Poland. That is not mentioned in the article (there is a separate article). I think either both points belong or both points do not. But as for the infobox, if it will name Jesus as King, then it should name the Virgin Mary as Queen. And no, I don't think the infobox should do either. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Pointless and confusing discussion (WP:TEND, WP:Not forum etc.)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This discussion is pointless and should close ASAP. I'm shocked that it continues to this day. Simply shows that Wikipedians are falling for the same joke/trap as others did, all orchestrated on purpose by the heads of the Polish Church and some ruling members of the current populist government. If you look on Polish Wikipedia, not even a mention of this topic exists. François Robere do not add any content before discussion is achieved. Much appreciated. Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC) I could be mistaken, but I sense a certain antipathy towards the Catholic Church--whether just in Poland or otherwise--(and I do not say Polish Catholic Church because there is an entity, actually sort of America, that can arguably be called that and it's not the same) and the "current populist government." Not to mention a--one hopes, unintended--dictatorial tone: "... do not add any content ...," and not a single "proszę" to be seen. Uporządnicki (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Piotrus and Volunteer Marek this discussion is becoming disruptive and is starting to border on trolling, as one editor now tried to adjust the article's Infobox to include the King of Poland as the head of state, apparently based on this discussion. Perhaps this discussion should be escalated to an admin board. Poland is NOT a constitutional monarchy, so the talk of including this symbolic parliamentary resolution is ridiculous (it did not change the nature of Poland's government, or restored the monarchy ...seriously). Also, I would have to argue that user François Robere's approach and comments were key in exacerbating this issue, this coupled with his recent (and rather crude) comments about the Trump administration on the Talk:History of Poland page, only confirms a lack of merit in these discussions. Again, based on the fact that Poland is NOT a constitutional monarchy, you can't argue that Poland has a king, and persistent arguments to include this reference can be construed as disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Completely undue and assigning importance to purely symbolic gesture.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC) The Sejm decided. Had a vote. Decided Jesus is King. Big ceremony. Big statue. Largest statue in the world. 3m crown. Sejm thinks this important. Polish people think this important. Needs to be in article.Volodya's song (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Tough one, whilst too silly for words this is a purely symbolic gesture with out real substance it also does look to be official, but in what capacity (as it is still a republic with a president). Yes it should be mentioned, I am just non too sure how.Slatersteven (talk)Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Slatersteven, this discussion is starting resemble trolling, also statements about this resolution such as "too silly for word" is also coming across as ridicule of religion and is violation of Wikipedia guidelines. --E-960 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC) I make no apologises for the choice of words, Poland is a republic, so it cannot have a KING, otherwise it is a monarchy (and thus should not have president). Is he legally head of state? What are his official functions? What exactly is the point of this decision? All of this (and more) makes it look like just a bit of grandstanding that has not real legal power or meaning.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Your apology or lack there of is irrelevant, you start to make disrespectful remarks about religious topics and the Wikipedia admins will decide. --E-960 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC) OK, then I have changed it, and as it seems to have no substantive meaning I cannot see a reason to include it now. This is no different from declaring the official state cloth or official State Children's Flower. It is symbolic, and no more.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC) @Slatersteven and E-960 I would like to close this discussion right here as it's useless and only plays into the hands of potential trolls and vandals [36]. Please disengage.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC) I don't think we need to close the discussion, but I agree there is no need to mention this topic in the article, it's a minor trivia. No prejudice if someone want to write the article about the concept of Jesus Christ King of Poland, which could be linked from Religion in Poland or Christianity in Poland I guess (or discussed in a single sentence in the body of those articles, I guess...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Piotrus, pls see WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:DROPTHESTICK — this discussion is disruptive and lacks merit, what was the point adding an image of the statue to this thread?? Does someone think that the picture acts as some kind of a reliable reference source in this disscussion? Some of the posts here are starting to border on ridicule of religion and are nearing the line of being offensive. --E-960 (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC) You are right that wP:NOTAFORUM, but I am not sure if there is much we can do. I think only administrators can close threads. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Oliszydlowski:. BTW, I have noted article on Christianity in Poland is currently redirect to Religion in Poland even though we have separate article on for example Islam in Poland. So integration of Counterreformation in Poland with History of Christianity in Poland and changing redirect could be interesing... As for Our Lady of Częstochowa (mentioned by Piotrus and Urządnicki), the article actually since years include Black Madonna but I would link either of Our Lady of Częstochowa and Our Lady of Poland too, because of article on Mexico include either of Our Lady of Guadalupe and Basilica of Guadalupe, and article on France include either of Our Lady of Paris and Notre-Dame de Chartres; Beyond that this edition Oliszydlowski added multiple Polish customs which are less common and universal than Marian cults (let compare Turoń with Our Lady of Poland as for views on PLwiki); Our Lady of Poland got own portal on PLwiki, is in Polish' Wikipedia canon, was 281 in pl:Wikipedysta:Wiki ViewStats/TOP 500 and represents unique Marian Cults in Poland. There would be no problem with that. Our Lady of Częstochowa can be comparable to Our Lady of Paris. Our Lady of Częstochowa - painting art work, Our Lady of Paris - architecture work - simple. Recent trivias (the discussion above) of course should not be mentioned in the article on Poland but centuries archetypes can be and in the articles on centuries archetypes (or more particular like Christianity in Poland) maybe we could discuss those trivia.

I have started this dicsussion because of we have point we could create new article - christianity in Poland and we could include info about Our Lady of Poland (just see how weak pageviews per day this has on ENwiki in comprasion to others:[37]/[38]). Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Christianity in Poland should obviously have its own article. It overalps only partially with religion in Poland, which is a broader topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Top

I am just wondering if it wouldn't be better to replace the word "subdivisions" with "provinces" in the lead section [eg. 16 administrative provinces]. The term subdivision may refer to many aspects of a region, whereas a province is more comprehensible and direct. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Subdivision" is more general, while "province" can be a formal term used by government agencies. As such, I would only use it if sources support that use. If they do (as Voivodeships of Poland suggest), then go ahead; otherwise I'd leave it as is or do something like "16 voivodeships (provinces)". François Robere (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We should avoid generalizations, plus there is no supporting source for the general term "subdivision". Britannica and all government and travel agencies use the term "16 voivodeship provinces". Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Only governmental agencies, scholars or notable newspapers (or similar media) should matter here. If you can source it, then I suggest we go with the parentheses option. François Robere (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It is quite obvious though and I do not see how sources would need to justify this. Also, what do you mean by parentheses? [eg. 16 administrative provinces (voivodeships)?] Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Why sourcing? Because there are many different terms for regional divisions: districts, counties, provinces, communes, parishes, departments, etc. etc. Some are interchangeable, some aren't; if we use a specific term (as opposed to the general "subdivision"), then we should justify it with a source (nothing fancy, even a good dictionary is enough).

"16 voivodeships (provinces)". François Robere (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I will provide some sources and clarification soon. Also, we should avoid brackets/parentheses in the very first paragraph as any information contained within that bracket will not be visible on Google descriptions. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Abortion

The Wikipedia article on Poland only has one sentence about the abortion laws under the section entitles “Law” (“Abortion is permitted only under special circumstances, such as when a woman's life or health would be in danger by the continuation of pregnancy or when the pregnancy is the result of a criminal act.”). It would be beneficial to include more about the types of restrictions, such as abortions only permitted in cases of rape, incest, or fetal abnormalities. Right now, there are contentious debates and protests surrounding the restrictive abortion laws in Poland, mainly due to the fact that the government want to make them more restrictive by taking away the permittance of abortion in cases of fetal abnormalities. The vote on the ban has been pushed back because of the public outcry and protests occurring as I write this. I have included a link to New York Times article that explains the situation that should be included in this Wikipedia article. Pronczuk, Monika. “Poland Delays a Near-Total Ban on Abortion.” The New York Times. The New York Times, November 4, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/world/europe/poland-abortion-law-delay.html. Women for WikiWomen for wiki (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll add the mention. François Robere (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the mention about abortion. I removed only the part about the most recent law because it has not been imposed and the date of enactment is uncertain or unknown (delayed). The article should be based on facts and what has already occurred. As soon as that law is imposed (which I hope it won't) then it will be suitable to place it in the article again. Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the new text. The original statement simply said when abortion is allowed, and the reader can decide if this is good or bad. In this high level article inserting a statement which reads "most restrictive abortion laws" is a liberal point of view, and it does not contain a counter balance. In any case, this is not the article to start inserting various points of view. This is a high level article, which just states what the law prescribes, not how to view it based on ideology... "pro-life" or "pro-choice". --E-960 (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Also, I'll ask all the editors to refrain from inserting personal opinions into this discussion, this is Wikipedia not a forum. So, comments on whether you are for or against something are somewhat inappropriate in this setting. --E-960 (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources call Polish abortion laws are the "most restrictive in Europe" or an "almost total ban" [39]. This is fact.--HQGG (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC) <---— HQGG (talk • HQGG) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Oliszydlowski: I'm okay with not mentioning it here at the moment, but after the dust has settled this would be worth mentioning as a major change attempted by the PiS government. Also, I do want a separate subsection for gender/sexual orientation issues, since they're often viewed as a distinct subject in the context of conservative vs. progressive politics. François Robere (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

HQGG, do not edit war. The issue is not about the source, but about context, as stated before this is the LAW section, not the Abortion in Poland article, its purpose to simply present the what the law says, not what some might think about it or how they view it. Every time some issue hits the news someone wants to make that the highlight of this article, and this is not the place for it, because this article covers a lot of stuff, that's why you have topic specific articles. --E-960 (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources state specifically that abortion is almost entirely banned in Poland due to pressure from Catholic groups.--HQGG (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC) <---— HQGG (talk • HQGG) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Stop edit warring, and re-read what I wrote regarding neutrality and undue weight in the context of this article. --E-960 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I re-read what you wrote. Neutral reliable sources, the BBC and the NEW YORK TIMES, state that abortion is virtually banned due to Catholic pressure. It is neutral to state this.--HQGG (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)<---— HQGG (talk • HQGG) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@HQGG (and ONLY HQGG), you're mistaken. Stop edit warring. Thank you so much. :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: - There is really no need for any subsections which would contain two or three sentences. There are no such subsections in other EU country articles on Wikipedia. And the title "Gender and sexual orientation" does not correspond to abortions in any way. I think it is a step too far. Moreover, mentioning any future plans with uncertain outcomes, dates etc. is not a good idea. As I said we mention facts as of now. Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, your behavior is again disruptive. You not able to accept that fact that in this is a high level article and it is already too long, so we don't need to add your pet topics, whatever they might be. Pls respect the fact that this is a summary article, and we do not need to expand it even further. --E-960 (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

E-960's removal of sourced content is disruptive.--HQGG (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)<---— HQGG (talk • HQGG) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

HQGG, please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle — you added new material, and above in the discussion it was explained why it was reverted, please respect the article and other editors. --E-960 (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your pleading doesn't hold water as it is contradicted by reliable sources.--HQGG (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)<---— HQGG (talk • HQGG) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Totally agree with users Oliszydlowski, E-960 and User:GizzyCatBella. Stop pointless editing war and have respect to other users. NeonFor (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: That's a bit dishonest, isn't it? You never claimed that "this is a high level article" (Oliszydlowski's argument, which I find more compelling than yours), so why are you now stating that me reverting you on completely different grounds is "disruptive"? You wrote, and I quote: POV. The original statement on abortion used neutral langue, simply stating when abortion is allowed, thus allowing the reader to decide if this is good or bad. Inserting statements which include words like "restrictive" is POV.[40] That is clearly wrong per WP:DUE, so I restored the previous text and added a few scholarly sources to establish "due weight".[41][42][43] Also, I find your reference to LGBT and women's civil rights as "pet topics" disrespectful. François Robere (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC) @Oliszydlowski: Agreed, and trimmed the section further. François Robere (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, I reverted your latest salvo of changes. This is disruptive behavior, just like in past discussions on this talk page (and others) — whenever you don't get your way on some change, you throw a tamper tantrum and start making massive changes to everything. Now, you removed an entire paragraph about the legal history of Poland, and soon enough it will be some other topic. The LAW section is fine, and it certainly does not need more changes being pushed through in such a manner. --E-960 (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Please refrain from PA's and try to focus on substance, and recall that our last discussion ended when a preponderance of sources were shown to reject your position, and the article was changed accordingly.
2. By reverting the "latest salvo of changes" you're contradicting your own argument on this being a "high level article". In particular, legal history is not something we routinely cover in these articles.[44][45]
3. Do you have a policy-based argument for why these aren't DUE?[46][47] As I stated in the latter's edit summary, we do cover unusual legal issues, civil and human rights in these articles. François Robere (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The rule of this being a "high-level" article has been consistently applied on this page — on a regular basis the article gets editors who add text which is too detailed or to specific for this article, a while back it was something about traffic fatalities and budgets, etc. and all those edits were reverted. --E-960 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• In any case, your behavior is the same every time, no matter what the subject matter is, when you don't get your way you start to criticize the entire article and start making massive changes all over the place. --E-960 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The rule of this being a "high-level" article has been consistently applied Can you show me other articles of European nations where women's suffrage is highlighted in the "law" section? Or one where ancient constitutional changes are stressed, and current event minimized? François Robere (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Just stop, the issue here at this point is not any specific topic, but your tactics. We can list all the articles this happened on, you go into an article and start to make changes, if they get reverted, you make a bigger issue out of it and start to change even more text elsewhere in the article. This article is not perfect, but this kind of smash tactics are not welcome at this point and they are disruptive. This month is that topic, next month it will be something else. --E-960 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: I'm here to discuss content. If you'd rather discuss editors, then please take it to the Boards and stop derailing others' discussions. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I must point out that Wikipedia is a wiki - the whole point of it is that it can be edited. This article is an important article, but currently only "B class" (see above). It is not a Featured Article, so significant changes will be required to bring it to the point that its importance warrants. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jayjg: - what changes and moderations would you recommend or suggest in order to bring the article to a FA category? Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind assisting with bringing this article into the FA category... please let us know what could be done..- GizzyCatBella🍁 12:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not a simple matter to bring an article to FA status; here are some FA country articles for comparison: Cameroon, Canada, Chad, India, Japan, Rwanda. You could start by noting how they differ from this article. In any event, it's clear that changing this article is not bad, but rather something that would be required to improve its quality. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jayjg. @Oliszydlowski let's try to bring this article into the FA category. Are you up for the task? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - I will have a look next week and if I see anything to change I will let you know. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Reset

Would someone (François Robere?) forumlate the proposed change with references and then shift to an RfC - the discussion here is going no where -----Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: I thought Oliszydlowski and I reached an agreement. I'm content with this revision (diff), with the main changes being:

1. Trimming some historical stuff (general level article, etc.).
2. Inclusion of "comparatively restrictive" with regards to Poland's abortion laws (sources state they're "some of the most restrictive in Europe").
3. Mention of an "illegal abortion industry" (source refers to an "abortion underground" performing as many as 100,000 abortions a year; per NYT the number of legal abortions is 1,100).

Note we do include unusual legal circumstances in "general level" articles - for example the mob in Italy, or separation of church and state in France - as well as issues threatening civil and human rights (Russia and Belarus)

In the future I'd like a better connective between the two statements on homosexuality (currently a full stop), as well as a mention of the recent attempt at constitutional change, but at the moment the above is satisfactory. François Robere (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: compromise - Oliszydlowski objects to a separate subsection on gender and to a mention of the recent constitutional ruling, and I'm okay with that. They haven't opined on or reversed other changes, so I assume they are acceptable. François Robere (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also would object to the creation of a separate subsection, you could do this to almost every issue, environment, animal rights, poverty, human trafficking, child abuse, etc. Also, why do you want to include the word "restrictive" simply say "strict" (this is a neutral word and does not imply value one way or the other). Also, to mention the illegal abortion industry in this article is too much detail for one issue on this high-level page (as most women mostly go to across the border, and the claim should not be stated in Wikipedia voice). So my question is, out of all the issues that can fall under the Law section, why should we focus on those listed and create undue weight? I think the old text addresses all those matters and does so in a neutral language with links to the main articles for any one that wants to read further. --E-960 (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

why do you want to include the word "restrictive" That's the word sources use.

a neutral word and does not imply value one way or the other "Restrictive" is a factual description, not a value judgement. See eg. here: [48][49].

to mention the illegal abortion industry in this article is too much detail for one issue on this high-level page - Note we do include unusual legal circumstances in "general level" articles - for example the mob in Italy, or separation of church and state in France - as well as issues threatening civil and human rights (Russia and Belarus). The fact that women need to cross the border for a basic medical procedure is further proof that this is an extreme situations and worthy a mention.

too much detail for... this high-level page Again noting that you object to trimming bits of legal history, which we don't usually cover in such articles. François Robere (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, everyone has their pet topic, you can look at the talk page history of this article to see just how much content people tried to insert reacently, and they all though their issue was very important. You want to discuss Abortion in Poland there is an article for it, and you can add all the details you want, but here a simple neutral statement with a link to the main article is sufficient. Usually, the way this ends up (with controversial issues), is that more and more info is added to counterbalance the other statements and next thing you have is an entire paragraphs on just one matter in a country article. --E-960 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You're not actually engaging with what I wrote or citing policy. Also, again, I find your reference to LGBT and women's civil rights as "pet topics" disrespectful. François Robere (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, just stop, this has been your strategy for a very long time (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing), going form one article to another, covering various topics. I think anyone that goes back to the archive of this talk page's discussions can see that in the past you were also engaged in pushing some very questionable topics on this talk page. So, given this and your repeated accusations against other editors, all the while ignoring your own disruptive editing, I would recommend that you step back from current editing, instead of insisting that you want to make even more changes to the text. Given the circumstances, I don't think this is a good moment to keep insisting that your changes need to be added, it comes across as rather obnoxious and lacks introspection. --E-960 (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: I'm here to discuss content. If you'd rather discuss editors, then please take it to the boards and stop derailing regular TP discussions. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Following AN/3RR E-960 agreed to avoid discussing these issues, and I've went ahead and started an RfC below. François Robere (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox formations

Just a quick observation; should Congress Poland be part in the formations since Austrian Poland is absent? Or should Austrian Poland (Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria) be added, because I am certain that Congress Poland was much less autonomous, though neither were independent. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Both should be added.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC))

Keep as is — just Congress Poland. It issue goes back to the Congress of Vienna, when Congress Poland (official name: Kingdom of Poland) was declared a separate country, whose king was the Russian tsar. Congress Poland also had a separate Polish legislation, army and currency. In other words this was "Poland", while other partitioned regions (re-named) to the Grand Duchy of Poznan and Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria were ceded to Austria and Prussia. Btw, almost all Polish history books present the issue in the same way — Congress Poland being a direct continuity of a Polish states in one form or another (semi-autonomous in this case), while viewing Poznan and Galicia as lost Polish regions. This is different from the Partitions, because then Russia, Austria and Prussia, completely erased Poland. But in practice even after 1815, Poland was not independent and the core Polish regions divided. --E-960 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how Congress Poland was a successor state to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in any way. The Grand Duchy of Posen had no autonomy or political significance so it cannot be even considered, but the Austrian emperor held Polish titles. Moreover, the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria also had its own separate Polish legislation, parliament, and military units, not to mention the Grand Duchy of Kraków which was part of it. It also had a separate currency for some time I believe. Polish culture and education flourished in Galicia; most of the Polish academia was located there. I think it is either both or none in this case. Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I cared much of such issues you are discussing involving many states, so I reinforce you may add both without a problem, that would as well follow consistency and historical authenticity, they are genuine part of the formation process (and I won't go into the deep details). Hungary also broke to more parts, but it does not mean would not be part of the story, shall any outcome be later. KIENGIR (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: The problem adding it is the name (should it be Galicia, Kingdom of Galicia, or Austrian Poland) as well as the possible confusion between the dates (Galicia was founded after the first partition in 1772, yet the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist in 1795 with the third and last partition – it would seem as if Galicia started in 1772 and ended in 1795 in the infobox which is false). I think it would be appropriate to remove both Congress Poland and Galicia as these were not "fully" autonomous states with constitutions that guaranteed freedoms. They were parts of larger empires. The presence of the short-lived Duchy of Warsaw is also debatable as it was France's client (puppet) state under Napoleon's rule, though it did have a constitution granted by Napoleon. The Polish Government website states that "Poland was not in any way independent between 1795 and 1918 - for 123 years the country was not present on maps". Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, Congress Poland (aka: Kingdom of Poland) was the successor to the Polish Kingdom (the Russian Tsar held the formal title as the King of Poland) not the Commonwealth. Also, the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria was the successor to Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. Also, just to raise another point Krakow was not part of Galicia, but was the separate Grand Duchy of Kraków (so don't just lump them together, they were not). Also, the capital of Galicia was Lwów, in a reference to the old Galician kingdom (which now extended into Lesser Poland). --E-960 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: The Russian Tsar was a self-proclaimed king and usurper; just as was the polity Congress Poland created by the Congress of Vienna where no Polish representatives were present. It is foul to say it was in any way formal. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's just an opinion. Even then, the Polish legislation recognized the tsar as king of Poland at that time. In any case, same situation occurred after WWII the big 3 decided the fate of Europe, no one liked communist Poland, but no one can deny its formal existence, and most people in Poland do not recognize the tsar as the king of Poland during the 19th century, but in reality he was, same concept as with the Commonwealth, the Polish King was also the Grand Duke of Lithuania. --E-960 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether he held any titles or not (not internationally recognized?), Poland was then a polity. It was not independent at all; there was no autonomous formation. Per government site and most of other sources, 'Poland was not an independent state for 123 years in any way'. I think it would be more POV to say that his titles were "formal" as you said. The infobox should comprise only constitutional, recognized and territorially independent formations and not some political entity within an Empire. Oliszydlowski (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, not sure what you are trying to accomplish at this point? You are just stating your opinions, and it's becoming tedious — what does "territoriality independent formations" even mean? Btw, the word "polity" can be used to refer to both independent and autonomous states. Yes, Poland was not independent for 123 years, but until 1864, it was a semi-autonomous Kingdom of Poland. Also, to answer your question, yes this was internationally recognized, the tsar became the king of Poland — what do you think was the point of the Congress of Vienna. "The tsar would become king of Poland." "Congress Poland, with the tsar as king ruling it independently of Russia" Pls read the article on Congress Poland and review some of the sources. At this point, you are just trying to impose your opinions. --E-960 (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Guys, you are a bit overcomplicating.. would the "Third Partition" or the "Polish government-in-exile" be as an independent state? That section discusses historical events/fromations and it's relevant moments (it's just a matter of space/taste how detailed you do it, of course the representation may not be complete, it has not been apparently defined just independent entities may be present, see my sarcastic examples). But I won't comment here more about it, you Poles may decide what is important for you, but back to the original question, I would include both (shall it be anycountries infobox, I oppose only fringe or dubious inclusions, which is not the case regarding this two).(KIENGIR (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

@E-960: The point of a discussion is to achieve an outcome, regardless of whether it is tedious or not. If you consider Congress Poland a worthy formation for the reasons mentioned, then the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodoemeria is equally as important due to its semi-autonomous status. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not infobox material, its too detailed and needs explaining, what you are proposing is your own minority view vs. long standing content. Seriously, look at Galicia's coat of arms [50] and compare with Halych principality's shield [51]. Do you see the same motif, and do you realize that Galicia is the latinised version of Halychya, and the Austrians purposely recreated the old Rus principality/kingdom. The point of the infobox is not to cram every debatable detail, but to summarize the most noteworthy and universally accepted facts — why not include Grand Dutch of Poznan, Free city of Krakow, Free city of Gdańsk (1807–1814), Royal Prussia or Vistula Country (1867–1915). The infobox list is fine the way it is. --E-960 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References

First constitution?

Polish constitution of 1791 was not the first in Europe. Read wikipedia, colleagues. Even RS can err. The first one was Constitution of San Marino. It is not a surprize that this fact is not widely known.

Therefore I removed the Polish claim from the article. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. It seems that there is little point in a pissing contest here, because there is, e.g., such thing as the 1283 Catalan constitutions, and if someone starts to say that it is not a "true constitution" then we will have a good case of "No true Scotsman" at hand. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to retain the statement that says the Constitution of 3 May 1791 was the first in Europe or second in the World. Several historians to see it that way, Bill Moyers says that it was "Europe's first codified national constitution, and the second oldest in the world." Norman Davies calls it "the first constitution of its type in Europe". Albert Blaustein calls it the "world's second national constitution". I understand some will say that England had the first "unwritten constitution" but that's debatable and always came across a puffery. In practical terms, you would just call that "tradition" — the whole concept of a constitution is that the ideals are codified and written down. As for the Catalan constitutions (note the little "c" in constitutions) no one considers them "first", that would means the US Constitution is second in the world, that's not a mainstream view. --E-960 (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Interesting find: Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk. François Robere (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

hmm... but do any of the sources say that this is the first "modern" or "national" Constitution? I think the analysis of the documents by historians goes a bit deeper than just the use of the word "constitution" somewhere in the title, see "Pre-modern constitutions" --E-960 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, nor care. I find this race for superlatives unnecessary. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You "I don't know, nor care", so if you don't care why do you get involved in such a discussion? --E-960 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Because at best it reads like rubbish, and at worst is plain false. François Robere (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, as I mentioned earlier, it might be a better option if your simply removed yourself from contributing to this article if you feel that way, your comment only proves you are being disruptive. I mean, who joins a discussion just to write "I don't know, nor care", if you don't know or don't care about a topic than just leave it. Please be respectful of other editors and their efforts, as I'm trying to approach the discussion in a constructive manner and answer comments and question that are being presented by other editors. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, given your recent PAs[52][53] and admin warnings[54][55] (in a TA from which you were banned, in part, for PAs[56]), I would try to engage in some introspection, rather than dishing advice. Also, you may want to re-acquaint yourself with WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, since this discussion seems geared towards them. François Robere (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Pylyp Orlyk is one of pufferies Ukrainian nationalistic pseudohistorians pull in their attempts to rewritre their great history. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry colleague, you are falling into the fallacy of authority. I do not care what authorities say. They can be mistaken, not knowiung some little known fact. Other authorities say that Constitution of San Marino dates much earlier. THerefre please address my argument. Just say Yes or no:

Was. the. constitution. of San Marino. earlier. than. Polish. one.? If not, please prove your point. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

We go by what sources say. That's how Wikipedia works. It relies on "authority", i.e. reliable sources, not individual editor's "logic". Volunteer Marek 23:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes we do. Other sources say that San Marino was first. We have to resolve the contradiction among the sources. Did you read my arguments at all? Reliable sources can err. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then can you provide these other sources, because so far none have been provided.

And yes, reliable sources can err but you need to provide compelling evidence that this is the case. If the dispute is between a reliable source and an editor's personal opinion, the source wins. This is NOT a matter of just "logic" for various reasons (like the fact that the word "constitution" can have different meanings or standards and it's up to the source to decide which one of these is most appropriate) Volunteer Marek 00:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you think I invented this San Marino thing myself? Sources are cited in Constitution of San Marino and in other articles related to constitution. Just google "San Marino"+"Oldest constitution", for God's sake..Lembit Staan (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think you did, but I do think you're interpreting something that should be left for reliable sources to decide. Which *specific* sources in that other article do you think is appropriate here? Volunteer Marek 17:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is a pointless debate. The "experts" cited, to have any credibility, would need actual expertise in constitutional law. If you look at the history of constitutionalism, you would find that there is no possible way to date the oldest constitution, or the first "modern" one (whatever that means), because the idea of a constitution evolved gradually over time. According to Cornell University Law School, the Magna Carta (1215) was "Europe’s first written constitution".[57] Moyers has no legal expertise so that is why he is forgetting earlier British documents which were "codified national constitution". Another scholarly book states that Oliver Cromwell's Instrument of Government (1653) is often considered the first written constitution. These authors state that Cromwell's earlier "Third Agreement of the People" (1649) was "the first real constitution in modern European history". I would take any such claimed "firsts" with a big grain of salt because it depends a lot on how you define constitution and what you are counting. (t · c) buidhe 11:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This may all be true in some sense ("what is a constitution?" etc is certainly an interesting legal and intellectual question) but at the end of the day if historians call such and such "the first modern constitution" then we go with that. Of course if sources disagree then we can mention that (in this case probably in a footnote or such). Volunteer Marek 17:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this[58] a RS Buidhe? Anyway, the bottom line is that whatever one believes and speculates is irrelevant. Poland had adopted the first written modern constitution according to countless RS. I'll incorporate the above source into this article since it deals specifically with the subject of European Constitutionalism --> "Towards a European Constitution" Quote - "Poland had actually managed to pass a first progressive constitution on 3, May 1795; this was Europes first written constitution."GizzyCatBella🍁 15:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I hardly see a consensus among reliable sources that the Polish constitution is first, since as I stated above there are plenty of sources which cite other constitutions as having been first. Any source referring to a "progressive" or "modern" constitution is worthless unless it actually can define what that is. Instead, perhaps the solution is to be more specific about the particular features of this particular constitution and set it apart from earlier ones. (t · c) buidhe 18:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about "consensus" but it is very frequently mentioned, enough to merit inclusion. As far as this claim goes: "Any source referring to a "progressive" or "modern" constitution is worthless unless it actually can define what that is." No. If a source is reliable then it is not "worthless" and you can't dismiss it simply because the reliable source doesn't do what you want it to do. This is also original research. Volunteer Marek 19:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, explain to me what a "progressive" or "modern" constitution is. If you don't understand it, think twice about whether you should add it to the article. I doubt many readers have a clue, which is why I would suggest specifying what distinguishes the constitution from previous ones. (t · c) buidhe 20:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that this is the first modern European constitution and second in the world. At that point you really don't have an argument against removing the long standing statement. --E-960 (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind saying "one of the first modern constitutions in the world" instead of "the first". It is broad generalization, but simultaneously avoids placing misleading or incorrect information. We are certain, looking at the sources, that it was one of the first of its kind. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we say what the presented reliable sources say, not what François Robere or another editor think of it, their opinion is not a reference source. --E-960 (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we do not write what François Robere think. It seems that you did not read the discussion at all. The point is that there is no agreement between reliable sources, and we are not supposed to cherry-pick the ones which fit a particulat view. And the proper place to resolve the issue is in Talk:Constitution, where people are supposed to know about all constitutuoins :-), and where an RFC must be started. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

one of the first of its kind - "of its kind", eh? A perfect example of No True Scotsman fallacy I warned at the very beginning of this section. I bet for every constitution we can figure out the "kind" it was first of. For example I saw a ridiculous argument against declaring Constitution of San Marino to be the first one: It consisted of several volumes, rather than a single document. Very (dis)ingenuous, isn't it? Lembit Staan (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The reliable source clearly calls the May 3rd Constitution "Europe's first codified national constitution, and the second oldest in the world." If a reliable academic reference source says this, there is really no room for an editor to say, well I think the San Marino or the Catalan constitution was first, because at this point that's just their opinion. --E-960 (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It has been a decade since I looked into this; from what I remember a major issue is the definition of constitution. Please see Constitution_of_3_May_1791#Historic_importance. A number of reliable scholars call it first in Europe or second in the world, though there are dissenters, and qualifiers. There were earlier documents called constitutions, some predating the American one (in addition to the ones mentioned, I'll also throw the Corsican Constitution out there). Still, if anyone disputes Polish position as first in Europe and second in the world, please try to edit the claim of 'first' from the article on US Constitution (which has the qualifier of "permanent" and a footnote at Constitution_of_the_United_States#cite_note-12). Overall, we should follow reliable sources, and those usually call American first and Polish second and discuss the others in footnotes. Rather than waste time here, I'd suggest interested editors try to expand articles about those lesser know earlier constitutions, they are just stub or stub class :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged that statement.[59] Stating that the 1791 const. is "one of..." (possibly with a footnote) is fine by me, I'm just not sure why it has to be done in this article, let alone in the #Law section. We don't have anything of the sort in United States#Government and politics. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Not every article has to be based off the United States one. Moreover, the United States is neither a featured nor a good article. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not only the US, it's most countries. I've went through a sample of the 15 most populous countries in the EU (excluding Poland), and found the following: of the fifteen, only Turkey and France had more historical information; Spain had about as much (though much more recent - from the 1970's); the Netherlands has a single sentence, and the UK has a single sentence that elucidates current constitutional circumstances. So by and large the Law/Politics/Governance sections aren't used for historical details, and when they are it's usually tied to the current legal and constitutional situation. François Robere (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The source does not say "one of..." but "Europe's first national constitution" (modern in that sense, and what's already written). So, if we use that exact wording, we can differentiate between earlier constitutional documents, which were for principalities, hetmanates, etc. It's not the job of the editors to determine what is what, and how to view things, just what the source reads. Wikipedia:No original research. --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There two separate questions here: a) how to qualify it; and b) where to put it. I'm okay with qualifying it with "according to some sources" (or a footnote) and placing it in the #History section, I'm not okay with not qualifying it and placing it in the #Law section. François Robere (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that much problem with mentioning the constitution in both history and law section, but for brevity reasons, only one should contain any discussion of its significance ("first whatever"). And that "whatever" should reflect sources. Simple enough. Oh, and I have removed the adjective written, because seriously, just think about it - was there ever a constitution that wasn't written down? "LOL". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Because as previously stated, the #Law sections usually focus on the current legal state, not on short-lived ancient constitutions. Put differently - if a reader wishes to know the current state of legal affairs in Poland, this is of no value. François Robere (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, people talk about the British constitution, which isn't a single written document, so maybe there is, sort of, an unwritten constitution.

François, you've said repeatedly that you think that anything that hasn't happened in the last few years should be excluded. I disagree with you, and I think other people do, too. Also, in the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS range, I notice that Canada#Law refers to events of the 19th century and early 20th century. Surely a single sentence about events in the early 20th century that are still in force in Poland could be mentioned here, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The difference is that the statements in Canada#Law are not historical footnotes, but part of the current constitutional system (see British North America Acts and Constitution Act, 1982), which is not the case with the 1791 constitution, which was in force for less than two years. The fact of the matter is that we're only discussing this particular document on the off chance that we could state that it was "the first" of something. François Robere (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

And the current legal system in Poland allows women to vote, right? I don't see think this is different at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You're mixing two different issues: first - as a general-level country article we want to be up to date, so a constitution that is no longer in force and had little historical impact should not be described in #Law section. Second - we don't mention the obvious, like the fact Poland has a postal service.[60] If it did not, or if the legal situation was significantly different from that of other countries (for example in forbidding women's suffrage, or criminalizing abortion), then it would be notable and would merit an inclusion. François Robere (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC: Abortion rights and legal history in Poland#Law

This RfC has to do with the Law section in Poland.

1. The current wording states that "abortion is permitted only under special circumstances". Should this be changed to state that Polish abortion laws are restrictive (or some other permutation, such as "some of the most restrictive", etc.)?
2. Should the Polish illegal abortion "industry" be mentioned?
3. Should historical details, such as the year of women's suffrage, be trimmed?

François Robere (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes to all (as nom). Reasoning given below. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• 1. Yes. "most restrictive", 2. briefly. At most a sentence. 3. Clarify. Currently I only see one sentence (i.e. "In 1918 the Second Polish Republic became one of the first countries to introduce universal women's suffrage."). You want to trim it by removing the date? Seems trivial. I'd lean towards keeping the date there. NickCT (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • See these diffs: [61][62] The reason is twofold: firstly, as several editors have pointed out, this is a "general level article", and while there's a variety of structures used for the #Government and politics sections, they don't usually go to this level of historical detail (cf. Germany, Czech Republic and Ukraine). Second, articles on Poland have a tendency for flourishes that read too much like WP:ADVERTs - "sandy beaches",[63] "intricate history"[64] and the like, up to and including false and misleading statements. For example, the statement "[Poland was] one of the first countries to introduce universal women's suffrage" seems lost when you look at the Timeline of women's suffrage; and the reference to the 1791 constitution, "one of the first of its kind in Europe", neglects to mention that it was only in force for less than two years. FYI, the phrase "Poland does not criminalize homosexuality..." was originally something like "never criminalized homosexuality", but it turned out being misleading and was changed. Bottom line: it's about brevity and WP:PUFFERY, but I'm open to suggestions on exactly how these should be achieved. François Robere (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: - re "articles on Poland" - Just Poland?  ;-) Here's the thing; if I'm notable for doing something first (e.g. NickCT was the first person to make a logical argument on Wikipedia), then the date becomes relevant b/c a reader will naturally ask "when". For the specific sentence we're talking about, if the Second Polish republic really was one of the first to introduce women's suffrage, we ought to include the date.

re "only in force .... for less than two years" - I'm not seeing that. Where is that? Is that in Timeline article? If that was true, then yes, I agree this statement would be misleading. NickCT (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm notable for doing something first... a reader will naturally ask "when" Agreed. Problem is "one of the first" is so vague, that it's easy to abuse: is it "one of the first five"? "Ten"? "Twenty"? At one point do we say "that's no longer notable? Poland passed universal suffrage in 1918, so you be the judge.

NickCT was the first person to make a logical argument on Wikipedia NickCT was very likely one of the first. François Robere (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

suffrage... for less than two years - irrelevant, because this was because Poland was partitioned and ceased to exist. In 1918 it was restored, together with suffrage. So yes, Poland was among the first and suffrage continuity matched the continuity of the state. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Very much relevant. Constitutions aren't only declaratory, they're functional and changing documents. If a constitution hasn't had time to get tested - hasn't materialized over time into concrete mechanisms of state - that's something the reader deserves to know.

As for constitutional continuity (I assume that's what you meant) - I'm not clear on how that claim sits with the Small Constitution and the April Constitution. François Robere (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont care to legalities; this is talk page, not article. I take my words back about suffrage; the women gained political rights, but I am lazy to check to what extent. By the way, in 1918 Poland was one of the first 11 :-) European states to introduce voting rights for women. So I agree, "one of the first" is kinda overbragging here. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to all the abortion situation is highly irregular, at least in Europe. Deserves a mention. It contrast, I don't see the weight for women voting. It isn't mentioned in Czechoslovakia where women got the vote the same year. (t · c) buidhe 12:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• No to all And especially NO to a second one. NYT is not even close to be a reliable source. The number they "propose" is far from being in line with reality. Putting some supposition in to an article is not allowed and there are no any reliable source to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonFor (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Abstrain on first, it is not worded clearly. No to the two others, first is trivial and not major enough to be added here, second is more relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it's so "trivial" for the 150,000-200,000 Polish women who are refused this basic medical service every year and need to find "alternatives". François Robere (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    • This is an encyclopaedia, not an advocacy pamphlet. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• 1. Neutral 2. NO 3. Neutral - I think the current wording is highly factual and to the point - short, brief and informative. Sourced too. I don't see the purpose of placing "one of the most". I think the use of the word "restrictive" is sufficient in my personal opinion. Perhaps separate Wikipedia articles should be created for this topic if it hasn't yet. A strong NO to the second point about the industry; it is not something the country is known for by locals or foreigners so why should it be on the main page; how does this industry operates and does it affect the country directly; are the stats true or exaggerated by media? Is it POV? This is not some trivia page about drugs, closeted abortion, illicit activities etc. Perhaps a separate article for that can be made. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• No to 3, as suffrage rights are well-studied and easily sourced events. A brief history of key moments in the country's legal history is WP:DUE and appropriate. Also, I think this should have been at least two separate discussions (abortion-related vs non-abortion-related proposals). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @WhatamIdoing: Please see separate discussion below, including review of similar sections in other articles. The bottom line is that of 15 articles that I checked, only three gave as much (or more) historical information in that section. François Robere (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Other articles are worse than this one on that point? Okay, let's fix the other articles, not break this one to match the worse ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I don't usually make appeals to convention, but in this case the convention of almost exclusively showing up-to-date information makes sense. A reader looking at Poland wishes to answer the question "what is Poland?", and we answer with more or less up-to-date information in all but two sections (History and Culture - which would be more properly titled "Culture and Heritage"): the current GDP, current structure of government, current literacy statistics etc. If they wish to explore historical data, there are "History of..." articles branching from the main. François Robere (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to all per François Robere - Idealigic (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to all.
  • Item 1: Strict restriction of abortion isn't just discussed in reliable sources, it is a headline issue for some of the most prominent news sources. In addition to the sources below, The Economist headlined an article in October Terminal Ferocity: Poland’s abortion rules are now among the strictest in any rich country. I think the phrasing 'among the strictest of any rich country' captures how this is characterized in these sources.
  • Item 2: Yes, because this is receiving significant coverage in the same reliable sources. Restrictions are the action, while illegal abortion, mortality and more unplanned pregnancies are the result. To discuss one without the other doesn't make sense.
  • Item 3: One of the first 11 countries to have women's suffrage, as pointed out above, isn't notable, and puffery to call this 'one of the first'. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• 1. YES, it's a well-sourced fact; 2. Neutral, leaning NO - I would certainly not call it "industry", as it's not an organised sector of commercial activity (rather, "I know of a gynaecologist who doesn't mind doing abortions in his/her clinic"). 3. No, why? — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• No to all. 1. - Current version is way more neutral. We should avoid comparisons in favor of pure, informative facts. That's exactly what we already have in article when it comes to this topic. 2.Sounds like vague suppositions. Completly unnecessary and undue for a main article. 3. Valuable infromation, well-sourced, served short and clear. Mainpoint88 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• 1. Sources describe Polish abortion laws as "some of the most restrictive in Europe". "Restrictive" is not necessarily a value judgement (though per WP:DUE that shouldn't matter), but a description of legal state (cf. [65][66]). Since we follow RS and aim for colloquial English, this change is straightforward.
  2. We usually mention unusual legal or criminal situations on [[State#Law]] sections, for example the mob in Italy#Law and criminal justice, or separation of church and state in France#Law. We also mention issues of civil and human rights in other sections, such as in Russia#Foreign relations and Belarus#Human rights. Illegal abortions in Poland are one such issue: according to one estimate, the number of illegal abortions performed in Poland annually is around 100,000, with as many as 50,000 more performed abroad; only 1,100 abortions are performed legally. Mentions of the "underground" in literature go back to at least 1999 and its existence is common knowledge, with services frequently being published as anonymous ads with phrases such as "full service", "complex procedures" and "discreet". Despite the protections granted to American women under Roe v. Wade, the issue is serious enough to be discussed in the articles of at least four US states (Alabama, Georgia, Utah and West Virginia); lacking those protections, the issue is surely serious enough to be mentioned here.
  3. [[State#Law]] sections usually summarise the current legal situation, including constitutional structure and unusual legal and criminal issues; they don't usually mention historical details, and shouldn't here either. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

References

Upgrading to GA or FA

I have just started to trim or rephrase some of the content; the ultimate goal is for the article to achieve a GA or FA status. Help or any advice would be much appreciated for anybody :). @E-960: I am going to be straightforward and say it early before I proceed with some of the changes; the religion section must be shortened and one or two images must be removed. I propose we keep Pope John Paul II due to his international recognition/reputation; it is an image you added. Only then a graphic can be placed in the Health section; I do not mind what it will represent and it would be even better if all users can choose/vote. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've seen the diffs and I think you're moving the article in the right direction. François Robere (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick look:

• Lacking lots of sources as many paragraphs say multiple points of fact but have no sources attached directly to them for verification WP:PROVEIT.
• Section on "Waters" is huge and other need a trim as you mention .....rule of thumb for summary overview main articles sections are somewhat the same as leads Wikipedia:DETAIL...no Wikipedia:Main article fixation.
• Try your best to have paragraphs of information over stand alone sentences WP:PARAGRAPH.
• Image over load ...lots of sandwiched text and a few sections were the image causes lots of white space in mobile view because placement is to low MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
• There are a few charts like "Weather" and "Corporations" (that I personally would not have as a section) ...any way they can be turned in to prose MOS:USEPROSE?
• Never seen songs in a country article before can we expand on how relevant they are as they seem out of place.

--Moxy 🍁 15:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thank you for your detailed comment! I have already rephrased and restructured the Geography section. Can you please view it? Feel free to change any of the written content or improve it. I will do the other parts tomorrow and I will also add more sources if necessary. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help, I am the main author of this from a while back. It was also the article that made me give up on FA - I had a terrible FA experience here, with two or three editors saying this needs to be copyedited by a native speaker, which it got, then they each objected to something that was fixed, started fixing it themselves, started objecting to one another copyediting, and derailed it. Hopefully, you get better luck. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I am wondering if you could help in selecting an image for the 'Health' section, or perhaps suggesting a location. Also, it'd be great if you could express your opinion regarding the removal of two images in 'Religion' (or replacement). I am unsure which one to keep. Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: @Piotrus: @Moxy: - The Jagiellon University image is very dark and hard to see; it does not necessarily suit the one below it. Can you have a look at these? It's the same location and angle but better visual representation/quality – 1, 2 or 3. Which one works best in your opinion? Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think just having one image is sufficient in this section at this point, so no point in keeping the Gdańsk university picture. Also, I'm not a fan of the idea that one editor is just dictating everything and forcing wholesale changes to the article (it's one thing to fix sources, grammar, etc.), but now it's like a diktat... we are going to changes images here and here, and you have an option of picking image 1, 2 or 3. --E-960 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: Please do not make things more difficult. All I ask for is cooperation and not needless image removal and selection just by you. Several images in this article have been imposed by you in the past (Warsaw Arsenal, architecture of Kazimierz Dolny, Częstochowa, Wajda, Supreme Court and others) so please don't suggest that I dictate this in any way. Moreover, there are sections which can perfectly handle two images. Also, the new Jagiellonian University picture is highly outdated (before renovation), perhaps it's better to wait for the opinion of other users. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... first off, I'm pretty sure one of the other editors said that there is an "image over load", that mean that at this point, when text was removed there are too many images in the smaller sections. Also, some of your argument just sound bizarre, you don't like the Collegium picture because it is "highly outdated (before renovation)", Seriously... do you understand that there was never one major renovation and that constantly there are periodic renovations focusing on particular structural elements (I can go into detail, but I'll refrain). So, this one strange statement comes on top of your other factually questionable initiatives, such as trying to change references to the fact that Poles are a Slavic peoples, the whole Kingdom of Galicia thing, or when you vehemently argued that Łodż should not be listed as one of the major cities in Poland (despite the fact that it has the 3rd largest population of any city in Poland) — just to name a few. --E-960 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• And, since you mentioned Wajda — it was in response to your insistence to have an image of Roman Polanski as the face of Polish filmography, despite the fact that he made his career in the US and made American movies. --E-960 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

None of these changes were accepted and I am fine with that. I am not here for a spit spat with users over past edits, especially ones unrelated to the Poland page. My goal is to reach a consensus every time on talk pages regardless of my personal opinion, sources etc. Also, these "questionable" edits suggested I clearly explained on talk pages, with references or arguments to support. In regards to this article's image overload, the other editors pointed it out before I started removing some of the pictures. What's bizarre is your argument on periodic and major renovation...what does this strange information have to do with the fact that the recent files show the courtyard cleaned and entirely renovated, and on yours (from 2008!) it isn't? I just think it is highly appropriate to place a recent image on the page, it's logical. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: What do you think should be done to advance this article to GA/FA level? Oli is following Moxy's advice as an uninvolved reviewer; what constructive changes would you like to see? François Robere (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, you can't be serious! This is the image of Collegium Maius you originally added a few days ago, here [67]. The image is dated 2008, and your argument against my image choice was that it is "highly outdated (before renovation)" despite that fact that the image I added, here [68], is from 2008. Also, the other images you propose are of Collegium Novum, so its not even the same building, one was built in 1492 and the other in 1887. Unfortunately, many of your edits and arguments are simply factually inaccurate, this is just another example. --E-960 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Taking this into consideration, I would suggest that this improvement effort focuses on things like reference source citation clean-up, grammar, punctuation and trimming the text — and skip the adding of new statements and/or images. --E-960 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Oliszydlowski: I don't think we should limit ourselves on text, but can we put off the image overload issue for the time being? François Robere (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's great we have people interested in fixing it, but setting aside the simmering NPOV issues related to the current politics and such, there is a lot of work to be done. This article is still barely B-class. It has unreferenced sentences. It has content referenced to low-quality sources - I just removed some blog/forum/youtube lowest denominator stuff, but a lot more needs to be upgraded. It makes editoralized, unattributed claims like "Notable Polish sportspeople include " - notable according to whom? Or " The Witcher, a fantasy series by Andrzej Sapkowski, is the best example of contemporary Polish fiction." (probable, but unreferenced and unattributed). References need proper formatting (books need page numbers, etc.). EVERY referenced sentence needs verification b/c I wouldn't trust text source integrity here at all. I will see if I can help a bit with the references, but getting this to GA alone will be quite challenging. PS. I am not commenting much on images b/c we have much more serious problems to address, and adding or removing one or two images given the current major problems with references and such is a bit like talking about the shade of courtains while the walls are crumbling and the roof is leaking :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - Thank you for pointing this out! I will resume the work when I am finished with Wrocław. I also added a source for Sapkowski claim. Not sure if it is appropriate enough, but it does highlight the importance of his works to contemporary Polish literature. Besides the references, is the newly-rephrased content in the article well-written and concise (eg. Geography and Demographics sections)? Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: It's easy to find a source saying that The Wicher is important in Polish pop-culture, but first, the added source is not very reliable ([69] - it cites Wikipedia in its bibliography). It may squeak for a B-class, maybe GA, I doubt it would be allowed for a FA. We could add [70], for example, it is more reliable. But second, none of the sources I see seem to repeat the claim that the series is "best example of contemporary Polish fiction". Best how? Frankly, it was the game series, not the novels, that became a hit, the novels were a hit in Poland but only became a moderate bestseller in the West after the games became big. Also, what is contemporary fiction? Tokarczuk got the N-prize and is celebrated by the mainstream, the Witcher remains the fantasy/popculture 'junk food'. No discrespect, I grew up on the series and I love it, BUT if we want to say this is THE BEST modern Polish fiction has, we need solid sources for such a claim. PS. I'd rather say something about The Witcher video games than books in this article. The video games became big outside Poland, the books did not. PPS. Stanisław Lem still has more critical respect, I think, and I think this article should mention Lem before Sapkowski. Ping User:Lembit Staan. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - Perhaps it is not the source or the notion, but the word choice itself that's the problem. Maybe "a good example" or "internationally-recognized" would sound more appropriate than "best" per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Maybe adding "much-celebrated in pop culture" (as you stated above) would also be correct? Sadly, the great works of Tokarczuk and classics by Lem have been set aside by the fact that Sapkowski's work was turned into a [very successful] game. They are not as internationally recognized by the common public. Also, would Lem be considered "contemporary"? Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: "much-celebrated in pop culture" and "internationally-recognized" seem much better than vague "best". As for Lem, hmmm, good point. I would still like to have him mentioned here, if possible, as representing Polish sci-fi (Sapkowski can represent the fantasy genre). Of course, there is a question of which genras should have their representatives here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed down on the lead as I felt it was pretty bloated previously, hopefully we can get this to GA real soon. I do think 5 paragraphs is still a handful though, and it should be reduced to at least 4. Canada is a great example. Liberaldemocrat (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Liberaldemocrat: I just tagged like half of the culture section as unreferenced. This needs a LOT of work before it is even B-class, not even GA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - Done. Can you please check the Literature section and see if what I've added sounds less vague. Cheers! Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: Nice, through I don't think fantasy needs mentioning in two separate sentences. Ćould we merge them? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Now that I look at it even further...yeah you're right. The references on the lead section are messy as well IMO. Perhaps some could be removed as per MOS:CITELEAD? For one, I don't think we really need a reference for Poland's geographical location... Liberaldemocrat (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Liberaldemocrat: If you mean central vs eastern Europe or such, this has been subject to some major discussions/etc. in the past, so I think this very much needs a reference. You wouldn't believe how many people think this matters, and that the term eastern Europe is pejorative... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - I addressed all the citation gaps with published sources. Is there anything else that needs attention in order to upgrade this article to a B-grade status? Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: Impressive. There are however also numerous missing citations in the earlier sections, I am not tagging them right now, but just a quick look at the history section alone shows dozen+ of unreferenced paragraphs. There are also unformatted citations (bare URLs). Addressing this might be enough for B-class, but for GA, we will need to format citations properly (using cite templates) and the main task will be to verify that every fact is referenced. I suspect that a lot of paragraphs with a reference at the end need more references, as such reference may only be for the last sentence. We will have to go sentence by sentence through this... Starting a the top, the second reference in etymology is to a 1986 book, with no page range, it is effectively useless and will need replacing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - Very well. Thank you for your feedback. I will address these issues shortly. I have also improved (sources mainly) the article "Lady with an Ermine" and nominated it for a GA-status. Can you please review it? Cheers! Oliszydlowski (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Video games

@Piotrus: What you've done by removing famous video games from the list and leaving there first two instalments of Witcher is totally not acceptable. The Witcher became famous worldwide as a series with its thrid game. Almost every single game you irresponsibly deleted from this list became way more popular than the Witcher 1 & 2. Moving in this direction is downgrading this article to C-class rather than uprgading to GA. NeonFor (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@NeonFor: Those games are hardly famous, and the reference provided was very niche. We might as well list some random Polish book titles, movie titles, TV series titles or pop songs. None of those games won major international rewards or received coverage comparable to the Witcher. (Btw, if I removed W3, that was accidental, I totally agree W3 should be included - PS. I checked and W3 has not been removed, so please check what you read/write better, TIA). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems you're not familiar enough with video game industry. First of all these games aren't hardly famous. I.e Dying Light has been sold in more than 17 milion units. Is this "hardly famous" for you? Major international rewards are not only indicators of level of fame. Second of all - there are only few games around the whole industry which recieved coverage comparable to the Witcher 3 - if we take this as determinant than almost any other title shouldn't be mentioned anywhere (except for the very detalied in-depth vide games articles). Third of all: I didn't mention anything about W3 being not included, so I think it's not me who should read better - what I mentiond is W1/W2 are included while games like Dying Light (which sold millions copies more than W1 & W2 combined!) or This War of Mine (which became the first video game on the planet added to the recommended reading list in school) are not. Just no offence, but please just leave this paragraph alone, I will take care about it and provide some "non- niche" reference (which is extremly easy to find btw). Oh and one more thing... Cyberpunk 2077 IS already out :) NeonFor (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind removing linsks to W1 and W2. If good sources are found about importance of some other titles we can add them, but as you say yourself, few titles if any received as much attention as W3, and we have to remember this article is about Poland, not video game industry of Poland or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I would make a reference to the The Witcher video game series as the series itself is very popular, and then reference Cyberpunk 2077, since in this case the individual game is popular. I think that's sufficient for video game references in this article. --E-960 (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: - Like User:Piotrus has stated, let's leave images until last. First the sources need attention. Also, it'd be nice to know why you are keen on replacing a notable religious site which isn't Catholic. Some versatility is appropriate. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Image dispute

I think the image of the synagogue should be changed out with the Slavic Zbruch idol — this reference is connects to the Lechitic tribes and the text about early Slavic beliefs. --E-960 (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an article mostly about Poland 966AD+, so "de facto" when Poland was established as a state. Any images and references of pagan beliefs should be in an appropriate article about the West Slavic/Lechitic/Polish tribes. Furthermore, why should this article correspond to broad Slavic beliefs. Such things should be included in the Slavic paganism page. There is no argumentative reason why something from over a 1000 years ago and something not widely practiced now should be included. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, only the most significant images should be added, with "variety". I do not see how an idol of a rarely practiced cult is more vital over a UNESCO-protected oldest Jewish house of worship for Poland's once most prominent religious minority? This is highly appropriate for English Wikipedia in particular. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I would not agree necessarily — you also noted yourself that Polish culture has its origins in the early Lechitic tribes, so I think this image change is quite reasonable in that respect. --E-960 (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but Polish culture is currently eclectic. No point of some re-'slavicisation'. In relation to the "Religion" part, Poland is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic so notability of that image is rather poor. Image change as of now is just POV. I think the pictures included now and the length of the section itself are okay (has both notability and variety per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images). There are other country articles with lengthy sections that achieved GA status, eg. Croatia, Canada etc. Also, I like the GROM picture :) Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: What do you think about these pictures for the Jagiellonian University - 1 or 2? Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We can go with the first one. --E-960 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Sports section

I re-added the reference to Iga Swiatek, which was removed for some reason. However, I think that this is a rather noteworthy item, since Swiątek was the first Pole to win a Grand Slam tournament. Also, just adding the name itself does not really add to the overall length of the section. --E-960 (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Poland#Education
Education part is no longer accurate, because of a reform in 2017
( Polish Wikipedia's page about the reform: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforma_systemu_oświaty_z_2017_roku )

The changes include for example:

• extending primary school from 6 to 8 years
• complete removal of "Gimnazjum"s
• Liceum is 4 years instead of 3 and Technikum is 5 years instead of 4 [note: there are other (less popular) choices of further education, and their length also was changed]
  

I can't fix it myself, because I'm both not experienced with Wikipedia enough, and I don't have access to semi-protected pages.
( I think it would be the best to include information about both systems, since the change was recent, and peoples who finished primary school before 2017 are still following the old school system )
Wojtekpolska1013 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wojtekpolska1013: - Hi, thank you for pointing this out. Can you please link government sources or other references which would direct me to the details about that reform. Can be in Polish or English I do not mind. Thanks! Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: - Thanks for responding, but doesn't the polish wikipedia page i linked above explain this well enough already?

I believe that it contains a lot of useful information that can be translated to English wikipedia. a small problem tho is that many of the sources are dead links, but they can be viewed by waybackmachine.

other resources i've found:

http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu20170000059

https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,20607,vp,23235.pdf

Wojtekpolska1013 (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

also PS. since I sent the edit request, i have done 10 edits, so i'm allowed to edit this page, but i don't feel comfortable trying to get so much information right, so i'll leave this to someone more experienced Wojtekpolska1013 (talk)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. You can edit this page now. Please see WP:BOLD and make the changes yourself. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Iga Swiatek

please change ((Iga Swiatek)) to ((Iga Świątek)) 2601:541:4580:8500:D953:611:9F7D:634A (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrocław No1

Wrocław was classified on the 1st place in the fDi Magazine's "Global Cities of the Future" ranking, ahead of, among others, Swiss Zurich. This is a ranking of the magazine belonging to the Financial Times, which is used by the largest companies in the world to locate their investments. And such investments have an impact on the economy of the entire country. So this is not just a local market report! So such information should be included in the article about Poland, in the "Economy" section.

I am including this information, unfortunately it is persistently removed by an individual who has had some trauma to Wrocław for a long time and has been removing new important information about this city from Wikipedia for a long time.

Wrocław in 2021 in the fDi Magazine report "Global Cities of the Future" was classified in the first place among medium and small cities in the world in the general and business-friendliness categories.

Urabura (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Urabura: Wrocław and Warsaw, actually.[71] It's a nice little tidbit for their respective articles, assuming they don't become promotional. François Robere (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this information is imperative to the nature of this article. One could say that Warsaw, Wrocław and maybe Poznań (with source) are the chief financial centres. What Urabura has suggested sounds a bit like puffery to me personally. I wouldn't be entirely against the inclusion of this information if the 'Economy' section wasn't as long as it at present. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, I concur, ranking in a niche publication is not relevant to the scope of this article. Maybe it could be mentioned in Wrocław, but even so, I am not sure if this is important enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, mean you say the Financial Times is a niche publication?

References

Name

@E-960:, where this was discussed before? (I sincerely don't know why you gave me a history lesson, I knew everything you said, despite I support official names).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC))

You were part of this discussion, when it hit on the same issue but relating to the info-box. In any case, my concern is that with Galicia, you had a situation similar to Bosnia today, were two groups saw their country/territory from a totally different point of view (as if the other group did not exist). Poles saw it as part of the old Kingdom of Poland and the Ukrainians saw it as a reincarnation of the Kingdom of Galicia. So, this being the article on Poland, it just makes sense to frame the subject from a Polish point of view. The same way the issue of Galicia is discussed form a Ukrainian point of view in the Ukraine related articles — otherwise you just combine things and make it confusing mess. Perhaps, it might make sense to just replace some of those links with Austrian Partition or Prussian Partition, since many Poles saw the Duchy of Poznan and Kingdom of Galicia as attempts at de-Polonization (by giving the regions non-Polish identities). --E-960 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@E-960:,

please link which discussions (either infobox/Bosnia), sorry I still not understand what do you refer, your current changes we did not discuss anywhere (or correct me if I would remember wrong). You know very much I don't take sides and my edit's are not motivated by "who's point of view", e.g., if we use the article's WP name you cannot say I took anyone's side, article naming is another issue, and should not be influenced by any sensitive/nationalistic views from any sides.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC))

Just scroll up on the talk page, this topic was discussed then in the context of the info-box and though you were not deeply involved you did make a comment. Also, if you notice in the linked article for the territory, in the fist sentence in bold letters you have this statement "also known simply as Galicia or Austrian Poland" so, using the term is historically correct (btw, like with Congress Poland, that was not the official name of the autonomous state, it was the Kingdom of Poland, so using a name often requires wider context). As for what you describe as "sensitive/nationalistic" views — I hate to break the news, but nation states and national identity are rather key to understanding European history, and is still relevant today, not sure why anyone would deny this. The very reason why the Austrians chose to re-name the territory after the Principality of Principality of Halych/Kingdom of Galicia was to diminish Polish claims (in other words, issues relating to nationalism), also the very nature of the territory was jerry-rigged, since it included the lands of Lesser Poland, which never in their history were part of Halych. So yes, in the case of Lesser Poland under Austrian rule, its appropriate to call it Austrian Poland. Also, "Lodomeria" is a reference to Volhynia, which was under Russian rule. So, the Austrians created a kingdom based on the Principality of Halych/Kingdom of Galicia, which included Lesser Poland (which was never part of it), and it did not include Volhynia, but the name still was Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. Again, full context and perspective is key. --E-960 (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: @E-960: - I am neutral on the issue and won't express an opinion as both names were widely used. However, if the name "Austrian Poland" is to be placed in the article then might as well include it in the infobox [or, alternatively, get rid of Congress Poland and the Duchy altogether]. There was no Polish state between 1795 and 1918 (summarized by the term "Third Partition"), hence why should foreign establishments and polities [or client puppets of French, German, Russian and Austrian Empires...sigh] be in the infobox? Currently, it's a mess. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with Oliszydlowski on this issue, though one minor point to add, I would keep Kingdom of Poland (Congress Poland), since from 1815 to 1831 it was a Polish state, it had a separate Polish army, parliament and currency, however the king of Poland was the Russian tsar (this was not unusual since Poland was under a similar arrangements with Hungarian kings in the middle ages and Saxon electors/kings in the 18th century). Though, after 1831, Kingdom of Poland (Congress Poland) existed in name only. --E-960 (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@E-960:,

that topic has nothing to do with he change you made, and I had no such statement there you put here in quotations marks. You again argue and gave a history lesson, but not this is the issue, you don't have to prove me what is historically correct, since issue is different, it is about I support official names, regardless of the background and the degree likeness factor of it (so I have no problem to refer Congress Poland as Kingdom of Poland, similarly). Oliszydlowski, in the infobox issue I already expressed my opinion, do as you wish.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC))

@E-960: - You say that Congress Poland was a 'state' between 1815 and 1831; evidently it was never an autonomous or independent state; it was de facto part of the Russian Empire since the fall of the Warsaw Duchy. Its puppet status was reduced with the collapse of the November Uprising. You say it had its own army, so did Austrian Poland, so did the Duchy of Warsaw and there were also regiments from the Grand Duchy of Posen in the German Imperial forces. The Tsars' title as King of Poland, disputed or not, does not create an independent entity; titles could be purely titular or signify a rule over particular peoples. Krzysztof Koseła (2003) in his work 1 on page 14 states that the idea of independence was only present in the years 1806-1813. Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, we can just replace and include links to Russian Partition, Austrian Partition and Prussian Partition in the section header. As for Congress Poland, in that case it had a formal and officially recognized army, currency and parliament, which were those of the Kingdom of Poland. As for Austrian Poland, it did not, only Polish or Ukrainian units within the Austrian military — you have one example of the Gwardia Narodowa[72], however this was a formation more akin to the State Militias in the US prior to the outbreak of the civil war, not a regular standing army. --E-960 (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: - Austrian Poland aka Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria also had its assembly and early on a currency. I think that you're argument is factual, but not exactly well-interpreted. If a source states that an independent Poland did not exist from 1795 to 1918, then why should there be any establishments in-between those years? Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not all about defending Congress Poland (though, I thought there might be some argument to keeping it), but we can remove. --E-960 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Establishment

TheEditMate you are just starting your opinions here, the date of 1918 is universally accepted. Also, your comments shows that you do not have full knowledge of the subject matter. Poland was not "disestablished" in 1939, it had a government in exile and the occupation was not recognized internationally. In 1947, the Polish People's Republic was established and it was the legal successor to the 2nd Republic (in other words same Poland, a different political system). Finally, Poland did not just became the 3rd Republic in 1989, it was a gradual process starting with a semi-free election still under communist rule, and a gradual change of the political system that took about two years. Which only proves my point that the 3rd Republic was not "established" in 1989, Poland underwent a political transformation and the 3rd republic is the legal successor. Btw, do you also say that modern France was only established in 1958 with the 5th Republic? I'm pretty sure that today's France is the legal successor to the 4th and 3rd Republics. --E-960 (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about cultural or governmental succession. I'm looking at this from a simple linear timeline point of view. I think people forget that articles about currently existing countries are after all meant to represent their current versions, so in this case, the Third Republic of Poland, which by itself, exists since 1989. It of course succeeded Polish People's Republic (1947–1989). It of course can be counted that its successor, but still the keyword is that it's its successor. On a simple timeline, it can be simply shown as: Second Polish Republic (1918–1939) > Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union Occupation (1939-1945) > provisional governments (1945-1947) > Polish People's Republic (1947-1989) > Third Republic of Poland (see: Poland) (1989-present).

Including cultural, historical, and governmental succession is problematic, because it does not differentiate the history of the region. Poland as the current state did not exist in 1918 nor in 1947. They were different countries that happened to be in its place and with its name, and to which Poland can be counted as their legal successor. Also, it's worth noting, that this article is after all about the Third Republic of Poland, and if suddenly tomorrow, Poland would reorganize into the Fourth Republic or incorporated into another state, the article would be replaced with the article called "Third Republic of Poland" and listing its existence in categories "disestablished in 2021" and "established in 1989" not 1918. I understand that history is never one clear event, especially as it's happening, but if you look at any historical article, you will notice, that there always are some dates marking the beginning and the end of the countries. Also, at the same time, note that established categories include only times when something physically existed, not due to international recognition. The 2nd Polish Republic is listed as established in 1918 because it controlled its territories back then, even if it wouldn't be recognized until 1919, and as disestablished in 1939, as it is when it lost control over all of its territory, being occupied by Germany and USSR. Note that in-exile governments aren't really recognized in articles about historical countries as the state continuations, but rather entities that continued the existence of the government. TheEditMate (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This is where I think you are wrong, current country articles are tiled Poland, France, Germany... in other words they cover the existence of a nation as a polity, not simply as a current political order like Second Polish Republic, French Third Republic or Weimar Republic. So, the scopes of those articles are bit more wider. --E-960 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

History section

Hi Wikipedians!

I only know just realised how vague and unreferenced the "History" section is in this article. There are certain important events which are absent, some statements are only partially correct, and it's neither a summary nor an in-depth overview. It is not quality work, particularly the pre-WW2 sections. Would you give me a go-ahead at rewriting the entire part? I will keep the images the same as they are now, and would love to ask for help in this endeavour. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Good point, the quality of sources and fixing some of the statements in the history section is indeed a reasonable recommendation. --E-960 (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

In the Etymology section it is incorrectly stated that in Russian name of Poland is derived from the Lendians, similarily to Hungarian, Turkish etc.

Actually it is По́льша derived from Polans. Pjf2000 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Puola" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Puola. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 12#Puola until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. dudhhr_Contribs 17:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong translation

The word “Poland” has been incorrectly translated into English from the Polish word “Polska”. It should be POLLAND, similar to Holland. Poland means Pol+land, not Po+land. In Polish language it is Pol+ska /most of Polish family names of women end with -ska/

Are you sure that it’s not “Holland” that was translated wrong and maybe it should be “Holand” or perhaps “Holska”? Volunteer Marek 06:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I know this is highly unprofessional from my side but..... 49.192.215.72 (talk · contribs) are you for real? Merangs (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

- GizzyCatBella🍁 16:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

Poland does not have very high living standards. In fact, they are low. 89.124.15.50 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Indexes say otherwise. Opinion by IP clearly a POV. Merangs (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

United kingdom is in europe yet it is not highlighted in green on the diagram. It is not in the European union. There is a difference 91.239.207.233 (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If you actually looked closely you can see that only EU states are highlighted in green....Merangs (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Clarified by Merangs ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

Polish is also a second language in Lithuania, where it is taught in schools and universities.[369][370. This is not true, in one of the references you have provided, it says that the Polish language is not being taught in Lithuanian schools in Lithuania and non-Polish people don't speak or learn the Polish language.

Furthermore, Lithuania has only one official state language, and it's Lithuanian, Polish is not a states’ the second language.

Remove the statement of polish being second Lithuania's language and that it's being taught in schools and universities, as it's not true. You can learn Polish in Lithuania the same way you can learn Lithuanian at Poland’s university, so this is nothing significant and not worth mentioning as this sentence is misinterpreting and not clear. 84.15.190.106 (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

While I think this should be improved, it seems a bit extreme to remove it completely. Perhaps something along the lines of "Polish is also spoken in parts of Lithuania, where it is taught in Polish-minority schools." to better match the source? (courtesy ping Merangs) — LauritzT (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Marking edit request as answered because there is not yet consensus as required by WP:ER. — LauritzT (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out and tagging me. I will just use this source 1 as a guide, which is the Lithuanian convention recognizing Polish as a second/minority language. The suggested passage above seems neutral enough. Thank you! Merangs (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Changed per request. Merangs (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Merging hatnotes

Can I merge:

This article is about the country. For other uses, see Poland/Archive 9 (disambiguation).

"Polska" redirects here. For the dance, see Polska (dance).

"Rzeczpospolita Polska" redirects here. For other uses, see Rzeczpospolita (disambiguation).

into:

"Polska" and "Rzeczpospolita Polska" redirect here. For the dance, see Polska (dance). For other uses, see Poland (disambiguation) and Rzeczpospolita (disambiguation).

? Faster than Thunder (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)