Talk:Poland/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Why is there no mention of persistent unemployment in Poland and mass emigration ?

Both are mentioned by numerous reliable sources as problems Poland's economy faces, World Bank, Polish Ministry of Labour, Warsaw Business Journal can be used as sources. Yet all information about these important issues Polish economy faces have been erased. Why? To full present the economy of Poland one can't erase its problems and just focus on cherry picked, often bombastic statements presenting it as economy without problems. Unemployment, low wages, rising inequality, flight of educated and young population due to lack of jobs and poverty have been quoted by serious economic publications about economy of Poland. But in this article they are constantly removed without any serious reason.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that unemployment in Poland is out of ordinary enough to be mentioned here; all countries have unemployment. Now, the post-90s migration patterns are interesting and significant and probably deserve a brief mention; do we have an article on them? The best solution would be to have a detailed article on this phenomenon, and a link to it from here (probably, recent history...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unemployment in Poland is exceptionally high since 1992 and has not been reduced, the lack of employment and connected poverty is one of the main reasons for massive emigration wave from Poland.This is noted by notable economists and institutions such as World Bank. Persistent, long term unemployment has been quoted by World Bank as one of the issues Polish economy faces[1]. As an issue affecting so severely Polish society it is one of the key topics that need to be noted in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I would support a link to the unemployment article as one of the reasons for the mass emigration, which should be noted. However, I think first we need to create an article on this phenomena. Also, it's worth noting that the mass emigration was triggered not only by the unemployment in the wake of the 2008 crisis, but already happened after 2004 entry to EU, as Poles started taking up better paying jobs across Western EU. As far as I can tell, pl wiki doesn't even have an article on that topic, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is heavy on rhetoric and anecdote and very sparse on actual analysis and data. It's essentially a polemical opinion piece. I'm not opposed to discussing this issue, but there are better sources out there. Volunteer Marek  02:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Which article are you criticizing here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The World Bank one. It's one of their PR pieces, not a serious study. Let's get a WB country report instead of some stories about some Ryszard. Volunteer Marek  04:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you believe World Bank is not reliable source, you are free to raise the issue on WP:RSN. Just because a source contradicts your views on the subject doesn't make it unreliable or "not serious".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that I am suggesting that WB Country reports be used, right there in my comment, don't you?  Volunteer Marek  07:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We should not be quoting Ryszard, but the piece is probably fine, until we can replace it with some data. But we need such editorializing pieces for some interpretations, too. Which assertion of this ref do we find controversial, guys? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Which assertion of this ref do we find controversial, guys? - the unemployment rate quoted for one. It's outdated. The current rate is 8.7%. Other than that I'm just not seeing much concrete info in the article that we can't get from a better source. Energy costs are high because winters are harsh and cold, I guess we could use that, if we think it's really important. I'm fine with the part about "junk contracts" being in the article. That's notable, but I'd want to see precise and up to date data. So a different source would be better. There's stuff on emigration. Again, we can get better info from better sources. There's a vague statement about "gap between rich and poor continued to wide". Ok. How big is it? How much did it widen? How does this gap compare to other countries? That's not in the article. Volunteer Marek  18:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Economy section (2)

See also: Talk:Poland#Economy section (above)

The section about economy reads like agitprop. It is full of claims of Poland being very wealthy, its citizens rich and prosperous. It's also based on cherry picked statements that are obviously incorrect(like Polish banking sector larger than Germany's or Russia's).At the same time Polish economical woes like crippling and persistent unemployment, collapse of industry, massive debt,very high inequality(one of the highest in Europe), low wages and unprecedented population flight to the West in search of jobs is completely absent.This needs to be amended so that Poland's econmy is put in neutral light and not presented one sided--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop with this nonsense. Don't bring your edit-wars in here. With your prior wiki experience, even you can tell a difference between a disruptive fly-by edit and the attempts to improve the article. Section economy is one of the better referenced parts of this article, featuring almost thirty (30) inline citations. Don't make up things that aren't there, like the claim of (quote-unquote) "banking sector larger than Germany's or Russia's." Show some appreciation please. I just toned down the opening statement, with newly added citations. It used to read: "Polish banking sector is one of the largest in the world..." Now it reads: "The Polish banking market is the largest in East Central and Eastern European region..." which is a quote from the report by Thomas White International, posted in "Fast Facts", see: Poland’s banking sector is the biggest banking market in the central and eastern European region. This is a statement about "banking market" as such from the perspective of the foreign banks. This is not about the Russian "bundles" of oil-and-gas money. Please note the difference between apples and oranges here. Germany is not in "eastern European region". Poeticbent talk 19:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And I can give you 100 citations confirming what I stated, you are promoting a version of the section that is one sided and presents only Poland as a strong economy while neglecting its negative sides that are mention by ANY economic analysis of Poland by World Bank or IMF-such as structural unemployment or debt. I can give numerous citations for massive economic emigration from Poland in the last decade, which scholars have named as one of problems for Polish economy. And your claim that Germany is not in Eastern Europe is obvious, it is in Central Europe. And I am pretty sure that Russian and German banking sector is bigger than Polish one.At the current state the economy section is completely distorted and POV.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Poeticbent, this is POV pushing plain and simple, not based on sources. In fact, it contradicts what reliable sources say. If you want to argue with a reliable source, write them an email, but until they listen to you and change their stories, don't put it in here, or remove it from here. Volunteer Marek  22:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC) How many reliable sources do you want me to add about Polish economy facing structural unemployment and population flight problems, 20 or 30? I will be happy to oblige.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Falsification of sources

I am going through the sources used in the Economy section and I have already discovered that some have been falsified. There are cases where a sentence or a statement is attributed to a source, but the source speaks nothing like the sentence that was supposedly based on it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to make assertions like that you need to be specific, otherwise this is just empty (and potentially false) WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Looking at your edit, you removed text based on this reliable source [2] claiming the info was not in the source (it was) and replaced it with some junk from a clearly non-reliable source. Volunteer Marek  22:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no statement there about Poland having "healthiest economy" in the Central and Eastern Europe.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"'As EU leaders scramble to save the eurozone and cobble together policies to restore growth, Poland is solidifying its position as the union’s fastest growing economy." "If that comes true it will build on what has been a startling economic performance in recent years. Poland’s economy recorded a 15.8 per cent cumulative expansion from 2008 to 2011, a period during which the EU as a whole saw its GDP shrink by 0.5 per cent. Poland is now the most resilient of the ex-communist states that joined the EU between 2004 and 2007 – the Czech Republic has slumped into recession, while Hungary is negotiating a bailout with the IMF." "But unlike other parts of Europe there are no signs of recession and there are those who believe that Poland would avoid one even in the event of a collapse of the eurozone....In a recent study, analysts at Nomura, the investment bank, predicted that Poland would be the great survivor in any European recession that was prompted by a eurozone break-up."

It's called paraphrasing. By any stretch of imagination it certainly is not "falsification". Volunteer Marek  23:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Again there is no statement about Poland "being healthiest economy". Fastest growing doesn't mean healthy, and there are numerous reliable, scholarly sources that call Polish economy unhealthy due to its enormous unemployment problem, massive flight of population and debt. I will add these sources. But once again, there is no mention in the paragraph above about "most healthy economy". You can add about "fastest growing" but not about being "most healthy". If it is most healthy, why did over 2 million Poles flee it for supposedly less healthy economies? Like said, there is nothing about healthy in the paragraph above, and if the false claim remains I will add opposite views based on reliable sources. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if "healthiest" isn't equivalent to "fastest growing" you are way off the mark accusing others of "falsifying sources". If you feel that is an inadequate paraphrasing of the source, suggest a different way to do it, which still captures what the source is trying to say. Rest of your comment is unsourced speculation and personal opinion.

And the "healthiest" actually makes perfect sense. Other European economies are in a recession. The Polish economy is doing much better. Hence it is what is.

And really, quit it with the completely... false accusations that something is "false" here. When you're running around accusing others of "falsifying sources" or claiming that a particular piece of text is "false" when it's really not, it's just a matter of semantics, you only degrade your own credibility. Volunteer Marek  02:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Other European economies are in a recession. The Polish economy is doing much better.There are plenty of European economies not in recession and not with Polish levels of unemployment for over 20 years and Polish level of wages. If Poland is doing so well, why do so many Poles leave? In any case you will find plenty economists saying Polish economy isn't healthy.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The only 'agitprop' I'm seeing lies with MyMoloboaccount. In all seriousness, you wear your POV on your sleeve on every article you agitate on and are invariably WP:TEDIOUS about pushing it. If you wish to continue to parse the world economy, injustices and inequities according to the WP:BIASED sources you dig up, please do so by starting your own blog where you're welcome to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a discussion of Polish economy section, not a Harpy vs. Molobo fight. Xx234 (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

outdated recentism

This sentence " Between 2007 and 2010, the government plans to float twenty public companies on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, including parts of the coal industry. " needs to be updated. Volunteer Marek  22:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This too: "ccording to the Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski the country could join the eurozone before 2016." - based on the source this was obviously written in 2012 (source says "next four years"), but since then they've pushed it back some (hopefully, they'll keep on kicking that can on down the road). Volunteer Marek  23:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And that part does somewhat misrepresent the source. The "could" in "could join" was conditional on "if we're ready" and "if it serves our interests". Maybe just remove this part altogether?  Volunteer Marek  23:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

real vs nominal variables

The paragraph beginning with "Average salaries in the enterprise sector..." has some problems. First, what is the "enterprise sector"? Second, it quotes various figures for salaries but does not state whether these are in nominal currency units or in real, inflation adjusted, terms. It's also based on primary sources so is sort of original research. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"many workers, especially from rural regions, have left the country to seek a better wages abroad."

This is another false sentence. It implies that those migrating abroad were A-employed, B-are migrating because they want just better wages. The fact is that articles on the subject clearly state that large portion if not all of these people were unemployed in Poland, and emigrated in search of jobs. Hence the drop from almost 20% unemployment pre EU entry to around 14%(this is often quoted as the reason).The sentence is unsourced and should be changed and backed by sources showing clearly the reasons for mass flight from Poland of over 2 million people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  02:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out unsourced sentences with false information is hardly under WP:NOTAFORUM. It's part of normal fact-checking procedure on articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not pointing out that there is a sentence with false information. That would involve sources. What you are doing is using the talk page of the article to push your own personal opinions and feelings and giving vent to the latter. But that is not the appropriate use of an Encyclopedia article's talk page. Hence... WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  02:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I would really suggest cutting with the personal attacks and focusing on topic Marek, in any case I have already added sourced information on this and removed false sentence.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks. Please be aware that accusing others of making personal attacks can be a personal attack itself. Especially when it's used in an attempt of gaining an upper hand in a content dispute. Please discuss your changes, for reasons explained below. Volunteer Marek  02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What about writing about reasons of mass emigration? Xx234 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be another article per WP:TITLE altogether. It's not within the scope of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've started such article at 21st century economic migration of Poles. Please help expand it (with sources, of course). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Polish banking market is the largest in Central and Eastern European region,with 32.3 branches per 100,000 adults"-dubious

The sentence "The Polish banking market is the largest in East Central and Eastern European region,[116] with 32.3 branches per 100,000 adults" seems dubious. Why should we measure banking market by number of branches and not say, assets held by bank? Furthermore the number of branches per 100,000 adults is larger in Serbia(37,7), Slovenia(38,4), Bulgaria(61,2) and Russian Federation(38,2)[3]. I suggest to remove this sentence.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we stick to what sources say, rather than what may or may not seem "dubious" to you personally. Volunteer Marek  02:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well sources say that number of branches per capita is bigger in several countries.I will search for sources showing which banking sector in Eastern Europe is biggest.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait. Did I understand this correctly? First you say "sources say..." and then you say "I will search for sources showing...". In other words, you already have a certain conclusion in mind and now you will go out and try to find and cherry pick some sources (which may or may not exist) which support that conclusion. But in the meantime you think it's okay to claim that "sources" already support you. Are you even pretending to neutrality or was this some kind of an unintentional slip? Anyway, are you disputing that the source says this? Or just doing original research based on primary data?  Volunteer Marek  02:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian banking sector is obviously bigger than Polish one, as is German. It's just a matter of finding appropriate sources. I repeat my kind request for you to adopt a less confrontational tone.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's just a matter of finding appropriate sources." - lol. Again, what you are saying is that you know the "TRUTH" already and now you will go out and see if you can find some sources for it. Sources which agree with you are "appropriate" and those which don't are not. That's not how this is supposed to work. And you've been here long enough to be fully informed of how Wikipedia policies work, so cut it out. Are you disputing that the source makes the claim as presented? Or are you disputing that the source is "wrong" (because, perhaps, they use a different definition of "banking sector" or "Eastern Europe" than you want to use)? If the latter, sorry, no original research. Volunteer Marek  02:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(It also appears from your comment you're confusing per capita and absolute value. This is actually exactly the reason why we shouldn't have Wikipedia editors doing original research. Because they may not have the competency to understand basic definitions.)  Volunteer Marek  02:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Any sources that numbers of bank branches describe economy?

Polish media have recently discussed who owns Polish banks and how it influences Polish economy, not the number of branches http://wspieramrozwoj.pl/artykul/64/Analiza-rynku-bankow-w-Polsce , http://www.wprost.pl/ar/269239,1/Belka-polskie-banki-znow-powinny-byc-polskie/

Millions of Polish people don't have any contacs with banks because they are too poor so they are cheated outside the banking system.Xx234 (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That source is not reliable. Anyway, your second sentence may or may not be true but how does it relate to this article?  Volunteer Marek  04:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"That source is not reliable"-really? Could you point to WP:RSN discussion that determined Wprost to be a non-reliable source? Because per Wikipedia criteria Wprost is a reliable source that can be used in articles.Again-of you are naming a source as non-reliable because you don't personally agree with what is stating, that's not what reliability means.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two sources there. Figure it out. Volunteer Marek  01:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please discuss these edits on talk first. Some of this is based on potentially unreliable sources. Some of this is cherry picking WP:FRINGE sources which contradict mainstream opinion and other reliable sources. Some of it - well, even the links don't work so they're not verifiable. Volunteer Marek  02:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The article needs improvement, but first please bring the most reliable sources in here and let's discuss them one by one instead of edit-warring in main space. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links need to be here. I can't stress this enough. For your information, they begin with http://. Without them, it's yadda yadda yadda about nothing. Poeticbent talk 01:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Literature and poetry

I would like to ask someone to revert the edit that deleted the famous polish authors and poets from the Literature section! It doesn't matter if it overflows, or is not aesthetic, it is still a VITAL part of the article. The table has to be included and not replaced with just Adam Mickiewicz.

Thanks

Oliszydlwski (TALK) 11:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently User:Oliszydlowski beat me to it, and posted the same above message on my talk page. Meanwhile, other things kept me busy on Black Friday, although I did indicate in my summary my intention to explain my recent edits. First, I looked at relevant articles in the same series of country articles to see if I can help improve the editorial quality of this one. Here's what I found out. Italy has only one image in section “Literature and theatre”, that of Dante. Article France has one collage in section “Literature” (a workable alternative), with four writers: Molière, Victor Hugo, Charles Baudelaire and Jean-Paul Sartre. Germany, which is a Featured article in Wikipedia (totally unattainable here), has one (1) image only in section “Literature and philosophy”, that of the Brothers Grimm. This is the going standard. There's not enough good Polish writers mentioned in bodytext. The whole section is underdeveloped and therefore, no barrage of little icons is going to change that. I already complained earlier about that snake-like monster table with little thumbnails making all of the subjects equally unimportant and dreary. Everybody's moving away from that sort of thing, because it looks unprofessional. Anyhow, please express your opinion here. I'd like to encourage as many of you as possible to help resolve this quagmire. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 05:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Legatum Prosperity Index

I can't change it myself, so please update:

• Legatum PROSPERITY INDEX: http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ Now Poland is number 31 out of 142 countries.
• In Human Development Index Poland 2014 Poland is number 35.
• In OECD working time 2013 Poland is now number 5: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS#
• Globalization Index 2014 Poland is now 25th out of 207: http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/media/filer_public/2014/04/15/rankings_2014.pdf
• Network Readiness, Poland is now 54/148: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR/2014/GITR_OverallRanking_2014.pdf
• In OICA Automobile Production 2013 Poland noe 23rd: http://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/2013-statistics/

--94.197.121.102 (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding reverted changes

Ok, per Poeticbent demends, I'm taking the following issues to the Talk Page. Because apparently no changes can be made without the explicit consent from this user. Originally, I changed the following items for reasons stated below:

• Removed File:Monika (Jac) Jagaciak.jpg image. Because it clearly states in image description that the model is "walking for Ralph Lauren" not a designer from Poland.
• Changed the "other" category in Ethnic groups section inside the infobox. Because the numbers add up to MORE then 100%. (unless someone whats to write a explanation of why this occurs I don't think this is appropriate for an Infobox).
• Changed the image for File:Polish Army soldiers in Afghanistan.jpg for one of Polish armored vehicle during a NATO exercise in Poland. Because it relates directly to Poland not external military interventions.
• Removed image File:Mk Stettin Hafen2.jpg of Port of Szczecin because it is is only mentioned in passing, while I added the image of the new PKP Intercity Pendolino. Because this service is discussed at length in two paragraphs.
• Also, improved the choice for 4 images. Same subject matter just better quality picture.

Apparently, this is too much for one user to handle. I look forward to input form more experience users. --E-960 (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting your proposals in here. Not too much to handle actually, but your reasoning leaves much to be desired indeed:

1. Nike are made in China. Honda is made in Canada. Ralph Lauren does not make clothes, only designs them; however, the section body speaks of manufacturing quite specifically. A Polish runway star is selfexplanatory.
2. Please respect Wikipedia WP:NOR policy, because you did not provide references showing WHICH part of the 100 per cent might contain wrong numbers. Where's the source of your data?
3. Your pic of Polish armored vehicle during a NATO exercise (probably the weirdest pic of that vehicle I have ever seen) has a bad source link in Commons (or, should I say, no source at all). Go check it out.
4. Port of Szczecin is a major transport hub in Western Poland, Pendolino is not a transport hub.
5. Better quality of what exactly? An empty black runway? Why Bielsko-Biała? The pic of Gdynia seaport looked way more captivating originally. So why did you change it?

I also suggest you take a much closer look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław/Archive due to a Déjà vu kind of feeling I'm having right now. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Old image

New Image

Old image of the Port of Szczecin

This is a bunch of BS, Poeticbent. You are simply acting as if this page only belongs to you. When we had this similar debate not too long ago, you just went in and inserted the two pictures regarding Feminism and LGBT, yet did not initiate a discussion about it. But, at the same time felt at ease to take down my image updates. In your comment, you said that more experienced editors should review any changes (possibly including yourself in this category). Well, you reasoning is way off in that case… and your approach is just dumb!

• Example: Why did you add the "model" image, if there is no mention of the clothing industry in the text (images should support the text, not stand alone). Also, what does a Polish model have to do with the economy unless Polish female models are an export in themselves? Is Ralph Lauren clothing even made in Poland? This does not make any sense!
• Example: regarding you reply to my 100% comment: here is my answer to you DO THE MATH. Add the totals: 94% Polish + 0.9% Silesian + 0.08% Belarusian + 0.07% German + 0.07% Ukrainian + 0.04% Kashubian + 7.2% other = 102.16% how you can have 102% of a population??? Duh???
• Example: Image of the Wrocław - Hala, see the two images: the new picture displays the building a better light and angle, so what's your objection to it? ----------->
• Example: Port of Szczecin, this image is showing a highway in the foreground, not a port! Are you even being serious at this point? ----------->

You need to back off from your approach of Policing this page, because the changes I made were not related to POV, undue weight, and were not disruptive to the over page structure (in other words controversial). Just because you don't like something does not mean you can stop other editors from making updates. This is Wikipedia and change is expected. Your reasons for reverting my updates are petty and empty. What is this, for example: "An empty black runway?", "Why Bielsko-Biała?" or "probably the weirdest pic of that vehicle I have ever seen". I'm just going to say, that it comes across as you are more interested in belittling other editors and starting shallow arguments than actually improve the article. --E-960 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

E-960, this article is not WP:OWNed by Poeticbent. There are quite a number of editors involved in decisions as to the content (check the number of page watchers) who work collaboratively: commonly known as consensus. You are welcome to make a bold change, but the process followed is bold → revert → discuss and not bold, revert, revert, write unpleasant edit summaries, then come to the article talk page and continue a battleground attitude, assume bad faith and cast aspersions as to the character and intent of a long term, regular editor.

I suggest that, if you are here to improve Wikipedia articles, that you familiarise yourself with the fundamental policies. I am assuming good faith on your behalf despite the somewhat aggressive behaviour you've brought with you. Please try to be civil. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: as regards the edit summaries by Poeticbent, they are perfectly acceptable as regards to WP:PERTINENCE. He's simply posing the question of why you've chosen certain images as being conducive to a better understanding of a broad scope article when editors have spent a lot of time discussing which images are appropriate for the article, and which images are taking up valuable space. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please wait for the results of my CheckUser request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For a "senior" editor Poeticbent you really are something! You open a CheckUser request and in it you false accuse me of homophobia, vandalism and sockpuppetry. I hope you receive a warning for falsely accusing users and trying to get someone blocked because of an editing dispute. --E-960 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

most towns have their own hospital

False - powiats or powiat towns have their own hospital, small towns don't.Xx234 (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statistic

User Poeticbent what the heck are you doing?? You reverted my changes to the Infobox stats (when I fixed the incorrect numbers which totaled more then 100%) and then threw a fit on top of it. Now, you went ahead reverted my numbers again and added this BS… how is someone supposed to read this???

• Stat numbers you just added to the Infobox: 93.72% total… 91.56% Poles, 3.60% non-Poles, 2.17% mixed, 4.48% undefined

A total of 93.72%??? and when you add the rest of the figures 91.56% + 3.60% + 2.17% + 4.48% = 101.81% Just stop, really. This is coming from a "senior" editor who keep reverting changes made by new users like myself, claiming that we need to get approval from more experienced editor. Stop screwing up the article! --E-960 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

• GUS, Central Statistical Office Poland (March 2012). "Wyniki Narodowego Spisu Powszechnego Ludności i Mieszkań 2011. Podstawowe informacje o sytuacji demograficzno-społecznej ludności Polski oraz zasobach mieszkaniowych" (PDF file, direct download 1.87 MB, Internet Archive): 17–18. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

If you don't know how to open a PDF document, please ask your librarian. Data originates from the National Census and has been quoted exactly as stated to the last decimal point. There's a possibility of an arithmetic error in print, but it needs to be discussed in a WP:CIVIL manner in here. Poeticbent talk 06:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say anymore. This is not how you present such data!!! You took each individual % amount which stood alone, and contained a lengthy explanation of what it represented out of a specific % total, and combined them all into an incoherent mess. So, again your edit in this case it wrong. This needs to be taken down. The data is not wrong, you are incorrectly interpreting the data and combining numbers in the Infobox which should not be combined. --E-960 (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed Image for the Economy section

Went ahead and removed image [4] for the following reasons; the "Economy" section does not have any mention of the clothing industry (you do not add stand alone images to a section, they need to support the text), also see image caption "English: Monika "Jac" Jagaciak walking for Ralph Lauren." Ralph Lauren is not a Polish brand nor is it manufactured in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here's an ad showing Ralph Lauren made in Poland. Lauren is a son of Jewish immigrants from Poland in New York which (in a way) makes it even more relevant here. And please don't lie. Article section Poland#Economy in its opening paragraph states that "casual clothing, shoes and cosmetics" are some of the "country's most successful exports". It is a statement supported by reliable third-party source. – Please read again what I said right above, about world-class designers and globalization? Poeticbent talk 06:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? So, one bath robe manufactured in Poland with a reference source from a store catalogue, warrants a insertion of an image? I thought images highlight the most significant parts of the text. not marginal items. If you had an image of a store like Vistual, Bytom or Apart all companies created in Poland that sell clothing designed and manufactured in Poland. I could see your reasoning. But, to insert an image model who is walking in Ralph Lauren clothing is completely inappropriate for this article. Also, what's does that fact that Ralph Lauren is a son of a Polish-Jew who immigrated into the US prove? This is not the Polish-Americans section we are debating, but the Economy section. Again, poor reasoning. --E-960 (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Quality

This was recently mentioned but I think this article still suffers from bad style and is far from being objective and having a neutral point of view.

• The Polish mountains are an ideal venue for hiking, climbing, skiing and mountain biking...

should be changed to sth like: Polish mountains are one of the tourist attractions of the country. Some of the resorts include: Zakopane...--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• A liked and popular beverage is wine... -unsourced

It seems most popular drink is difficult to identify - beer seems to appear in many places.--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• ...Poland became one of the most educated countries in Europe.

Sources making the claim: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/MedPol.html ; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02606755.1983.9525622?journalCode=rper20#.VGi_Rs9ybtQ While they were all about nobility, at the time, only European nobility could get education, which makes the claim justified--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Added ref.

• ...has a reputation as one of the greatest Polish kings -unsourced

No sources to upport it except popular culture (http://www.tekstowo.pl/piosenka,piotr_rubik,najwiekszy_z_krolow___kazimierz_wielki.html) and his nickname--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • A lot of this article is unsourced. I rewrote the part about Casimir with sources; removing the 250% territorial gains claim (bad style, couldn't verify) and adding a note about his fame due to infrastructure improvements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is believed that this tolerance allowed the country... -unsourced

It is common knowledge, but there are may sources, too: http://www.luc.edu/faculty/ldossey/17thcentury.htm , http://www.academia.edu/3009130/Tolerance_of_Cultural_Diversity_in_Poland_and_Its_Limitations --86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Please provide quotes; I am afraid I don't have time to read those articles hunting for quote to verify that they are indeed saying this; neither seems to mention the phrase "religious war". For now I added a cite to Paul W. Knoll (15 March 2011). "Religious Toleration in Sixteenth-Century Poland. Political Realities and Social Constrains.". In Howard Louthan; Gary B. Cohen; Franz A. J. Szabo (eds.). Diversity and Dissent: Negotiating Religious Difference in Central Europe, 1500-1800. Berghahn Books. pp. 30–45. ISBN 978-0-85745-109-5., through it a bit more of "reading between the lines" then I'd like, as the chapter never seems to say, clearly, that religious tolerance saved Poland from religious wars that plagued the rest of the medieval Europe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• One of the most famous...

"One of the most famous and successful attempts" should be "A successful attempt"--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Poland is one of the main countries pushing the European Union towards further economic, political and even military integration -unsourced

Common knowledge (Eastern Partnership is an example), but sources needed--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Not present in text? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Eurosceptics criticize such moves as further unnecessary integration and a new major step towards a federalized European Union under one government. Military integration is judged to be the most significant step after a monetary union. -unsourced
  • Added a cite needed template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Present-day Poland is a country with favorable agricultural prospects -unsourced
  • Not present in text? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Poland greatly improved its image in the world -unsourced

It isn't reflected in nation brands index ()http://nation-branding.info/2008/10/01/anholts-nation-brand-index-2008-released/)--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Not present in text? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Polish citizens have obtained a good reputation as hard workers in the EU -unsourced

Common knowledge but then - why there is so much racism against them? They probably work hard, but they don't have a good reputation, not always, at least--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Not present in text? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Poland has a great, long standing tradition of tolerance towards minorities -unsourced

It's common knowledge and there are many sources about religious tolerance in Poland towards religious minorities, ethnic minorities and gay people (sexual orientation minority)--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Uh, controversial and unsourced. Rewriting/removing/tagging. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Poland has a long and distinguished history of producing world-class poets -unsourced

Every country can claim that, and Poland has only a few literature writers to claim--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the statement but two Nobel Prizes for Polish poets (Miłosz, Szymborska) make Poland a little above avaerage. Certainly not every country.Xx234 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

These are just some examples, the article is full of this self congratulatory stuff, full of weasel words, full of editorializing. Frankly it makes this article sound rather biased and amateurish and I think it could use some major reworking. Preferably by a native English speaker since it also has lots of weird sentence constructions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.149.128 (talk • contribs) 18:12, November 15, 2014

Definitely! Some of these claims are legitimate but some are not, or are general knowledge, but only in Poland or in Europe.--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Not present in text? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is assessed as C, so - yes, those kind of problems are sadly to be expected. We would love for someone to volunteer their time and skills to help improve this further. Would you be able to help, dear anon? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please use my suggestions--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the false claims about Polish image being improved and about workers. Polish workers in EU face resentment racism and discrimination, not sympathyNew figures reveal dramatic increase in hate crimes against Polish people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly!--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE UPDATE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY INDEX TO 2014!--86.3.200.81 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't shout. Fix it. That's how Wikipedia works. Cheers! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Then please update it. It hasn't been for ages.--86.3.200.81 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely. See WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. You are able to make the changes yourself, so don't make demands of others when you are perfectly capable of making the changes yourself. No-one is obliged to make changes you perceive as essential on your behalf just because you demand it. Work out how to fix things yourself: that's how Wikipedia works. We're a voluntary 'workforce', therefore you should learn how to edit in the same manner everyone else here did. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And just to be clear: we are a tired, overworked volunteer workforce. Here, we are trying to invite you to become one of the small group maintaining the 5th most popular resource in the world on a budget smaller than 1% of other sites of similar popularity. If you care about this statistic, join us and fix it. Otherwise - well, maybe one of us will have time and will to do it. Or maybe not. We didn't do it over the past week, because - see the part about "tired, overworked". Help us out, pretty please :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is something I've been pointing out for a while. Piotrus, you said: We would love for someone to volunteer their time and skills to help improve this further, but whenever I tried to remove POV-pushing or weasel words from many of the articles about Poland - I was swarmed by angry Poles who kept reverting my edits. They are always unable to discuss them at talk pages and just argue. If you really want to see some progress made and to see this article finally become encyclopedic rather than staying the holiday advert it currently is, then as a veteran Wikipedian you would be wise in doing something about this yourself as well. A great example of this corruption can be found right here on this talk page, at Talk:Poland#Eastern Europe. I've been bombarding those who have been opposing suggested changes with many sources, yet they won't budge. In their efforts to show Poland as a progressive European country, they are being extremely conservative and unwilling to accept change. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"I was swarmed by angry Poles who kept reverting my edits""In their efforts to show Poland as a progressive European country" I think you might be making the same false assumption I once made.It might be that many of these editors are actually American or other Westerners who don't really live in Poland, but base their views on western press that presents a very biased picture of Poland, perhaps combined with idealization of the country their ancestors emigrated from. I must admit that as a Pole living in Poland(or should I say "suffering in Poland", because it probably should be the synonym of living in Poland heh) some of the claims on internet made about how Poland great is are to me like fantasy mixed with satire that have nothing to do with reality.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

""One of the most famous and successful attempts" should be "A successful attempt"" - this is problematic not just because of the "most famous" but because this attempt wasn't successful, one won battle not withstanding. Volunteer Marek  23:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"It is believed that this tolerance allowed the country... -unsourced" - on this one, there's a source at the end of the paragraph which is the source. A citation after every sentence is not necessary. And the source given specifically covers the relevant historical period, unlike the source which discusses the present situation which you/IP suggest. Volunteer Marek  23:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a perceived 'problem' with a lot of articles about countries/nation-states. The fact is that they are broad-scope articles dealing with the history, geography, cultures, economics, etc. covering at least a millennium in documented history and sources. Details surrounding WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS are not only WP:UNDUE for such articles but, (per WP:COMMONSENSE), are quite simply out of place when taking into account the policy of WP:BALASPS. Spin-off articles dedicated to the subject of the article being developed can and should, of course, be developed where they are well sourced, meeting criteria set out in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When the last 30 to 40 years receives more coverage in the article than the sum total of hundreds/thousands of years of history it can only be understood as being a WP:COATRACK.

By all means, develop comprehensive articles on specific subjects where they meet WP:GNG, but don't wheel in WP:TROJANS. There are undoubtedly articles begging to be created. If you wish to create and develop such an article (or articles) and have reliable sources from which to do so, such input is invaluable and welcome. Picking out a generic article and trying to turn it into something other than what the subject actually is is disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Revert of minor changes/updates - Firewall around article set-up by one editor

I'd also like to say that user Poeticbent's behavior is unacceptable! I'm not the only editor that's being shut-out of the editing process by user Poeticbent (this user just reverts changes en masse no matter what the material is!!!). Also, user Poeticbent keeps inserting information that is incoherent like the recent "statistics" in the Infobox. User Poeticbent, can't properly interpret the statistics % data from the source, and inserts misguided stats, then fights with users like myself, when I try to correct it. What's more troubling is behavior by "senior" editors, who jump on me and accuse me of misconduct, while ignoring the poor/improper editing of user Poeticbent. The Poland article has many issues, just look at the Talk Page and it's user Poeticbent who keeps blocking any change. That why the Poland article remains substandard!!! I'm not going to look for sources or re-write an section, if I can't even update a simple image which is more relevant to the text with out this user jumping in and removing it under a pretext that there was some sockpuppet incident months ago! In reality what's happening is that user Poeticbent is simply protecting her own past edits, whether they are right or wrong! --E-960 (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Population shift after WWII

" The shift forced the migration of millions of other people, most of whom were Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, and Jews.[67] " German population shift was much more than Polish cf. Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II So the sentence should be reformulates as: "The shift forced the migration of millions of other people, most of whom were Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews.[67]" For objectivity I also strongly recommend refering to Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.105 (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if it was larger, as I've heard a lot about the Polish and Ukrainian forced migrations. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The number of German refugees was much bigger, but the ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volhynia was more cruel. It's hard to describe the migrations neutrally if the majority of sources is biased. The quoted article underestimates the context of German Nazi genocide which started the vicious circle of cruelties. Xx234 (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

New Infobox "stat" numbers were added in and not discussed

Reverted the new Infobox population statistic numbers. They were not discussed prior to the change and are improperly displayed causing confusion as to how they should be interpreted by the reader. Please discuss first before adding such data. --E-960 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Breslau sponsored article

It seems someone was paid to gloriffy Breslau. In the Tourism part there's a Centeniall Hall in Wrocław instead of Kraków monuments (like Teatr Słowackiego). Kraków is the most popular city in Poland and one of the most popular cities in Europe. The number of tourists visiting Kraków beats Wrocław by a very large margin (Gdańsk is also more popular). There's no mention Kraków has the biggest Medieval Market Square in Europe, but author says Wrocław has the largest City Hall in Poland. What's worse he mentions this in demographic part of the article. Author is really biased and unfair. PS. Why to be so shy about Wrocław bus station which remembers deep comunist times and is really awfull? It's probably an only non modernized bus station in Poland. — 193.25.0.13 (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is the work of master Globetrotter1918 from Wrocław and his sockpuppets Germania Breslau and Retrone ... all blocked now and/or still sleeping. I will get to this shortly. Poeticbent talk 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The number of Kraków tourists is high but their misbehaviour legendary.Xx234 (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. It's a shame there are no pictures of the Wawel Castle, Cloath Hall (world's very first trading hall) or Slowacki's Theater. There should be also more information and pictures of Eastern Poland which is probably the most beautifull part of the Country. The Wroclaw City Hall isn't Polish. It has to be corrected. @Xx234 Tourists don't belong to Cracow, so I don't get your point.213.158.222.218 (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Tourists don't belong to Cracow - they are visible.

The Wroclaw City Hall isn't Polish. - it was reconstructed by Polish people and is situated in Poland. Is the Giza pyramid complex Egiptian? German families who constructed the Hall lost their power around 1741. The proletariat who constructed Breslau with their hands was at least partially Polish.Xx234 (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Kraków Barbican

I'm not sure what are you talking about? There are two pictures from Wawel, and the Sukiennice of course. The Slowacki Theatre can still be added I suppose in place of something else but I'm not sure what. However, the Polish Gothic architecture could use more prominence. I'm thinking about a specific old watercolour painting (pictured, with defensive walls from before the 19th century dismemberment) instead of the Teutonic Knights. Any thoughts? Poeticbent talk 20:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox population statistics update

I went ahead and reviewed the population statistics based on the the numbers provided by the Główny Urząd Statystyczny [5]. The ethnic breakdown can be found on p. 18, but does not provide the percentages. A simple spreadsheet calculation yields the numbers which I updated in the Infobox. In my opinion they are the most accurate representation of the ethnic breakdown of Poland using the statistics form 2011, the last time the statistical biuro conducted such a study. I encourage other editors to review my method and re-check the math. --E-960 (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sports

Strange selection of disciplines and facts - neither history (Janusz Kusociński, Wunderteam (athletics), amateur boxing) nor recent (ski jumping, voleyball). Xx234 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Dead or wrong links

There are many of them. Xx234 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm slowly trying to update them where in instances where they have been archived or can be found elsewhere. Unfortunately, a number of them really seem to have gone. Nevertheless, they should be retained per WP:KDL as we work on the good faith assumption that the information was cite checked for veracity and reliability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

GDP per capita in English version is outdated.

Correct values can be found on IMF website. Can someone fix that?

Correct values are as follows:

GDP per capita - 13 453 US dollars GDP per capita (PPP)- 24 429 US dollars

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=73&pr.y=6&sy=2012&ey=2019&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=964&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolko84 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

Please update the GDP indicators:

GDP (PPP) 2015 estimate

- 	Total	$990.568 billion[5] (21st)
- 	Per capita	$25,703 (49th)

GDP (nominal) 2015 estimate

- 	Total	$593.758 billion (23rd)
- 	Per capita	$15,406 (54th)

Source: IMF WEO report October 2014: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=64&pr.y=5&sy=2012&ey=2019&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=964&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a= Dominicx1983 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Done -Thank you for the improvement suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups Infobox

Question for the community regarding the Ethnic Groups section in the Infobox. Do we really need this category, it's very apparent that any ethnic minorities in Poland are minuscule. I think that such a category is more appropriate in countries like Spain, Romania or Belgium where you have significant amounts of ethnic minorities. I would recommend we take out this section, any thoughts? --E-960 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this section is standard for pages of most if not all countries on Wikipedia. Moreover, regardless of how small a minority is, it's still important to recognise it. So I personally think it should stay. By the way, can you share your thoughts on the formation date used in the article? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Poland article clean-up

I'd like to propose a clean-up effort and invite any interested editors to participate in the process. I think that collectively we can greatly improve the article by tackling a few minor issues. We would not try to re-write the text (something that can be very controversial), but focus on simple grammar fixes and improve the image selection (directly match images to the text, considering context and placement). If you don't agree with any of the changes, please do not revert "en masse", but instead re-add the items you feel should stay exactly as they were. --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just want to add a clarification regarding image updates in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth section of the article, because they may be a bit significant. I went ahead and replaced the image of the Sigismund's Chapel (not mentioned in the text) with that of the Warsaw Confederation document which is mentioned in the section and is very important in the history of Poland. Also, replaced the image of Kind Jan III Sobieski by Matejko from 1880 to a contemporary paining from 1686 just three years after the battle (I think it's best if we try to use contemporarily images first). Also, changed the map of the Commonwealth replacing the earlier version which had the boundaries superimposed over current nations (I don't think we should be highlighting that). Finally, replaced the Matejko painting from 1891 of the Constitution of 3 May 1791, with an actual photo of the Senate Chamber where the constitution was ratified. --E-960 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just think you did a great job with the Early history and the Middle Ages sections, however, I would like ot point out that the Jagiellonian section is somewhat "incomplete." Maybe replace the Copernicus drawing with a color image or painting of King Władysław II Jagiełło, the founder of the Jagiellonian dynasty or maybe someone else? Also, don't you think color images and photos would be better than some insignificant paper documents, like the Warsaw Confederation and the Copernicus sketch? Anyway thanks for contributing ;)

User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 13:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi User:Oliszydlowski, My thinking is that we should use the images available from that "time period" first. One example of this are the Matejko painting, which have great illustrative power, but are not contemporary of that time period and since every major event in Poland was painted by him, I would like to stey away from the theme "Polish History according to Matejko", perhaps we can find contemporary alternatives first. Any thoughts? --E-960 (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I believe you're right. Matejko's portrait of Sobieski and the victory at Vienna doesn't work. It is somewhat comical, but Matejko's Rejtan-The fall of Poland is the only painting depicting that event and it is vital in the "Age of partitions section." I don't know about the Constitution of 3rd May image, I'll have to discuss that with other contributors. Feel free to replace the Sobieski image with Copernicus' sketch. ;)

User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 21:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• You input is greatly appreciated, here are the images that I'm proposing. Replace the Matejko's painting of Battle of Vienna [6] with a contemporary painting of Sobieski form 1686 [7]. Also, replace Matejko's Rejtan - The fall of Poland [8] with this famous Allegory of the Three Partitioning Powers or a map of the partitions [9]. Also, regarding Matejko's Constitution of 3rd May we have two images [10] and [11] the second image is significant, because it actually dates to 1791 (possibly it was sketched from memory of the person who was at the event). --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding the image showing Poland's borders in the 18th century. I couldn't have added a better image showing the difference across the centuries. The only painting by Matejko that's necessary is the Battle of Grunwald, but that's in a different section. ;) User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 10:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought about it many times, but each time the immensity of this task puts me off. That and the fact that the government of Poland, rather than wasting money or various low visibility cultural initiatives, should just sponsor a grant and get this improved. (Through this can be said about any other country, too). For now I have decided to help Orczar finish History of Poland, and then we will replace the current history section with the summary of that article. Anything else... no promises. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ida film poster

One editor included an image poster of the film Ida, which just won an Oscar. For the moment I removed the selection for the following reasons that I would like to bring to the attention of other editors. First, any such image should perhaps be included in the "Media" section and not in the "Culture" section as one film is not representative of the wider Polish culture. Also, this film did receive wide critical acclaim, but it's impact in the long run is yet to be seen. So, for the moment I think that it may be too early to add such an image to the Poland article which highlight the most significant subject matter related to Poland. Please share your thoughts. --E-960 (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps there should be a film section to highlight Poland's film industry, but as of yet there is no text connection to the image of the film Ida. --E-960 (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the film has definitely garnered enough attention both within the country and abroad to warrant its inclusion, but you are right that perhaps the image should go in a different section. The text that would accompany it could be about the controversy surrounding it in Poland, which would finally be one part of the article where we could talk about bigotry and anti-Semitism among Poles. It would improve the quality of the page substantially, because right now most of it reads much more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedic article. If Wikipedia content was to be accepted without questioning, one might think that Poland is (from a Western liberal point of view) an incredibly progressive and economically advanced country, while in truth the situation is much more complicated; the country has been suffering from increased poverty and more & more xenophobic far-right ideas entering the mainstream ever since the 1990s. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add... that a new "Film" section would have to be created. But, that would need to encompass the entire movie history of Poland. Not just center around one film. Important fact: the "Best Foreign Language Film" Oscar category is given out every year to a country, and that's why I don't think that this honor is that special in itself. Also, the film's impact is on Polish Media and Culture is yet to be seen... cutting away current media hype. That's why, I have strong reservations about including this film. Also, I would strongly object to your statement about "bigotry and anti-Semitism among Poles". Though, this is something that occurred, this issue is greatly overstated in case of Poland. Since, in the greater context of European history, in other countries or nations this problem was much more pronounced: Germany, Russia or the Ukraine come to mind on a scale incomparable to Poland, even France today has issues of anti-semitism greater than in Poland and you have the German anti-islamic Pegida. I would also point out that ethnic strife and conflict was also very strong between Poles and Ukrainians, so the problems among Poles and Jews are simply just one dimension of ethnic relations in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said that other countries don't have problems with anti-Semitism and you are correct in saying that some countries may have larger issues with it than Poland does, but this does not change the fact that Poland does have such problems and a balanced encyclopedic article about the country should mention them as well - not ignore them along with the rest of the nation's issues. Unfortunately, that is currently the case on the English Wikipedia.

As for what you have said regarding Ida, I can also agree. The article could use a section about Polish cinema, but until one such section is created then the Ida film poster doesn't really need to be included as there is nowhere it could be included if images are to remain relevant and consistent with the text. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If we have room, I have no objection; but if another image was to be removed, we should discuss them both. It would probably be better to add it to and discuss at Cinema of Poland which is pretty out of date and doesn't discuss any Poland Oscar winners or nominees. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Law section image

I went ahead and re-added the image: March for Life and Family [12]. No argument was provided for it's removal, and because initially no image was taken out and replaced, the new picture did not disturb old content. Also, as suggested by another user an image like this shows the reality, contrast and divisions between "right" and the "left" political views currently playing out in the country; as the article text itself states that "Rzeczpospolita reported that in a 2008 study three-quarters of Poles were against gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples in accordance with the Catholic teachings. The same study revealed that 66% of respondents were opposed to Pride parade as the demonstration of a way of life". So the two images of a Pride parade an March for Life work well together to illustrate the current cultural clash in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. It's definitely one step closer to showing a more realistic image of Poland than what has been going in this article thus far. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2015

the southern Karkonosze Katarzyna Kakietek (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Please change "the southern Karkonosze" to: "the northern Karkonosze" in Tourism section.

@Katarzyna Kakietek: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. User:Gparyani (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gparyani: Please consider location of Krkonose/Karkonosze Mountains

Czech: 50°35' to 50°49'N; Poland: 50°45' to 50°55'N. [[13]]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Katarzyna Kakietek, that would constitute WP:OR which is disallowed. Please provide reliable sources to back this request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Which source supports southern?Xx234 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.polskie-gory.pl/karkonosze-karkonoski-park-krajobrazowy.php północne stoki.Xx234 (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.kpnmab.pl/en/karkonosze-national-park,82 northern slopes Xx234 (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

St. Mary's Church, Gdańsk, is characteristic for the Polish Brick Gothic

Gdańsk's architecture wasn't exactly Polish. Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Polish by geography if not heritage. I've changed the wording back to "in Poland". Cedris (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

World War II

This section reads: "Of all the countries involved in the war, Poland lost the highest percentage of its citizens: over 6 million perished – nearly one-fifth of Poland's population — half of them Polish Jews." Since the other half killed were just Catholics, including POWs, the Polish officer corps, and thousands of priests and nuns, it would be better not to mention it. The holocaust belongs to the Jews. We mustn't take away their stick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.162.4 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

Such changes should be discussed here.Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, check out the definition of Eastern Europe here: Eastern_Europe#Political_and_cultural. Why someone is trying to make Poland "pass" as Central European? Us Poles belong to the Eastern European geographical area, we have Eastern European culture and Eastern European genetic stock. If I had to describe my country in one sentence, I'd say it's a Slavic, Eastern European, Roman Catholic, post-Communist country with wonderful lands, beautiful struggle during its history and friendly people who have much pain and love in their genes, a nation that during its history was brutally attacked so many times from every side, but never was on its knees, always fought against injustice. This is Poland. Yatzhek (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yatzhek, I'm afraid you won't be able to make much progress with this. All the way back in February I tried to change this to East-Central Europe (as a sort of compromise between Eastern and Central Europe)... it carried on for months and I achieved nothing - only wasted my time and got frustrated unnecessarily. Have a look at the old discussion if you want to, it's very long and I provide countless arguments for the change, but my edits were continually reverted even though others agreed with me at the talk page; the whole thing is archived now at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland/Archive_5#Central.2FEastern_edit_war

Nevertheless, if you wish to pursue this further, I wish you the best of luck. You're welcome to recycle any useful sources you may find at the link I gave you. I agree with you completely that Poland is in Eastern Europe. It's established all around the world and that's what almost everyone will tell you, except for a growing minority of business owners who fool the population that attracting Western capital is the solution to all of Poland's problems, when in reality it just makes their own wallets fatter. Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic have a growing number of such people as well, unfortunately. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Samotny Wędrowiec! I will try to contribute one more time, as I see countries like Serbia or Croatia have a phrase "country at the crossroads of...", which in my opinion perfectly fits the article about Poland. I will edit the article and put it there like this:

Poland /ˈpoʊlənd/ ^ⓘ (Polish: Polska; pronounced [ˈpɔlska]), officially the Republic of Poland (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Polska; pronounced [ʐɛt͡ʂˈpɔspɔʎit̪a ˈpɔlska]), is a country at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe, bordered by Germany to the west; the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the south; Ukraine and Belarus to the east; and the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad Oblast (a Russian exclave) and Lithuania to the north.

If someone reverts this contribution, he must give us a good reason and explain why i.e. Serbia is "at the crossroads" and Poland isn't. Yatzhek (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is your original research, I am afraid. Can you list here the reliable sources (encyclopedias, peer revieved articles, etc.) where Poland is described an Eastern European country? Also, any changes should be made after the consensus is reached, not before. With regret, but I am reverting your contribution. Boston9 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/1976379/Eastern_Central_or_East-Central_Europe_Identity_Dilemmas_in_Contemporary_Poland Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Boston9, please, don't tell me you never heard about Poland as an Eastern European country. It's ALWAYS called "Eastern European", everywhere in the media. Moreover, I did NOT change "Central Europe" to "Eastern Europe" in the text, all I did is adding a phrase "at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe", just like in the article about Serbia. OK, so now, Boston9, explain us, how come Croatia is "at the crossriads of ... South-Eastern Europe" while it is placed more to the west than Poland? And how come Serbia's article states "Southeastern Europe" while Serbia is placed STRAIGHT TO THE SOUTH of Poland? How come it suddenly become SouthEASTERN? Tell us, from which meridian does the "east" begin? Please tell us. Explain it precisely and give reliable sources. If you won't, I'm editing Serbia as "Southern Europe". Yatzhek (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

They will keep telling you that you need to achieve consensus and revert all of your edits because of this. Even when I managed to get most of the people who were involved in that previous discussion to agree with me, others who didn't even bother looking at the talk page still kept reverting my contributions with no penalties. So, for whatever it's worth, you have my support in this matter. I doubt we'll see Boston9 citing many sources against categorizing Poland as an Eastern European country, because there are way too many others that say Poland is in Eastern Europe (because that's simply the case). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Still no answer provided by Boston9. We're still waiting. Please answer to ALL my doubts expressed in my previous post in this thread. Yatzhek (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you guys just let go of it. This is a rehash of the old Cold War political meme about the so-called East (i.e. the Warsaw Pact countries) and the West (with Nato membership) with nothing in between. Things change. Stop WP:SOAPBOXING please. Poeticbent talk 22:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want us to "just let go of it"? Afraid of polemics? Lack of arguments? Can't you simply answer to all my questions precisely and try to persuade me to your point of view, instead of telling me to let it go? OK, Poeticbent, so can I edit Serbia as a country "at the crossroads of Central and Southern Europe"? Why is Serbia Southeastern? Explain it. And no, we will not let it go. THE VAST MAJORITY OF POLES AS WELL AS ALL OF THE NEIGHBOURS OF POLAND CLAIM POLAND IS EASTERN EUROPEAN and Poland is called "Eastern European" in the vast majority of the media across the globe. You can not deny it. Only a person who doesn't pay attention to information about Poland would deny it. WHERE does the EASTERN EUROPE begin then? Which meridian? Tell us and then I will check all the countries placed to the west of that meridian and will check their description on Wikipedia. I take the challenge. Yatzhek (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's OR what you demand. We should use existing sources, current ones. Poland was moved geographically to the West in 1945 and politically since 1989. Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting phenomenon, that everytime I ask a simple question addressed to some particular user, the user doesn't respond, but instead, some other user responds and takes the false "central European" theory in defense, having no arguments and avoiding to give specific answers to my questions. Poland was "moved geographically to the West"? What do you mean? How come the country's geographical location "move" just like that? It's like I'd say "China is in Central Asia, and Northern Sudan is in Central Africa. They moved geographically and politically more to the West". So now, explain it to me, how come Serbia is South-EASTERN EUROPE, while its eastern border is MUCH MORE TO THE WEST, than the eastern border of Poland? I need a good explanation. And one more thing - You non-Polish people or Polish-cosmopolitical minority that claims Poland is "Central Europe" are all wrong to me. Me, as well as the majority of Polish people, the majority of historians, and all the media across the world claim Poland is "Eastern Europe". So now we have our different statements here. The consensus would be that Poland is in between the Central and Eastern Europe, so I'd suggest correcting the article, and writing that Poland "is a country at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe". Yatzhek (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't get it how these people come up with such rubbish arguments and STILL get their way on this encyclopedia. Such disgusting bias and inaction from those with authority. If any of you arguing against Yatzhek's edits have ever set foot outside of Poland, you should know that practically everywhere - especially in the West (for example: England) - the overwhelming majority of the media see Poland as an Eastern European country. There is practically no discussion against it. In Poland this discussion is starting to take place, where a minority of people claiming that the country is in Central Europe are trying to change the generally accepted view. However, they remain a minority, even smaller than this group is in Slovakia and Czech Republic. Sure, Poland is politically aligned with Western Europe and North America, but that doesn't change the fact it is culturally, linguistically and geographically in Eastern Europe. Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia are all members of EU and NATO - they are politically aligned with the West, yet I don't see any of you going to such great lengths to rewrite history and create a new category just for them. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a forum. Please read basic information about the Wikipedia and stop your teachings.Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's right. It's not a forum. It's a TALK PAGE. That's why I'VE ASKED YOR SOME QUESTIONS and I'm AWAITING YOUR ANSWERS Xx236, Poeticbent, and Boston9. Answer to all my questions, give sources. The consensus between your and our point of view would be "between Central and Eastern Europe", and until you won't give me answers, do not touch the article. Yatzhek (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding any consensus on other articles in Wikipedia either. Central and Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe. We all know why it would be "nice" for Poland to be in Central Europe in the minds of everyone and no longer in Eastern Europe. Neither Wikipedia editors nor the United Nations can establish the "fact" of their location. It is political rather than geographic. If we stuck to geography, it might be easier, but that isn't going to happen. I suggest sticking with both CEE and Eastern Europe and not try to pin it down. It doesn't really accomplish anything IMO. Poland isn't going to actually move in either direction! Student7 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Poland moved twice - geographically and ethnically (in 1945) and politically (1989-2005). Taking into account that some people describe Poland using Britannica of 1911 we have to wait 100 years to be accepted.Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the shouting.Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Poland Emerges as a Central European PowerhouseXx236 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

CENTRAL EUROPE is a European Union programme that encourages cooperation among regions of nine central European countriesXx236 (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)]

My apologies for delay in responding. @Yatzhek The first thing you should have done is to have checked Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN, which is the seminal and ultimate reference source for all articles about Poland in Wikipedia. On page 341 (Volume 21) it clearly states: Rzeczpospolita Polska: państwo w środkowej Europie, nad M. Bałtyckim (...). With regret, but I am reverting your changes with strong suggestion to stop this discussion and concentrate on more value-adding edits in Poland-related articles. Boston9 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, not all organizations in Poland classify the country as Central European. Secondly, I'm afraid this isn't the Polish Wikipedia. The English language Wikipedia is the largest of them all and it aims to show things from an international perspective. The Polish Wikipedia should in theory be aiming to do this too, but it's understandable why this is not the case as Polish is not an international language. Anyway, so I think sources from larger (transnational) organizations are much more appropriate, such as:

• United Nations Statistic Division (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe)
• United Nations Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldageing19502050/pdf/96annexii.pdf)
• Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/#d.en.52727)
• EuroVoc - thesaurus of the European Union (http://eurovoc.europa.eu/drupal/?q=request&uri=http://eurovoc.europa.eu/100277)

All of these sources say that Poland is in Eastern Europe. Now I'm sure you'll find plenty of other sources from Czech Republic, Slovakia or Germany that claim Poland is in Central Europe, but for every one of these there are tens of others from various countries saying otherwise. You know why I'm not using any of them as sources even though I could? Simply because most if not all of them are not written from an international perspective, whilst organizations like the UN and EU are multilingual and are a collaboration of many nations. EuroVoc comes in 23 languages... the Polish version of that page also says that the country is in Eastern Europe (Europa Wschodnia), see for yourself: http://eurovoc.europa.eu/drupal/?q=pl/request&uri=http%3A//eurovoc.europa.eu/100277 --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If the Urals are at one end of Europe, and Spain at the other, Europe extends from 19 degrees west longitude to 60 degrees east longitude. Dividing these into three divisions yields a western group at 19 degrees west to about 7 degrees east. Central from 7 degrees east to 33 degrees east. And East from 33 degrees east to 60 degrees east. Poland at 14 degrees east to 25 degrees east seems to lie, longitudinally, in Central Europe. I'm sure this misplaces some other country, but "central" seems geographically reasonable for Poland. Student7 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

People who want Poland as Central Europe are in fact offending the Polish culture and trying to diminish the Polish historical struggles. Everyone who knows the history of the region of Eastern Europe knows that the main victims of the Holocaust were Jews, Romani, and ... "Eastern Europeans". That's right. In case you didn't know, it's the Poles who were the main non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, and they were always called "Eastern Europeans" back then. This "moving" of Poland and labelling it as "Central Europe" distorts the historical struggle of people from this part of the world. Someone who hears "a Central European nation" doesn't feels like this nation could come through such a struggle, and still does. "Central European" means "wealthy", "econimically stable", "responsible for the Holocaust" etc. Yes... Now, Poland is one of the poorest countries in Europe. We have a few rich politicians and buisnessmen, and A LOT of poverty around. But of course, we should be "proud" "central Europeans", huh? No way. Poles are EASTERN EUROPEAN SLAVS from a POST-COMMUNIST EASTERN EUROPEAN country. Yatzhek (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yatzhek: Well said. :)

@Student7: What about Azores? Are they not in Europe? If you look here, Azores is clearly highlighted as part of Europe. If we go by that map, which seems to be the most representative according to Wikipedia and has more accurate proportions than many others (as most maps are simplified and disregard the fact that the Earth is not flat), it clearly looks as though the centre of Europe is closer to Denmark than anywhere else. Anyway, it's not only about geography - every category carries certain political, historical, and cultural connotations along with it. Right now, politically Poland is in Western Europe. Geographically it is East-central. Historically and culturally it is in Eastern Europe.

--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was persuaded by my "geographic only" suggestion. I think I can still differ with including the Azores in Europe. Or Rhodes! Student7 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I know, I was just using Azores to prove my point that where the geographical centre lands varies greatly as to where the borders of Europe are drawn. I really appreciate it that you're the only person here who tries to form an actual counter-argument against Yatzhek's and my point. Everyone else involved is just trying to silence us without any sort of discussion. So thanks for actually taking part in the discussion and not breaking the rules of Wikipedia like all these other folks are.--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SHOUTING et cetera

Response: Yatzhek changed the content of the article to say that Poland is in Eastern Europe (instead of the current Central Europe). His edit was reverted and Boston9 said the reason for this was a lack of sources. Yatzhek provided numerous arguments on this talk page, whilst I gave you sources from the likes of the United Nations and the European Union. You haven't responded to this at all and have only tried to silence us in various ways. As it stands, all content on the English Wikipedia that says Poland is in Central Europe uses sources from a minority of individual opinions that reflect this view (experts or not) or organizations specific to certain countries (such as the CIA World Factbook). I've already provided more reliable and less biased sources from international organizations like UN and EU, which should be more than enough to end this silly charade and warrant Yatzhek's proposed change in the Poland article. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

These "arguments" is his original research, I am afraid. I think that Wikipedia needs reliable sources, not emotions. Can you give us a least one source which is equal to Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna? Please list encyclopedias only. Also, I do not think that term "at a crossroads" is an encyclopedic one. Boston9 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Boston9 - "at the crossroads" unencyclopedic? Ok. see - Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina etc. (both more "western" countries than Poland, Bosnia especially). And they are labelled as South-Eastern European. Why? Yatzhek (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your answer Boston9. And hey, Samotny Wędrowiec, I agree with most of your views. I see that all of the people that want Poland as "Central Europe" feel helpless to discuss this with us, as they have no arguments. Poland was always classified as Eastern European until the mid-2000s. Poland is historically and culturally an Eastern European country; always classified as Eastern Europe in the context of the World War II and Post-communism. You can not deny it. If you know the history of Eastern Europe, then you know, that Poland is called "Central Europe" only since 2004, so since the time it was connected to the European Union. Until that time, Poland was always seen as an Eastern European country. Moreover, I get mad when I see i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, or Albania as "South-EASTERN European", while these countries are located more to the west than Poland! Poland extends far more to the east than all western-Balkan countries, so why Poland can't be "at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe"?! It's insane how a few American and western-European politicians can change the country's geographical placement. Anyway, Poland was ALWAYS called "Eastern Europe" by the German nazis during the WWII, by the communist occupants, and by the whole "Western world". Yatzhek (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of answer do you expect from me? IMHO Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna settles this thing. If you have stronger encyclopedic sources, please list them all here, and then we will continue our discussion and reach consensus. With regret, but again your comment with at odds with our No original research principle. Boston9 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of answer? Well, I can repost the simple questions: "at the crossroads" unencyclopedic? Ok. see - Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina etc. (both more "western" countries than Poland, Bosnia especially). And they are labelled as South-Eastern European. Why? I see you're referring to one particular source like some kind of a 'holy grail'. I'm sure there is a lot of sources that can prove, that Poland is in fact Eastern Europe, I will put them here soon, however, I could agree if we made a consensus that Poland is a country at the crossroads of Central Europe and Eastern Europe. I also know that Samotny Wędrowiec has very big knowledge on this topic and is willing to help in improving the article. Yatzhek (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Boston9, I find it hard to take what you have said seriously. Previously I gave you sources from three different agencies of the United Nations and one from the European Union. Are these supranational organizations not stronger encyclopedic sources, as you put it? I will link you to them again, for your convenience, as you have asked - but this time I am also adding a few more sources that categorize Poland as a country in Eastern Europe:

• United Nations Statistic Division
• United Nations Population Division
• Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
• EuroVoc - thesaurus of the European Union
• Ethnologue - encyclopedia of languages
• About.com
• Atlas of Eastern Europe
• Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society
• Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations

--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have contacted one of EU agencies and they didn't support their opinion. They don't care.

Many people still believe in Prussian/Russian propaganda of the 18 century, not mentioning Nazi/Soviet one. Xx234 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2010/01/eastern-europe-doesnt-exist.html

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/eastern-europe-vladimir-putin-107094.html#.VGMymmdh4cs Xx234 (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I referenced sources from worldwide organizations, encyclopedias and established websites... you post links to two opinion pieces in response? I'm not sure if you know what you're doing. Also, you are bold in saying that the likes of the UN, EU, Ethnologue, etc. are repeating Nazi propaganda, but such a claim is baseless and ridiculous. Anyway, I am still waiting for a response from the person who was so keen on discussion and accepting changes provided we have the sources. Of course, it seems that they are trying to sweep this under the carpet again. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know what you're doing. is ad personam, please respect me even if you don't like my opinions. Xx234 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you meant ad hominem, which is simply incorrect. I am attacking your arguments - which are incredibly silly - not your person. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Boston9 - Where are you now? Why won't you discuss the problems? I still think you don't have any arguments but one source that you glorify. @ Xx234 - What do you mean by Soviet and Nazi propaganda? One of your links says "Eastern Europe doesn't exist". Man, this is one of the funniest things I've heard for a while. It's like saying "Eastern Asia doesn't exist" or "West Africa doesn't exist". How come "Eastern Europe not exist" while you hardly support the "South-Eastern Europe" theory when it comes to countries like bosnia and Herzegovina or Croatia which are more western that Poland? Also, Poles are mentally more "Eastern European" while we, as Slavic people, have totally DIFFERENT culture than this Western European and American one. Moreover, Poland is one of the poorest countries in Europe. 20% of Poles are unemployed, hundreds thousands of people live on the edge of poverty, and the Polish public debt is now +/- 30000 ZŁ (9100 USD) per one citizen! Just to inform you, an average monthly salary in Poland is 2200 ZŁ (665 USD) GROSS, which gives 1560 ZŁ (470 USD) NET per MONTH of course. Taxes are way higher than in other countries, prices for MOST products are way higher, while salaries are hardcore low. I personally, finished a college, have a masters degree, and I earn net 1200 ZŁ (360 USD) per month. If not the help of my family, I wouldn't be able to live with dignity, but that's just how it is in Poland. Therefore this massive emmigration from Poland and immigration to England, Ireland, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. Poles would probably also immigrate to the USA, but Polish people have no rights to travel there without a Visa, and it's extremely hard for a Polish person to get it, while nearly all other European countries are "visa-free". That's why Poles are called "the Mexicans of Europe" and Poland is "the European Mexico". Now tell me that Poland is a rich Central European country, and you'll make me laugh. We are proud Eastern Europeans. Nobody and nothing will change that. Yatzhek (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they cant answer you and Samotny Wędrowiec because your arguments are too strong and numerous. 78.8.201.154 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yatzhek - We are proud Eastern Europeans. Nobody and nothing will change that , My opinion - Maybe you are but certainly NOT ME! ;) Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No answers to my questions and no will of discussion to "reach the consensus" means lack of arguments and fear that the truth might be included on Wikipedia. The truth is, that Poland is a country at the crossroads of Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Why do all non-Poles and all Polish liberals deny it so fiercely? Yatzhek (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Funny how people avoid answering to Yatzhek's and Wedrowiec's questions. Poland is Eastern Europe and it's a fact, not a myth. Poles as Slavs originate from the deep East. Good point Yatzhek - a question to all "Central European theory" supporters - why Bosniaks and their country Bosnia and Herzegovina is Southeastern Europe, while Poland which extends far more to the East can't be Eastern Europe? Poles and Bosniaks are genetically really close. You all say, that "lately Poland became more western". Bull.. Poland is a poor country, totally different culture and mentality, lower standards of life and the hidden trauma of always being a victim (ethnic cleansings, partitions, nazism, communist regime, modern persecutions and racial antipolonism etc.). Of course, there are a few rich Poles, who would probably like to kill me for my logical arguments and who'd like to view Poland as a rich, central European country. They want the world to look at Poland and say "why are you people crying? what are you angry about? we see that you have everything and your country is rich." Now listen, apart from that, call any department of any big American company which is situated in Poland, wait for English version and you will hear "Hello, this is (the name of the company), Eastern Europe. Please enter the extension number or wait for the operator". Nevertheless, as I see, only the western left-wing political supporters and a few rich Poles of interesting ethnic background want and need Poland as Central Europe to make it more integrated with the European Union (modern-day III Reich), and to have the future ability to blame the innocent Poles for the crimes performed in the past by the Western civilization, which is steered by Germany, the U.S.A, Israel and the whole West of Europe. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)~

So, after all this drama, still no change? Also, I'm not going to say much about the post above mine because it's a bit strange to say the least... -Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Powertranz - who is vandalizing? I see that the man who added "Eastern Europe" is totally right! Poland is in fact at the crossroads of CE and EE. Don't you think? Take part in the discussion instead of reverting for no reason. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

He will not listen, and those with the power to penalise the people who keep reverting these changes are evidently not interested - just like last time. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny how Western Europeans want us Eastern European Polish people to belong to Central Europe. I guess no matter how many arguments we would have, no matter how many sources we would provide, they will still be stronger. you know why? from one reason - because they are not Polish! And a Polish person cant talk about his own damn country! We have no rights on Wikipedia, and i learn about it every single day. Antipolonism among Wikipedians is remarkable. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You do have a point, however there are some Poles and Polish Americans who are supporting these views as well. No one is suppressing their right to express their opinion, but the problem is that they are suppressing everyone else. Moreover, those arguing for the usage of "Central Europe" in regards to Poland seem to be contributing only their views, whilst those arguing for "Eastern Europe" have provided plenty of links and sources. Poland is in Eastern Europe according to the vast majority of the world; Wikipedia, as an objective online encyclopedia, should reflect that within its articles instead of catering to a loud fervent minority that do not listen to reason and refuse to accept facts. I doubt we will manage to achieve anything here, unless this page was flooded with supporters and the issue would become too large for them to keep ignoring... even then, the audacity of these people is immense, so perhaps that would not work either. They have too many individuals on their side among the admins, moderators and experienced Wikipedians - this is corruption at its worst. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response to this... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately we will NEVER get the answer from the people who are afraid of discussion! That's why I will edit the article again. 195.69.81.75 (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also awaiting some further discussion from the supporters of this fake "Central-European" theory made up by the western world. Yatzhek (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I just realised that for all this time the entire article has been a part of WikiProject Eastern Europe! And it has always been so, right at the top of this talk page. As if we have not provided enough sources and arguments already, even Wikipedia's editing structures categorise Poland in Eastern Europe. Now can we end this charade and just accept that for the absolute majority of people in the world this country is in Eastern Europe? We all know that Poland being in Central Europe is a very unpopular concept that exists only among the minority on a world scale and does not deserve the spotlight it has received on this page for so long. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Poland is in Central and Eastern Europe. Both. There are too many sources, in too much balance, for us to make any other conclusion. This should be archived as a dead horse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. "There are too many sources, in too much balance, for us to make any other conclusion" is the exact reason why Yatzhek and I have been arguing for the usage of the term "East-Central Europe" instead. Anyway, for now I've changed the article to say Central and Eastern Europe. I still personally think that East-Central or just Eastern Europe is better and more accurate, but I'm glad we've achieved some sort of compromise. I trust you will aid us in reverting the imminent vandalism of the Poland page that will surely come after this change, as many of the fervent defenders of "Central Europe" on Wikipedia have previously caused a lot of commotion and edit wars without adding anything constructive to the discussion. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just like I thought... only 12 minutes after I made the edit, Powertranz is already back to start another edit war. How am I supposed to react to these trolls? If I revert their vandalism, they just revert it back and it continues, so in theory I'm taking part in an edit war. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Formation date

Using 966 as the first formation date for Poland is incorrect. If by the founding of Poland you're understanding the unification of the Slavic tribes that lived on the lands equivalent to present-day Poland, then you should know that this event began happening several decades before the Baptism of Poland. The ancestors of Mieszko I started unifying the Slavic societies living in that part of Eastern Europe much earlier and a number of almost identical gród settlements where built several years before the Baptism of Poland. Besides, it is common knowledge that there was an early state structure on these lands before Christianity was accepted, as it would have been impossible to begin the conversion process without securing real control over Poland. And for those who believe in fairy tales that when Mieszko accepted Christianity all of his people followed, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but it took decades of coercion and inducements for the early Poles to finally accept the new religion; a large fraction of Polish society remained pagan well into the 1030s as evidenced by the Pagan reaction. Mieszko's conversion to Christianity was an immensely important event in the history of Poland, as it ensured that the Germanic invaders finally accepted the borders of this young country, but the state apparatus was created earlier.

However, if we want to be more accurate and use the date when the name Poland actually came into use, we must go several decades later. The first time this name appears in written sources is between 997 and 1003. Moreover, the country became officially known as Poland only in 1025 - its full name being the Kingdom of Poland. Before the coronation of Bolesław I Chrobry, the Polish lands (according to written sources) were officially known as Civitas Schinesghe. It is unknown what Poland was called by the Poles in their mother tongue as at this time, although having existed for at least a hundred years, the Old Polish language did not have a standard written form and was only spoken. Poland's original name may have been Lechia (pronounced Lehya), but we may never know.

Anyway, so my point is that the genesis of the Polish state began between a few years to a few decades before the Baptism of Poland, but Poland did not receive its current name until the early 11th century. Therefore, under no circumstances is using 966 as the formation date of Poland sensible. It can only be either earlier or later. Of course, the date should remain as a key event on the article, but it should not be the first one listed because that is simply incorrect. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can agree that the creation of Poland was an organic process, so there is no hard date or event that can mark the beginning of the nation. Btw, that's why I included the link to Civitas Schinesghe. But, from a practical and even legal point of view, the 966 date is significant, because that's when the Polish state became recognized by the "outside world" (Roman Church). Also, that's when Poland started to build a legal basis for itself. You could think of it in today's terms like a modern day territory, which is not recognized by the world; then the UN, EU or the US recognize its statehood and all of a sudden the nation shows up on maps, is invited to international meetings and a flood of advisors come it to advise the new government on how to setup everything according to their traditions/laws. So, in this case I think that using 966 as the start date is legitimate. --E-960 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about the significance of the date, and the comparison you made to the present day is really good, but I still think that it shouldn't be the first date listed there. Especially if we compare it to the formation date used by, for example, the article for Russia (the name Russia itself was not used before the 16th century, I believe). The same can be said about the start date for Germany. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting fact that is worth pointing out is that even the Polish Wikipedia doesn't list 966 as the first date for Poland. The formation date on the Polish article is listed as "ok. 870 – ok. 930" (approx. 870 – approx. 930) under the label "Zjednoczenie ziem polskich" (Unification of Polish lands). This serves well to show that early state apparatus was present in Poland before Christianisation and that the unification of Lekhitic tribal societies into a single country was a process rather than something that happened supposedly overnight with the adoption of a new religion. I think a similar solution would be best for the English page as well. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In Poland the 966 is universally accepted as the "start" date, even during Communism the authorities in 1966 staged the Millennium parade to commemorate 1,000 years of history of Poland (you can watch it on YouTube, hehe...) Anyway, as for Russia and Germany it's a bit different in my opinion. The Holy Roman Empire was for a good part of its history called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (First Reich) followed by the Second Reich and Third Reich. So, when you present German history from that perspective it's understandable why you don't just start from 1871. Similar case can be made for Russia with the Kievan Rus. I know some historians may downplay the role of Christianity in politics, but in the case of Poland it really played a significant role in the formation of the state; before that it's prehistory, since no written records exist from Poland. --E-960 (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but we have to remember that we are looking at the Christian version of history since when each country was converted, everything in the Church's power was done to present the times before Christianity as primitive and barbaric (but that was not always true). As for the 1966 millennium parade, that was mostly due to populist reasons. 966 is a date popularly accepted as the formation of Poland so it would be unreasonable for an already unpopular government to upset the average Pole's version of reality even more, but academically it would be a bit ignorant to rule out any alternatives when the evidence is obviously there. Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia, should mention not only what is popular but also various historical perspectives. Returning to the examples of the Holy Roman Empire and the Kievan Rus, all I wanted to point out is that just like with Poland - Germany and Russia were created much later in truth, and these two ancient countries can only be listed as part of their genesis rather than their creation per se. I think the example of the Kievan Rus is best in this case; the Kievan Rus was "a loose federation of East Slavic tribes" (as described on Wikipedia) and Christianity was not introduced until the 10th century. However, this means that pagan Poland resembled a unitary state even more than the Kievan Rus... sure, it was significantly smaller to begin with, but power was much more centralised. Just to clarify, I am not calling for the removal of 966 from the list and I still think that the disclaimer about its significance should remain - I just don't believe that it should be listed as the first date, not from a populist point of view but from an academic one. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Will anyone else share their views on this or will it just be swept under the carpet like every other issue that makes the people who haunt this page feel uncomfortable? Because we all know that I can list as many good arguments as I like and provide various reliable sources (as was the case with the Eastern Europe "discussion"), yet as soon as I try to change the content of the article based on what has been agreed at the talk page, the edits will be reverted by numerous others who have not even taken part in any of this. Admins and experienced Wikipedians, you do know what happens when you ignore problems over a long period of time? They start to pile up... and then they blow up. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want more people to discuss this, you should announce the discussion at WT:POLAND and WP:RFC. You haven't done either, so don't complain that nobody answers, when you are asking a question in a room that rarely somebody passes by (I check this talk page once every few months, for example). Now, of course formation is a fluid process. I presume you want to change the entry in the infobox. Well, we do have a footnote that explains why this date was chosen. Your arguments, while interesting, seem ORish. You say you can present sources to support them: do it. Please show us RS that state that formation of Poland/Polish history as a state/etc. begins with another date. Ideally, a discussion of this by some academics would be great to see. @Orczar, Volunteer Marek, Poeticbent, Nihil novi, and Tymek: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will share my views on the formation date, and the synergy of Christianity and state making. The formation date is merely a milestone in the development of these lands. The claim that Poland suddenly appeared and suddenly chose Christianity in a completely isolated homogenized pagan land is not entirely true and is mostly false. It creates the sense that Poland is entirely unique and exceptional in its culture, tongue and embrace of Christianity when compared to its Slavic neighbors during this time and context of 966. It took time for Poland to develop it's unique and exceptional culture. It didn't just suddenly appear. Christianity was already flourishing in Southern Poland at around this time in the Old Church Slavonic. The old Polish language that someone is referring to was actually a variation of the Western recension of Old Slavonic. Even the St. Florian Psalter (ca 1400's), when it is read in Polish has elements of the Slavonic still left in it. The blindness in this article are tremendous and create a nationalistic diversion to true history. Poland did not suddenly appear and did not suddenly speak the refined Polish it speaks today. True, that the foundations of formation should be understood from the perspective of synergy between state and Christianity, but not necessarily 100% with Mieszko I. Mieszko I merely erected the geopolitical structures that enabled him to engage Rome directly and chauvinistically without the foreseeable intrusions by the Holy Roman Empire and Germanic Bishops. In a sense, this was a pragmatic chauvinism by a Polish noble (probably derived from some profound understanding of the Geopolitical Christian Slavonic suppression in Moravia 113 years earlier) to solve the growing threat of this much larger and potentially treacherous pro-Latin neighbor to the West. The real foundations of Christianity in Poland should be attributed in at least some way to the labors of Saints Cyril and Methodius under the Moravian King Rastislav of Moravia. Pope John Paul II gives credit and attributes these foundations in his "Slavorum Apostoli" encyclical. Doubravka of Bohemia (wife of Mieszko I) probably also does not get enough credit or exploration as a mother of Christian Poland. She was derived from the Přemyslid dynasty that were subordinated to Great Moravia - where Christianity in the Slav lands in Czech, Slovakia and Southern Poland were already firmly established by the time of Mieszko I. I agree mostly with Samotny Wedrowiec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.213.24.41 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Some very good points here! Also, I'd like to point out to Piotrus that this is the talk page for the article where changes are supposed to be discussed. If people don't come here to discuss something they don't like, then it is their fault~entirely and they are excluding themselves from the decision-making process. You can't tell others to find other pages and present their views on what the article should look like there as this talk page is the primary place to talk about that. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

Please change GDP (nominal) from "$491.239 billion" to "US$ 594 billion" as acording to this page: https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/country-data/poland-gdp-country-report Locust1980 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: That source uses the IMF estimate from April of 2014 as a source, whereas the 491.239 billion figure comes from the April 2015 estimates. Cannolis (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

A move discussion relating to this article is open at Lech, Čech, and Rus' talk page. Khestwol (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015

"Poland [...] is a country variously regarded as being either in Central Europe or Eastern Europe." Reference needed for both Central and Eastern. Regarded by whom? I regard to it to be in Central Europe. 80.2.72.104 (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

See the very lengthy discussions above, and the many references provided for both views, some of which certainly need to be added. But it was silly to close the discussion coming down on one side or the other, when both views are & have been so common. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Poland is in fact a country at the crossroads of Central Europe and Eastern Europe being variously regarded either as Central or Eastern European. Polish people themselves can identify themselves with both of those zones. From the geographical point of view Poland is at the crossroads of these two big regions, while the borderline between Central and Eastern Europe is the Vistula river (which somewhat 'cuts' Poland in the middle). Culturally, mentally and genetically Poland is largely Eastern European. You can not deny it. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please respect the fact that this is a talk page, not a WP:SOAPbox. What you have presented is not a request but an argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversial statement in the lead

The lead should summarize the article. It doesn't, it is mostly about history.

The Polish Committee of National Liberation wasn't internationally recognised as a government and it accepted Red Army rules as front zone admitting it wasn't a government.Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

More generally, it seems the lede has turned into a bit of a mess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

1. PKWN wasn't a government. The government of Poland existed in London. and even comrade Stalin didn't dare to name the PKWN a government.
2. The referendum took place in 1946, the elections in 1947.Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Poland lost big area (50 000 km2 ?) and was moved to the West. No other WW2 Ally was punished this way. In fact no other WW2 Ally lost any piece of land in Europe. Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The lead should describe Poland as it is rather than history.

Lithuania and Belarus are also heirs of the I Republic.

Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The establishment of a Polish state - it was a Piast family state.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Bukovina is a historical region in Central Europe

Xx236 (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Zaolzie isn't crucial

Please quote your source proving that the annexation of Zaolzie was crucial.Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm not the one who suggested including this, I do feel that there is good reasoning behind this decision. Zaolzie was crucial in that it is one of those areas that were disputed between Czechia and Poland very recently (when looking at the whole history of these two countries). The annexation of Zaolzie by Poland is one of the key events resulting from the Munich Agreement, which itself was very important in the lead-up to the Second World War as constituting the Western betrayal that crippled Czechoslovakia in preparation for the ensuing German occupation and thus effortlessly carving a way to Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. The annexation itself can also be seen as the continuation of previous tensions in the area following the Polish–Czechoslovak War. If anything, Zaolzie should be included for the simple fact that it has its own huge article, yet is not mentioned even once in the Poland article, showing an obvious Polish bias in the selection of content for the World War II section of the page. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The article should inform rather about contemporary Poland than about history.

There ist one million subjects not mentioned in the article. The main result of Zaolzie is Ewa Farna so I'm not sure if the subject is important.

If Zaolzie should be mentioned so certainly the problem didn't begin in 1938.Xx236 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The length of Zaolzie articles prove Polish/Czech obsessions rtaher than the importance for the world history.

Zaolzie is being used by Russian propaganda as the rationalisation of the division of Poland in 1939: You Poles did the same. No, the Poles didn't kill thousands and expell hundreds of thousands. They didn't create kolkhoses.Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Poland used concentration camps and treated their Russian POWs really badly too, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands. But that's a topic for another day, I just find it sickening when someone tries to show Poland as always being the victim when it was the oppressor plenty of times throughout its history as well. Please learn some facts instead of repeating patriotic propaganda. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference in pointing out forgotten and unpleasant parts of history (what I did here) and outright racist lies such as where posted here not long ago. Thanks Poeticbent for removing that vandal's offensive contribution from this talk page. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Which my words are patriotic propaganda? I find your words offending. You are breaking Wikipedia rules.Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how saying that someone is "repeating patriotic propaganda" could be interpreted as a personal attack or a breach of the rules, but since we are all sensitive differently, I apologise if that offended you - it was not my intent to offend, just part of the discussion. And just to be clear, my comment about "outright racist lies" and "that vandal's offensive contribution" was not directed at you but at the person whose comments were removed from the talk page earlier. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to learn about POWs of the Polish-Russian war start with Polish prisoners and internees in the Soviet Union and Lithuania (1919–21). There is also ru:Военнопленные польско-советской войны which says that the fate of Soviet POWs is much better known that the one of Poles in Soviet camps. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Bereza Kartuska was one, also not camps. Describing Bereza as a concentration camp after Auschwitz shows your bias. Which parts of Polish history are forgotten? There are at least ten volumes about Polish camps for Soviet POWs. Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what I had in mind - we were speaking of Polish aggression against Czechs and the Polish state's short co-operation with Hitler before WWII, yet the first thing you did was start speaking about Russians. I only replied in an effort to show you that this is not all black & white and one-sided, but you continue speaking about Soviet camps and how Russia was so much worse than Poland in its treatment of POWs - as if this was some contest. As for Auschwitz - it is mainly known for being a death camp (despite also featuring a concentration camp and a labour camp), so I'd say the comparison is invalid as Bereza was not a death camp in any way - it was only a concentration camp (which nevertheless is an absolutely horrible and inhumane practice, but there is still a significant difference between that and a death camp). Concentration camps were around long before WWII, most notably used by the British several decades earlier, so I don't see how I'm being biased by using this term. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You haven't proven that Zaolzie was crucial.

Poland cooperated with Hungary. Please show any Polish-German pact which divided Czechoslovakia. The Munich agreement was coined among others by Polish ally France, not only by Hitler. Poland kept equal distance from Germany and Soviet Union and there is a number of books rejecting the policy and advocating anti-Soviet one, please oppose the authors rather than traditionally bashing Beck. Polish-Czechoslovak contacts had two sides and both sides committed errors and crimes. Czechoslovakia annected Zaolzie murdering Polish people when Poland was weak, but it wasn't "crucial". Why using weakness of Poland is better than using weakness of Czechoslovakia? Czechoslovakia didn't fight neither in 1938 nor in 1939 and many Czechs emigrated to fight, some of them went to Poland, the discusting criminal anti-Czech Poland cooperating with Adolf Hitler. But it's not "crucial".

You write exactly the same what "Gazeta Wyborcza" does - Polish people should be ashamed of their history. Which nation has a perfect history and which nation uses Wikipedia to self-flagellate? Any opposition to you is "repeating patriotic propaganda" (why not "nationalistic" or "fascist"?).Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you contribute to Bereza Kartuska prison#Naming controversy?Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The name was Konzentrationslager Auschwitz. Not "Todeslager".Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

de:Konzentrationslager Der Begriff Konzentrationslager steht seit der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus für die Arbeits- und Vernichtungslager des NS-Regimes. This is about German language, but it's worth knowing.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you mention the Bute Island camp? Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have already written in my first reply why Zaolzie can be considered crucial, so I don't feel there is anything to add on that subject (besides, I was not the one who edited the article to include this in the first place, thus I don't feel obliged to fight someone else's battle - anyway, there are much bigger problems with articles related to Poland on Wikipedia). As for history, I am anything but ashamed of the past of the place where I come from. I am absolutely fascinated by individuals such as Ludwik Waryński or Róża Luksemburg, by organisations like the Bracia polscy, Proletariat, Socjaldemokracja Królestwa Polskiego i Litwy or the Bund, by the Workers’ Councils in Poland or events such as the 1905 Revolution. Everyone is interested in different parts of history; some Poles dream of restoring the First Polish Republic and regaining the many lands in Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and even small sections of Russia that used to be property of the Polish crown - others think that what happened in Zaolzie is some kind of historical justice - I don't belong to either of those groups.

No, I don't read Gazeta Wyborcza and I'm not a fan of self-flagellation (just like I don't advocate punishing nations for what their ancestors did many decades ago). However, Wikipedia is currently used by most Polish editors as a tool for a different kind of self-abuse rather than for creating well-sourced encyclopedic content. Finally, I did not call you a fascist or anything of that kind because you haven't shown any fascistic views in our discussions. I am not a liberal who cries "you're a fascist!" just because I'm talking with someone who is more right-wing than me. I could have said "nationalist propaganda" because nationalism is essentially the same thing as patriotism (in practice), but many people seem to forget that - especially in Poland - and think that when someone says "nationalism" they are automatically referring to "chauvinistic/jingoistic ethnic nationalism. Now, although I really appreciate the fact that you're willing to actually discuss these issues with me (unlike most of those who revert my proposed changes on this page), I do think that this is no longer on-topic at all so it is probably best if we end it here. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Zaolzie isn't crucial until you quote reliable sources.

You are fighting here wars, one is about Poland being in Eastern Europe. According to your comment in Commons even the Czech Republic is situated in Eastern Europe. Western part of Czech Republic is more western than Berlin and Berlin is in Central Germany.

This isn't a forum to discuss dreams or fascinations but to make the article better. This article should be rather about contemporary Poland than history. The ratio history/real world is Polono-centric.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Geography section

I'd like to suggest a edit update on the Geography section, and change out the images to highlight the text a bit better. The current images are nice, but they don't highlight the most important geographic features of Poland, perhaps we can improve. I'll try a few option if they don't work pls feel free to change. --E-960 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Eastern vs. Central Europe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relisting this RfC after the close review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Where is Poland? (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently the issue concerning whether Poland is part of Eastern or Central Europe has been dealt with in the past and now it's back to an edit war with unproductive discussion on this talk page. Moonboy54 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• I came here via a discussion that is taking place at Talk:Peterborough about how best to describe the group of A8 countries in the context of migration to the UK. There are clearly sources that can be used to support the classification of Poland (and other countries in the region) as being in Eastern Europe, and others that classify it as Central European. Can't we just reflect this in the wording, and say something like "Poland is variously described as a Central European or Eastern European country..."? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• My preferred version is to link to Central and Eastern Europe. In a footnote, we can explain that sources vary, and note it is can be a controversial issue (if there are RS for such a claim; I can look for them if the footnote is created). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• If there is no obvious answer, no preponderance of evidence, then it seems best to not include a statement claiming Poland is Eastern or Central, but to instead just say Europe. Or perhaps Central/Eastern Europe. Unless there is massive evidence for one answer, this seems the correct solution. OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 07:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Dear gods, really?! If this is genuinely a discussion, then just link to Central and Eastern Europe. What a waste of everyone's time. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC) via the Feedback request service
• Most of the changes proposed here are variations of things I have been talking about since last year, but every single time - no matter how many sources I linked to and how many valid arguments I used - all of my suggestions were ignored by the vast majority of users involved, most of whom would just revert any edits made. I'm glad this has finally been brought to other people's attention, because without help from you this place just becomes stagnated. Although I personally prefer Eastern Europe and seemingly so does most of the world, I think the best and most neutral solution would be to use East-Central Europe or East-Central Europe. In addition to that, I agree with Piotrus that we could just add a footnote with something as simple as: "Historians, journalists and supranational organisations variously categorise Poland as a country in Eastern and/or Central Europe" - with perhaps two or four sources representing each point of view in equal numbers. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone. There has been a previous discussion concerning that topic, you can read it all here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland#Eastern_Europe

If I had to tell my point of view, as a Polish person - to me my country is at the crossroads of two huge regions - Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Geographically we are in the eastern part of Central Europe, however ethnically and culturally we are Eastern European without a doubt. Countries which are located more to the west than Poland - like Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia etc - all have a phrase "at the crossroads of..." in their description, including the phrase "eastern" (Southeastern). Therefore I think that in case of Poland, the main sentence should look like this:

Poland /ˈpoʊlənd/ ^ⓘ (Polish: Polska; pronounced [ˈpɔlska]), officially the Republic of Poland (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Polska; pronounced [ʐɛt͡ʂˈpɔspɔʎit̪a ˈpɔlska]), is a country at the crossroads of Central Europe and Eastern Europe, bordered by Germany to the west; the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the south; Ukraine and Belarus to the east; and the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad Oblast (a Russian exclave) and Lithuania to the north.

Your views? Yatzhek (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is very reasonable as a compromise, similar to my idea of East-Central Europe. However, I still think Eastern Europe is the best and most accurate option.--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Eastern Europe according to how most established and trustworthy sources have it. It is quite possible that many of those sources reflect the political divide we inherited from the Cold War rather than some geographical "objective" notion. But that is how they have it! Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Poland lies within Eastern Europe. We're not here to promote personal viewpoints or even "patriotic ideas" but to offer what reliable sources contain about the subject in hand. We are not supposed to "compromise" in terms of wording for the sake of "peace and harmony" between editors, either. -The Gnome (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to get this across for a long time now, but I gave up in favour of a compromise like East-Central Europe because these people just really want to push their POV and there are so many of them that I can't do anything about it. Yatzhek similarly was supportive of just Eastern Europe at first, but he also turned to compromises like me after he met the same trolls and provocateurs. However, the people who have been reverting all these changes simply won't accept a compromise anyway. So although I agree that we are not supposed to "compromise" in terms of wording for the sake of "peace and harmony" between editors, I haven't yet been able to make this happen for longer than a year now. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This would be unacceptable. We're not here to "negotiate" personal viewpoints. This is, actually, strictly forbidden by the rules of Wikipedia. Only a dialogue among parties offering reliable, third-party sources can be accepted. "Patriotic" considerations have no place in the encyclopaedia. I challenge anyone who supports the "Central Europe" version of Polish geography to submit reliable, and particularly non-political, third-party sources which cite Poland as situated in Central Europe. -The Gnome (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is something I've been challenging them to do as well, but like I said - most of them don't even get involved on the talk page. So far, the only noteworthy source they have been able to provide is Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN. However, one Polish source seems very weak in comparison to the many international sources that put Poland in Eastern Europe - such as various agencies of the UN and EU (1, 2, 3, 4). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So you'd like a UN source? [14]: "Poland occupies a territory of 312,658 square kilometres in Central Europe". EU? [15]: "Poland is a country in central Europe". Also, have US Dept of State [16] "Poland is a key ally in Central Europe". I could easily find more, but that should be enough to deal with rants about no reliable sources for Central Europe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your source from the UN is a bit outdated (1996) compared to the ones I posted, but it is nevertheless a reliable one. However, here are a few things I found within that I’d like to cite here: ‘’a representative of Poland is a member of the GEF Council, representing a Central and Eastern European constituency in the GEF’’ and ‘’Poland undertakes activities aiming at creation of the potential for action for sustainable development of the countries of Eastern Europe’’. Likewise, the US source you linked to mentions that Poland is ‘’one of the United States’ strongest partners on the continent in fostering transatlantic security and prosperity and in promoting democracy in Eastern Europe’’. Similarly, I could find plenty of other reliable sources that mention Poland as an Eastern European country, but – whether you like it or not – many of the sources saying that Poland is in Central Europe simply can’t restrain themselves from mentioning this in some Eastern context.

I’m not sure why you seem to be ashamed of where you come from, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being from the East of Europe. Moreover, it is natural that the West keeps calling us Eastern European regardless of what some of us think because we are of a slightly different culture to them and geographically we are east of all the Western European powers that came up with the idea of Europe to begin with. Some Serbians and some Estonians (although just like in Poland, they are still a minority) like to say that they live in Central Europe too. Wouldn’t that version make the centre of Europe quite large? The truth is that everyone likes to be in the centre. When maps were drawn, it was very common for the nation of the creator to be placed in the middle. Geography, like almost everything else, is subjective.

Since we now have, at least on this page, a somewhat balanced number of sources to prove this or that, can we now agree on whether we should use “East-Central Europe” or “Central and Eastern Europe” (as those seem to be the most popular options and they are basically variations of the same thing, only one is more brief)? Furthermore, can we come up with some sort of final date to decide this so that this discussion can finally come to an end and the changes that have been proposed for a year now? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Virtually every definition cited on Central Europe page includes Poland. The fact that Poland is a part of Central Europe is indisputable. The claim that Poland is in Eastern Europe on the other hand sparkled many lengthy discussions. The most cited source of this claim is United Nations Statistics Division, that explicitly states that "every assessment of spatial identities is essentially a social and cultural construct". This is why stating that Poland is a part of Eastern Europe without stating that it's also a part of Central Europe is not an option. Therefore preferred options are:

1. Central Europe
2. Central and Eastern Europe
3. Europe

--Norill (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So it is ok to not question why Wikipedia over-represents the view that Poland is in Central Europe, but it's absolutely fine to deny representation of the much more common view that Poland is in Eastern Europe? Strange reasoning. Furthermore, I have provided many more sources than just from the UN Statistics Division - including other agencies of the UN and the EU, as well as many well-known English-language media outlets. Last but not least, saying that "every assessment of spatial identities is essentially a social and cultural construct" is true. However, I'm not sure why you used this quotation, as it applies equally to "Central Europe" and thus does not help your argument in any way. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.central2020.eu/
• Americans lack geographical knowledge (about areas outside the USA)
• There exists obvious border between freedom and Authoritarianism (Russia+Belarus+part of Eastern Ukraine+Transnistria).
• https://kazwoy.wordpress.com/students/poland-central-europe/
• http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/poland/index_en.htm - Official site of the EU.

Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• (I closed this discussion on 23rd June. After a discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard, I've converted my close to a !vote.) This interesting and surprisingly tricky RfC deals with the subject of whether Poland should be described as "Eastern Europe" or "Central Europe". It is tricky because of the number of editors who think Poland is in Eastern Europe but are willing to settle for, or compromise on, some variant such as "East-Central Europe". Good sources are presented on both sides.
  
  It would be easy to close this RfC as "no consensus", or in favour of "East-Central Europe". Easy, but wrong, because when you weigh what editors are saying on other parts of this talk page and when you read the sources carefully, the matter is quite clear. I find that Poland is an Eastern European country and the lead should say so.
  
  I do hope this helps. Editors wishing to complain about this close should come to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 10:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Central Europe – Poland is a Central European country, and sources point to a mention of "Central" or "Central and Eastern" as being the most common designations. If you ask me, the origin of this problem is found in the land swaps at the end of the Second World War. Poland lost the Kresy, the "eastern territories", and gained western areas that had formerly been part of the Reich. This rebalancing made Poland a fundamentally Central European country in terms of geography, whereas previously it had been essentially an "Eastern European" country. Perhaps the "Easterness" lingers in the public conception of Poland in the anglophone world, but it simply isn't true from a geographical standpoint. RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the sources that have been provided further down below as well those in previous discussions, you'll find that "Eastern Europe" is the most common designation for Poland in the English-speaking media. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Where is Poland? (permanent link) participants User:Od Mishehu, User:GRuban, User:AndyTheGrump, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Liz, User:OwenBlacker, User:Samotny Wędrowiec, User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, User:Poeticbent, and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Cunard (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've already given my opinion on this, having only become involved after being pinged by the Feedback request service. At school I was taught Poland is in Eastern Europe, but that was during the Cold War and was a transparent euphemism for the Warsaw Pact countries. Personally, I would describe the area between the Rhine and roughly the current eastern border of Poland as Central Europe (largely agreeing with RGloucester, thus). The important point, though, as was mentioned by someone else in one of the several places I've seen this discussion lately, is that both terms are accurate and acceptable to English-speaking readers and almost noone really cares which term is used unless they have a cultural or political desire to distance Poland from (or bring Poland closer to) Russia and the ex-Soviet bloc (or, by contrast, Western Europe and the EU). I mean to imply no judgement there; I can completely understand all such desires, especially given the history of Poland over the last 250 years, but I don't think the discussion is particularly useful to the encyclopædia. To my mind — as I said above — just link to the more-neutral term Central and Eastern Europe and stop discussing it; there are far more useful ways that Wikipedia can benefit from our energies. — OwenBlacker (Talk)
    (PS: Please don't {{ping}} me again on the vague question, if this answer can just be copy/pasted; if there is a specific proposal with more than two options that needs a !vote, then feel free to ping me to do so.)

I don't see how Central and Eastern Europe could ever be perceived as the more neutral term. The concept of Eastern Europe is much older than the USSR and its sphere of influence, whereas the term Central and Eastern Europe is a term that I have only ever heard in the context of "post-Soviet", "former communist" or "former Eastern Bloc" countries. In fact, clearly Central and Eastern Europe is a euphemism for those terms whilst Eastern Europe has many more meanings. Nevertheless, this makes no difference because Eastern Europe is obviously the most frequently used term in regards to Poland in most of the world's media. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As Iryna Harpy rightfully stated, the Anglophone world still mostly goes by the term "Eastern Europe" when referring to Poland and many of its neighbours. I've dragged myself into POV-pushing discussions regarding this over the past year, but the core of my argument has actually always more or less been the same: in the English-speaking world, Poland is still frequently referred to as an Eastern European country. Therefore the English Wikipedia should reflect this most common definition in the lead of the Poland article without question. Even when Poland is mentioned as a "Central European" country, it is almost always as part of a wider Eastern European context or called Central and Eastern Europe. I've already argued that there is nothing wrong with the term "Eastern European" and the concept is far larger than just the USSR and its satellite states, but we are not here to discuss that. Other parts of the article or other pages about Poland can and should represent other ways of categorising Poland in "Central Europe" (see what I've tried to do here ages ago), but as it is now the idea of Poland as a Central European country is over-represented on Wikipedia already when in reality (at least in the English-speaking world and arguably most media) the concept is marginal and unpopular when compared to the common definition of Poland as an Eastern European nation state. Yes, it exists and you'll find plenty of supporters, but it is clearly outnumbered by the amount of sources saying that Poland is in Eastern Europe.

Taking this into consideration and putting all that "soapboxing" to the side, I take back what I said (out of exhaustion and a lack of hope) about a compromise of "Europe", "East-Central Europe", "Central and Eastern Europe" or whatever. Poland is in Eastern Europe, because evidently most of the Anglophone world thinks so: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.--Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh! When an issue generates this much intense discussion, it needs to be considered whether both sides might be right. In this case they clearly can be. There is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to come down on one side of the argument, saying one version is right, and the other implicitly wrong. They are both widely held views that can be referenced to any number of RS, and that is all we need to say. Personally I think East-Central Europe is too new a concept to put in the lead, which should say something like my version "is a country variously regarded as being either in Central Europe or Eastern Europe...", that survived for a couple of days, just unhelpfully reverted (but with refs of course). Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I assure you that until someone starts banning these vandals, any and all edits mentioning Eastern Europe in the slightest form in the lead of this article will be reverted. This has been the case for years regardless of the countless arguments and sources provided showing that there are many more widespread ways of describing Poland than just Central Europe. Also, East-Central Europe is actually a much older concept. Oskar Halecki wrote about it in 1950. Whereas Central and Eastern Europe started gaining some recognition in the media only several years after 1991. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"East-Central" is very much a neologism that I oppose. I can support "Central and Eastern" because it merely combines the two. However, at its core, Poland is a Central European country in terms of geography. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone actually provide a source that shows the term "Central and Eastern Europe" is older than "East-Central Europe"? If not, then neither of you is correct about "East-Central Europe" being a neologism, thus the reasoning behind your decision to use "Central and Eastern Europe" makes no sense and consequently the entire argument pretty much falls apart. I'm ready to take back what I said if someone does prove me wrong, but I also want to highlight that "East-Central Europe" is no longer my main argument as I've already stated. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Central and Eastern Europe" just means a place that is in both Central Europe and Eastern Europe. It isn't a term of its own, merely a reference to the two separate and well-known areas. "East-Central Europe" on, on the other hand, supposes the existence of a specific area in the eastern part of Central Europe. RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see, but I have to say that "Central and Eastern Europe" is constantly used as a term on its own and I have not seen such usage dating back to anything earlier than the last stages of the Cold War. Nowadays when Poland isn't classed as an Eastern European country, the other most commonly used option is "Central and Eastern Europe". If it refers to two different regions then does that mean all such sources are saying that Poland is located in both of these regions at the same time? I really think this can be interpreted in different ways and the way most commentators use "Central and Eastern Europe" suggests that it is a euphemism for former Eastern Bloc states regardless of their geographical, cultural and linguistic categories. As for "East-Central Europe", you are mostly right but once again I have to say that this has various interpretations and one of the more popular ones ties in with the idea of a "third Europe" that is not part of the West, but at the same time is different enough from the East to be considered as something separate. It is not part of West, East or Centre but its own area entirely. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note: Poland is found within Central Europe

I would interpret the use of "Central and Eastern Europe" as placing Poland in both loosely-defined areas, yes. Poland, as is known, is a large country. Danzig is clearly "Central European", but the Polish parts of Galicia might well be considered "Eastern". On the whole, though, I stand by Poland as a Central European country in terms of geography. Let me pose to you a question. As it stands, Slovakia is defined as a Central European country on Wikipedia. It has an eastern border that is similar to Poland's. Would you consider Slovakia as "Eastern European"? I wouldn't. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

On another note, I want to display a map of "Central Europe" as it is conceived of by the Brittanica and the CIA World Factbook. I subscribe to this definiton. You can see the map at the right. Poland is clearly included. These are two highly reputable anglophone sources, and they clearly support the "Central European" definition of Poland. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, so far your arguments have been POV. We're not discussing an absolute geographical position for starters. The entire dynamic of this RfC hinges on perceptions of the geo-political 'location' of Poland where "Eastern" as a descriptor for "Europe" connotes 'dirty word'. Wikipedia does not engage in OR and POV-pushing, but follow the Anglophone world's mainstream understandings. You're trying to shape mainstream perception by using Wikipedia as the source that defines perceptions. Using Slovakia and any other comparatives is OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I don't think that this is anything other than a matter of geography. The purpose of the sentence in the lead is to situate the country known as "Poland" in the world, so that the reader knows where it is. I under the matter of perception, but I think that is fundamentally tangential as to what the lead sentence should say about where Poland is located. Insofar as what anglophone sources say, I've already pointed out that some of the most "anglocentric" sources available place Poland in Central Europe. Here is the Brittanica article, which is very clear on this matter. You can't get much more mainstream anglophone than that. Here is The World Factbook article, which is also clear on this matter. I don't see what more evidence is required. The question of Slovakia was a hypothetical, and was not intended to provoke OR, merely to ask editors to challenge their innate feelings about "Central" or "Eastern" Europe. RGloucester — ☎ 04:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Sorry, but I have to disagree. Please take in point this article from Spiegel online. It epitomises the politico-economic definition within the EU as to the differentiation between what is 'Central Europe' (as a WP:EUPHEMISM for economic principle/status being insinuated between dividing Eastern Europe from the 'progress' of an idealogical concept of what represents European-ism). How can this attitude, with its implicit ideology, be simply dismissed as being in line with a geographic interpretation? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If such a perception exists, there isn't much we can do about it. It can be discussed in the relevant articles, i.e. Central Europe and Eastern Europe. All that we can do here is follow the most reliable anglophone sources available to situate Poland geographically, as we do with all other country articles, and those reliable sources use "Central Europe". There is no reason why Brittanica or the CIA World Fact Book should read "Central Europe" whilst Wikipedia reads "Eastern Europe". We should place our article in line with other major reference works, as is demanded by WP:V. A commentary piece in a German newspaper simply is not the right place to turn to for geographic information. RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a simple question of geographical locations. If it were, we'd have RS consistently pinpointing the same locations as to where the 'centre' of Europe is, and there is no such animal. Please take a look at the relevant section on the WP:ANB where the decision to re-open this RfC was made. I've been battling a migraine for the last day, therefore haven't the energy to go into the finer details at the moment. It is most definitively not a geographical descriptor... nor is the online EB an RS. I've changed content by writing in to whoever happens to be overseeing it at the time and have had entries expanded without so much as a peep from them as to any burden of proof: it's an online ad to encourage people to subscribe to the 'real' version. They're equally as susceptible to pressure as is Wikipedia where wearing down the opponent over years and years of lobbying is rewarded with a simplistic solution. Personally, I could be bothered with the BATTLEGROUND tactics anymore. If Wikipedia is forum where the most popular decision amongst groupthink ideologues prevails, let it be so. In which case, we drop any pretences as to actually following what the prominent mainstream representation indicates and admit to being OR, CHERRY and SYNTH.

Addendum: Where do the sources you've cited describe the location as being based on the 'geographical' location? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen any contemporary reliable reference works pointing to Poland as being part of "Eastern Europe". Do you have any? All the atlases that are available to me put Poland in "Central Europe". If this is not a "geographic" descriptor, I don't know what is. If it isn't considered geographic, it should be removed. "Central Europe", as far as I'm aware, simply refers to the "central" part of "Europe". The article on Japan reads "is an island nation in East Asia", suggesting that Japan is a country in the eastern part of Asia. The purpose of these sentences, which exist in every country article we have, is to situate the country being described in a geographic manner. If "Central Europe" is not being used as a geographic marker in this case, it must be replaced with something that is. However, if atlases and reference works like the World Factbook (ignoring Brittanica, for the moment) give the location of Poland as "Central Europe" from a geographical standpoint, I'm not sure what the problem is. Insofar as your addendum, the World Factbook is very clear on that matter. Open the "geography" tab, and it gives the location of Poland as "Central Europe, east of Germany". RGloucester — ☎ 06:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read the ANB entries properly. I've pointed to Anglosphere media descriptions there. Those sources simply don't tally with the prominent concept of it being a geographic descriptor. Cold War II is alive and kicking. Pointing to a few sources doesn't account for other sources (like NATO). The tension between East meets West will put the descriptors into perspective soon enough (yes, this is me crystal balling it). At the moment, there are no clear sources to indicate where Poland will be placed in the good guys vs bad guys narrative. Once there are, no one will have any doubts about it. See Talk:Kiev/naming for indicators as to how the litmus test is applied. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• No opinion on the question, just responding to ping. I participated in the WP:AN discussion because S Marshall was asking for a review of his close, which I gave as an experienced editor who had done an RFC close or two in my time. While I didn't agree with the way consensus was judged in Stuart's close, I did not, and still do not have any personal opinion about Poland being Eastern, Central or both. I would, however, like to thank Stuart for his open mindedness in reverting his close, and allowing this discussion to start, which seems to have wider participation. --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Poland's eastern border is the eastern boundary of the European Union. The Polish language is Slavic and its non-minority population are ethnically Slavs. Geographically, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically Poland is an Eastern European country.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That "Poland's eastern border is the eastern boundary of the European Union" proves nothing at all, though asserting that it does is a very effective way of irritating anyone with a Slav etc heritage. Poland is somewhat to the west in the Eurovision zone, which is about as meaningful. Rather than repeating what you have said already, it might be more useful if you could expand on your reasons for believing that there can only be one single correct answer to this question. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't said that in this RfC, and it's unreasonable to expect the closer to read ancillary discussions on AN. To be clear: I have never said that there can only be one single correct answer to this question and I do not believe that there can be. It's the kind of point on which reasonable people might disagree. What I believe is that we need a pithy one-sentence summary in the lede. I feel that on balance the one-sentence summary should say that Poland is in Eastern Europe. We can write a 30,000 word screed lower down in the article which presents the alternative Central Europe view in context.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea that Poland is in "Central Europe" is not an "alternative view", but the dominant view in modern reference works. RGloucester — ☎ 20:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No we can't "write a 30,000 word screed lower down in the article". What we can and should do is add 3 words to the lead to avoid giving a distorted and incorrect view by plumping for one alternative or the other, when in reality RS are about equally split (ignoring the other formulations). Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

West Slavic nations

The view that Poland is in Eastern Europe isn't distorted or incorrect. You don't write an encyclopaedia article by counting the sources and taking the average... or, well, you might. I don't.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I must disagree with some points highlighted above. Many people often believe that culturally, Poland is more similar to Eastern European countries such as Ukraine, Russia etc. Actually we belong to the Lechitic group (Lechites), a name given to certain West Slavic peoples, which are native to Central Europe. These may include countries such as Czech Republic and Slovakia which are considered, even by Wikipedia, Central European nations. Culturally, West Slavs developed along the lines of other Western European nations due to affiliation with the Roman Empire and Western Christianity. Thus, they experienced a cultural split with the other Slavic groups: while the East Slavs and most South Slavs converted to Orthodox Christianity, thus being culturally influenced by the Byzantine Empire, the West Slavs along with the westernmost South Slavs (Slovenes and Croats) converted to Roman Catholicism, thus coming under the cultural influence of the Latin Church. User:Oliszydlowski (TALK) 30 June 2015, 21:25 (UTC)

---

• I would also like to add my voice to this requests for comment, although I am and have been turned off by the fact that this talk page has been completely taken over by angry mastodons with issues of self-importance such as User:Samotny Wędrowiec whose only reaction to my relevant comment posted at "Where is Poland?" was a lengthy and dismissive personal attack with hysterical filibustering and exaggerations such as this (quote): "Showing anything other than the marginal and fanatical point of view that Poland is 'a country in the heart of Europe' is considered criminal on Wikipedia and an army of angry vandals is ready to fight you for attempting to show more than one perspective." — How can anyone respond reasonably to this sort of language, with anything at all, I ask. Wikipedia is here to make use of internal links wherever applicable. Please look at both articles Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Where is Poland? Poland is described fully and completely only in the article Central Europe, and therefore, that is the link to use for the opening line. Everything else, including historical affiliations, annexations, the Cold War, Eastern Bloc, the Warsaw Pact, NATO, can be mentioned below the opening line ... which in fact it is! Poeticbent talk 15:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please reacquaint yourself with WP:WINARS. Secondly, the policy at the centre of this dispute is WP:NOR. What that means is that we don't cherry pick according to our personal preferences. As has been amply attested to via WP:RS is that the perception of where Poland is in Europe is not based simply on a geographical location but, as you've correctly pointed out, is tied up with other geopolitical and economic concepts based - whether rightly or wrongly - on an historical concept. But this is English language Wikipedia, not some utopian "global" Wikipedia written in the English language, and is based on the Anglophone world's perceptions. Even if I were to bend towards inclusion of Central Europe as being one of the descriptions for Poland, there is far too much RS evidence pointing to the fact that the Anglophone world refers to Poland and Poles as being Eastern European meaning that Eastern Europe must also be represented as a descriptor. It's not down to us to parse why and wherefore and decide on whether it's fair or not, but to reflect the real views whether we consider them to be right or wrong. That is what WP:NOR means. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. IMHO it is a question of how many European divisions? According to the two-part model of eastern and western, Poland sits with all post-Second World War communist countries as Eastern Europe (except East Germany whose land became part of single state). Note that this is not a straight line down the middle, the former East Germany protruded farthest west while western European countries Greece and Finland are in time zones one hour ahead of Central European Time. Insofar are there exists a Central Europe, and subsequent southeastern, northern, etc. then Poland is widely sourced as falling into this category with Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein (plus regions of many other countries that fall into other arbitrary listings). Poland's present borders as opposed to the pre-1939 territories have moved Europe's only Polish nation state (casting no aspersions as to continuity factors and would-be rival entities) westward both through gains one side and losses the other. I cannot agree to a model that separates Central and proper Eastern Europe down the state border between Poland and Belarus since there is no geographical feature (eg. river, mountain range) to separate the land on each side. Poles are also aware that Belarus is one such country to occupy pre-1939 Polish soil, and persons identifying as Polish remain on such territories. A historical Catholic/Orthodox schism (and links to Russia or Central Europe) bisects both Belarus and Ukraine rather than those two and Poland, though when estimating where the pivot of Europe is considering the Urals are 60 degrees east of Greenwich, that point is somewhere along the Belarussian-Ukrainian border which actually places Poland in western Europe!! So unfortunately, I do not know where I stand here! --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A reasonable survey of the opinions in Polish academia on the subject is in this unpublished manuscript (not for citation). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering when Ukraine and Romania enlist themselves into Central Europe ("Southeast-Central Europe :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC Commentor: From a review of sources on Google-search, it is pretty clear that BOTH regions are being cited as regions containing Poland. It really doesn't matter, geographically, what the political alignment may once have been, nor does it matter, historically, what region may have once been thought to have encompassed Poland. It does not matter how new the terms used are (eg: "East-Central Europe," "Central and Eastern Europe," "Crossroads of...", etc.). Things change. Since a great number of currently found sources refer to Poland being situated in Central as well as Eastern Europe, both are correct. Therefore, we are compelled by Wikipedia:Verifiability to do the same by simply using some variant of Central and Eastern Europe as its location. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I second the previous comment, as well as OwenBlacker's. Please close this and use the ensuing free time to improve the encyclopaedia. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.